(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Slife said:
Oh whoops. I forgot to fix a number.
In RPGs, Should PCs Be Better Than NPCs By Default?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Oh whoops. I forgot to fix a number.
Ranger REG
Explorer
No, they're not. They're heroes only by their actions, not because they're the main cast of characters in the campaign. In my POV as a DM, PC's are not the main stars, they're my victims of my sadism.Jedi_Solo said:
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
airwalkrr
Adventurer
Yea, the answers presented are much too simple. My personal belief is that PCs should be better than a vast majority of NPCs. But some NPCs SHOULD be better than the PCs so that the PCs cannot rely on their skills alone to save them; they must use their cunning and guile to beat superior opponents.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Um. . . what? How ambiguous is the word 'ambiguous'?The Shaman said:
Speaking on my own behalf (and no-one else's), it is not that the title question is difficult to answer per se, but that it is (in my opinion) rather poorly phrased, and cannot be answered without adopting any number of varied - and possibly erroneous - assumptions regarding it (thus, it is ambiguous).
Now, if other people wish to engage in doing just that, I have no problem whatsoever with them or their decision to do so. Again, speaking for me *only*, there was nothing in what I posted here that 'targeted' other posters and/or voters. It was simply me stating my opinion of the title question, and of the accompanying poll.
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
In all but horror campaigns, I'd say "yes" (and even then, there are quite a few horror campaigns where I would say "yes" as well). They should generally be more capable than most NPCs, since they are supposed to have all sorts of exiting and dangerous adventures which sensible average people will stay away from because of risk to limb or life.
Of course, how precisely this is implemented depends on the game system. In D&D, this is reflected by the fact that the PCs are members of PC classes - they are fighters, sorcerors, and thieves instead of warriors, adepts, experts or even commoners.
Other games - especially point-buy system like GURPS - don't make any mechanical difference between PCs and NPCs, but PCs simply tend to have more character points for building their character. In a campaign world where most people only have 25-50 points, the PCs might have 100-150 points, depending on the campaign. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't NPCs with still more character points, but the point is that the PCs still tend to be a lot more competent than most people they encounter.
Of course, how precisely this is implemented depends on the game system. In D&D, this is reflected by the fact that the PCs are members of PC classes - they are fighters, sorcerors, and thieves instead of warriors, adepts, experts or even commoners.
Other games - especially point-buy system like GURPS - don't make any mechanical difference between PCs and NPCs, but PCs simply tend to have more character points for building their character. In a campaign world where most people only have 25-50 points, the PCs might have 100-150 points, depending on the campaign. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't NPCs with still more character points, but the point is that the PCs still tend to be a lot more competent than most people they encounter.
ruleslawyer
Registered User
Interesting question, difficult poll structure IMHO.
To me, it depends on genre, player and GM expectations, and the kind of story the players and GM are hoping to create. I can see very good reasons why PCs in hard scifi, military, and horror RPGs would be exactly on par with (or less powerful than) NPCs in terms of stats, level, etc.
For heroic fantasy, my preference is "much better." If the campaign is built around the underdog triumphing by dint of superior insight and hard work, then I can see PCs and NPCs being built with equal stats and PCs either using NPC classes, or vice versa. But in the vast majority of the high fantasy, pulp, and mythological stories on which D&D is built, the heroes are better than the average Joe in some way, either through innate ability (Conan, Aragorn, Sparrowhawk, Elric, Lancelot, Achilles, Corwin of Amber, etc etc), a specific fate or destiny (Arthur, Corum) or both (Belgarion, Merlin, etc.). Thus, I tend to prefer the Iron Heroes approach: Members of PC classes are rare, and NPC classes are significantly weaker than PC classes.
Then, of course, there's the question of what constitutes an "NPC." In general, my (humanoid) PCs will have better stats than (humanoid) NPCs; that doesn't mean that when fiends, dread sorcerers, or dragons come along that those NPCs won't have better stats and cool powers. However, compared to a core-race NPC of equal level, PCs in my campaigns are likely to have better stats and a much stronger set of class levels. Of course, at low levels, the PCs are still going to be the low men on the totem pole, as more experienced adventurers, eccentric archmages, grizzled mercenaries, and scheming merchant lords of much higher level certainly do exist, but once the PCs hit 10th+ level, they're likely to be the king pimps of their locality, with only major threats capable of matching them.
To me, it depends on genre, player and GM expectations, and the kind of story the players and GM are hoping to create. I can see very good reasons why PCs in hard scifi, military, and horror RPGs would be exactly on par with (or less powerful than) NPCs in terms of stats, level, etc.
For heroic fantasy, my preference is "much better." If the campaign is built around the underdog triumphing by dint of superior insight and hard work, then I can see PCs and NPCs being built with equal stats and PCs either using NPC classes, or vice versa. But in the vast majority of the high fantasy, pulp, and mythological stories on which D&D is built, the heroes are better than the average Joe in some way, either through innate ability (Conan, Aragorn, Sparrowhawk, Elric, Lancelot, Achilles, Corwin of Amber, etc etc), a specific fate or destiny (Arthur, Corum) or both (Belgarion, Merlin, etc.). Thus, I tend to prefer the Iron Heroes approach: Members of PC classes are rare, and NPC classes are significantly weaker than PC classes.
Then, of course, there's the question of what constitutes an "NPC." In general, my (humanoid) PCs will have better stats than (humanoid) NPCs; that doesn't mean that when fiends, dread sorcerers, or dragons come along that those NPCs won't have better stats and cool powers. However, compared to a core-race NPC of equal level, PCs in my campaigns are likely to have better stats and a much stronger set of class levels. Of course, at low levels, the PCs are still going to be the low men on the totem pole, as more experienced adventurers, eccentric archmages, grizzled mercenaries, and scheming merchant lords of much higher level certainly do exist, but once the PCs hit 10th+ level, they're likely to be the king pimps of their locality, with only major threats capable of matching them.
I voted yes. I believe the PC's should be the focus, and by default, should be better than NPC's. That doesnt mean they should outclass the BBEG, obviously, just by default, the average NPC ought to be worse than the PC at the PC's Schtick.
I am fairly surprised at the poll results. Do you guys have level 7 City Guardsmen frequently outfight your fighters? Sounds pretty Mary Sue to me.
I am fairly surprised at the poll results. Do you guys have level 7 City Guardsmen frequently outfight your fighters? Sounds pretty Mary Sue to me.
Similar Threads
