In RPGs, Should PCs Be Better Than NPCs By Default?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm going to answer "by level". Should a 7th-level PC fighter be "better" than a 7th-level NPC fighter? IMO, the answer in no. However, in DnD, magic item issues ensure that PCs will be more powerful than equal-levelled NPCs* by about 5th-level, at least if the class in question isn't a primary spellcaster.

(* This doesn't take into account tactics, position, PrC availability, point buy, and a bunch of other things.)

Primary spellcasters don't need magic items the way other classes do, and an NPC with a full load of spells could even be more powerful than a PC who has either already used spells or needs to save spells for later in the day.

D20 Modern is much more balanced on that regard. Compared to PCs, NPCs usually get fewer action points, but they're "on screen" for a shorter period of time (even if recurring), so their "AP per round availability" is often higher than that of the PCs. (A D20 Modern NPCs is worth his CR.)

Alternity didn't use a CR system, but generally there was nothing that would make an NPC better than a PC of equal level.

In these systems, it's up to the GM how common higher and lower level NPCs will be.

Many non-D20 settings don't have the same focus on balance as D20. I haven't the faintest clue what the "CR equivalent" of most of the vampires in the Chicago supplement was. Many were more powerful than the heroes, either through having a "better generation" or having spent lots and lots of skill points, etc.

Anyway, I voted "no", but it's a qualified no.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Depends what you mean, really. Your question, and (of course) poll, are ambiguous.

 

[pogre]

IMC, yes. The PCs are not ordinary. They are fated to a greater purpose.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

In general? Maybe. They are the heroes after all and the central characters.

Should the PCs be better than Nameless Bartender #23? Yes.
Should a 10th level Fighter PC be better than a 10th level Fighter NPC? Not Really. The PC is likely to have better equipment but other than that - maybe, maybe not. The tables should be tilted a little for the PC simply because the DM likely doesn't want to kill the PCs story arc but that would be it (and the equipment difference would provide that).

 

[painandgreed]

No, they may have better training that most people, but they start inexperienced and at 1st level still probably not up to taking on a pair of grizzled dock workers in their 30's or 40's (commners of level 3-5). Eventually they will be above everybody (if they survive) but they first must prove themselves. Even then, there will probably be somebody better because three hundred years ago there was somebody as good as they are and that person is still alive.

 

[3d6]

Well, I think that PCs should generally win in the long term, so I suppose that means that PCs should be more powerful than hostile NPCs by default. Does that equate to better?

 

[The Shaman]

No, player characters needn't be better than non-player characters.

Traveller is a great example of this - player characters begin with the same attribute rolls and access to skills as non-player characters.

As a game master or referee I may choose to give the player characters a nudge if it fits the specifics of the campaign, but I don't think that needs to be the default for character generation.

 

[buzz]

Sorry, Mark, I can't answer the question (again!).

It depends. Call of Cthulhu demands that PCs be pretty much like everyone lese, at least at first. In M&M, PCs are obviously not like most NPCs.

What really matters is that the PCs are the focus and are interesting. Whether they are more powerful varies from game to game.

 

[The Shaman]

I can see where the poll is coming from but it needs more options.

A horribly binary question for one so open ended.

Depends what you mean, really. Your question, and (of course) poll, are ambiguous.

Maybe? Can't answer the question, too vague.

Sorry, Mark, I can't answer the question (again!).

Is it really that hard to pick one (more yes than no? more no than yes?) and explain in more detail in a reply?

Does anyone else find this odd?

 

[buzz]

Is it really that hard to pick one (more yes than no? more no than yes?) and explain in more detail in a reply?

Mark seems to be okay with people providing an explanation, even if they don't vote.