How to unite people who want opposite things?

[MatthewJHanson]

So one of the stated goals of 5e is to unite all D&D players, to the point where people with different styles can play at the same table.

At the same time, I've been watching the Things from 4e Not Done Well thread and Things 4e id Well & Should Be Kept, and I've noticed there are a lot of items that appear on both lists.

Take for example NPCs and PCs playing by different rules. To me it seems like either PCs and NPCs use the same rules or they don't. I'm not sure how you can have it work both ways.

But maybe I missing something. Help me many minds of EN World. How would you create a game that united people who want opposite things?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That is where the magic happens. The fact is, I have no idea, I am fairly sceptical but we will see.

 

[Mark CMG]

How to unite people who want opposite things?

Find the things they want the most that are in common. In the movies, they'd be prisoners, manacled together, and the only survivors of a prison bus accident. The Shaman and Hussar, hold out your arms, please.

 

[RangerWickett]

Chapter Eight: Creating NPCs
There are two main options for creating NPCs -- PC rules, where NPCs function mechanically identically to PCs; and Custom Design, where NPCs only have the stats they need for whatever role the GM expects to fill.

The former option tends to help players know what to expect and may help some players feel more immersed. A 5th level wizard will always have access to the same sorts of powers, and he won't have any abilities a 5th level PC couldn't get. The drawback can be that if the GM wants an NPC to have an unusual suite of abilities it can become onerous to figure out how to pull it off using PC rules. Also, since hostile NPCs might only matter for a few rounds worth of combat, it's seldom worth the effort needed to make a fully-rounded character.

The latter option has the benefit of being faster, and it might help some players feel a greater sense of wonder since they don't know what to expect from the world. Additionally, since players do always have the option of asking the GM to make changes to a class (see Custom Character Options, page xx), many players won't have a problem with NPCs who get a few special perks of their own. However, if the players take the game in a direction you don't expect -- like if they attack a knight when he's eating dinner out of his armor, but you only have stats for him in his platemail -- you'll have to make adjustments on the fly. And remember Rule 5 of GMing, Inconsistency Leads to Frustration.

Usually you'll be fine to use the Custom NPC rules; your players probably won't even notice or care. But if you need to make a change due to circumstances in the game, the existing PC rules can provide clear guidelines for what to do.

That knight caught in his dinner clothes? Well, cloth armor's AC bonus is +0, while platemail is +7, so you'd subtract 7 from his AC. But, since he's now in light armor, you might add 1 or 2 points based on the knight's Dexterity. It only takes a moment, and best of all you've got a solid mechanical reward for clever thinking on the part of the players.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's worth keeping in mind that while people may say they want opposite things, they don't necessarily know what they want, and it may be that what they want is more similar than they realize.

***

For example, my read is that most of the people who are complaining about PCs and monsters being built on the same platform are really complaining about poorly written statblocks that are confusing and require references to other sources. It is entirely possible that a monster can be statted up in such a way that I can play it as a character and that the stat block can be short, readable, and free of external references. There are some people advocating "cardboard cutout" monsters that live for a few rounds and then die, but I think the majority would be happy with quality statblocks that can be used during play.

Frankly I think the biggest difference between me and the people who like simplified monster stats is that they actually use monster manuals during play, while I never do. That seems like a much easier difference to reconcile than some conceptual debate about whether or not monsters deserve to have non-combat stats and personalities.

***

The same is true more broadly in other areas.

 

[The Human Target]

Its possible that they can make a modular game that people who like all sorts of different versions of D&D will be able to buy and enjoy.

Its not possible that all those people will be able to sit at a table together and enjoy themselves.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I suppose you need to find some common ground outside of the two opposing viewpoints. Choosing between one of the other won't work, and there really is no direct middle ground. Thus, the only option is to either provide a framework that includes both to some degree or another, or to propose a third alternative that can attract people from both sides that works by virtue of its own excellence.

In the case of NPCs working by the same rules or not...

The key factors I understand of that debate are as follows:

Some things different people want:
1) Rules that are quick and easy to use, so that DMing is not a time-consuming chore.
2) A wide variety of options.
3) Interesting challenges for the players to face.
4) NPCs with the depth and skills needed to function outside of combat situations.
5) A sense that monsters are built upon intelligible rules that are shared with PCs.

4E rules Are good at 1, 2, and 3, are poor at 4, and outright reject 5.
3E rules are good at 4 in many cases, are not quite as good at 2 and 3, embrace 5, and are terrible at 1.

Generally, any ruleset should try to grab as many of those as possible, even accepting that you can't please everyone. For example, a system that is similar to 4E, but vastly improves its ability to please people who want #4 many not please fans of #5, but it certainly would help bring in more people.

 

[Rechan]

Try to make a middle ground, giving them half of what they want, thus uniting them in dissatisfaction.

 

[DonTadow]

Easy, you always give people an option to do it the other way. Nothing should unbalance your characters if you want to make full npcs for everything, and you have that option. But the base rules should be for people who want to take the minimum amount of time doing something. The easit thing to do is to start off simple and allow people to make complex things.

What will hurt worst. A new player who can't dm becasue they don't want to make characters for every situation. Or the player who needs to use the normal player rules to make a few npcs. So long as they introduce a balnced option.

 

[Nagol]

1) Examine the divergent positions.

2) Pick a compromise position. Understand that presented straight, everyone will hate it.

3) Pick a position opposite your compromise position that you are certain will be even more reviled than the position in (2). Announce that this is your expected ruleset. Cover you ears to protect them from the gnashing of teeth and wailing.

4) Wait for the inevitable alliance against your position. Congratulions, you have successfully united the warring factions.

5) Grudgingly announce that, after careful consideration, you've realised the error in your initial position and in fact you'll be going with (2). Everyone sighs in relief and accepts the position because the alternative is too horrible to comtemplate.