NPC Classes?

[Lackhand]

It's not second-guessing the DM, it's trying to make the world make sense.

If you say "Drow swords disappear in the sun", then I expect them to vanish when hit with a "Sunlight" spell, or, if no such spell exists, that it can be researched -- how hard can it be to make sunlight magically?

Traditionally? Quite, to the relief of vampires everywhere.

But your point still stands

 

[The Little Raven]

It's not second-guessing the DM, it's trying to make the world make sense.

If I file off the serial numbers of a dragon, and make it a greatsword-wielding humanoid, it'll probably be dealing more than the 2d6+whatever a humanoid could be doing with that weapon. If one of my players picks it up, they'll find it a normal greatsword (or a magical one, if it's a part of the treasure I've worked out for the session), which means it would do completely different damage in their hands than in the monster's hands. If one of them tries to argue that it should be dealing more damage, because dragon-man-monster-dude was dealing more damage, they'll get a negative response because monsters and players aren't the same, and they don't have whatever special ability dragon-man-monster-dude had to give him that awesome damage. That's the end of it. Further argument is attempting to second-guess me during my own game, and that's an Unforgivable Sin at our gaming table.

 

[Jdvn1]

It's not second-guessing the DM, it's trying to make the world make sense.

If you say "Drow swords disappear in the sun", then I expect them to vanish when hit with a "Sunlight" spell, or, if no such spell exists, that it can be researched -- how hard can it be to make sunlight magically?

But if what he says does make sense--or can be easily explained in a game world, whether or not it is actually explained--then what's the problem? Is it the GM's responsibility to prove everything is possible, thereby possibly ruining the game's mystery? What if the player just isn't familiar with the book or section of the book that the GM is referring to? Is it the GM's responsibility to have to explain everything in detail to the player?

Just let it go and trust the GM to have an explanation for whatever is going to happen. If he blatantly makes up terrible rules, then you'll know it whether or not he uses something as minor as NPC classes.

 

[Finist The Falcon]

It's you, not your stuff.

It seems that in 4e the equipment is less important than the abilities of the wielder. I do not think that the "Greatsword of Greatness" will be a problem... The monster will simply have his own Dragon Strike attack option and the Greastsword will just be a tool to deliver the attack.

In any case, I think that while a DM doesn't owe his players transparency, the DM does need to foster an atmosphere of trust among the players. A DM will not do this by having uber items taken from NPCs either become less effective in the hands of PCs or "dissolve in sunlight"

 

[The Little Raven]

In any case, I think that while a DM doesn't owe his players transparency, the DM does need to foster an atmosphere of trust among the players.

This is true beyond words.

My players don't get to see the man behind the curtain, but the Wizard doesn't do anything to abuse their trust.

 

[Jdvn1]

In any case, I think that while a DM doesn't owe his players transparency, the DM does need to foster an atmosphere of trust among the players.

Exactly--if you trust your GM to make sound rules decisions, you have nothing to worry about. If you don't and this concerns you, find a different GM.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not in my games, since those people aren't invited. Anyone who tries to second-guess the DM in any aspect of his job is not welcome in my gaming group.

Aaaah.

And your table matters more to the 4e design troupe than mine?

My players don't get to see the man behind the curtain, but the Wizard doesn't do anything to abuse their trust.

Some people loose trust when the DM invents reasons for them not to have cool toys he'll let his NPC's have.

 

[The Little Raven]

And your table matters more to the 4e design troupe than mine?

Well, just like you, I'd rather have my gameplay goals addressed. Since we seem to be on opposite ends (I don't think my players need to know how my NPCs work; you seem to think you need everything perfectly consistent in case someone "audits" your NPCs), that's a direct conflict, and I'm not going to give up my desire for my issues being addressed... so, in a sense, yeah, I think my table matters more (for my purposes) than yours.

Some people loose trust when the DM invents reasons for them not to have cool toys he'll let his NPC's have.

*shrug* Except for 3.X, D&D has made no attempts for monster/player rules to be one and the same (and 3.X failed at that attempt), so I don't really care about people arguing that an NPC had it, therefore they should get it too.

 

[kennew142]

...and then comes the inevitable: "Woah that Greatsword does massive damage! I grab it from his corpse."

And then you either have a PC with the power of a dragon's bite, or you have to explain away your invisible power. Which works maybe once or twice.

Unless the PCs are looking at the enemy's stat block, how do they know whether it was the sword or the enemy making it do so much damage?

I am assuming that if you are using a dragon and 'filing off the serial numbers' to make another enemy, you are using the logic to make it a comparable enemy. Dragons are typically large (or larger). If you are using a dragon to represent another monster, it would likely be a monster that makes sense within the mechanics. How do players know exactly how a large/huge/ginormous greatsword wielding beast does its damage?

I used a horned devil the other day, filed its serial numbers off and used the Aspect of Hextor mini to represent it. At no point did any of my players demand to see the stat block in order to make sure I wasn't do so. If they had, they would have been out of the game.

 

[kennew142]

Aaaah.

And your table matters more to the 4e design troupe than mine?



Some people loose trust when the DM invents reasons for them not to have cool toys he'll let his NPC's have.

This argument falls flat for many reasons, but primarily because you are treating it as an all or nothing affair. If you don't like to GM in this way, no one is telling you that you have to do so. You can build your NPCs just as if they were PCs. We've been assured that the system will support this type of play. How does the fact that some other GMs do not use this level of transparency affect you and your group.

At its heart, this is an argument about gaming philosophy. I'm not prepared to tell other GMs and players that what works for them is playing wrong. But that seems to be the crux of so many arguments in these forums. When GMs and players use a slightly different system to handle an issue that arises, there is a hue and a cry as to why it is wrong to do so.

I'm sure that very few GMs use the same exact methods of handling issues that arise.