NPC Level Demographics

[Charwoman Gene]

This is a spinoff from the Elves thread...

How does everyone envision NPC level Breakdowns in their Campaign Worlds?

I was frustrated by what I deemed as an over abundance of 1st-level NPCs on those "Town Generation" Charts.

I pondered why Elves would have not too much higher level NPCs than Humans.

I wanted a system where the average 1st level PC would represent someone weaker than the average townsperson due to experience, but would soon dominate. Right now I'm using a seat-of-the-pants quick and dirty method, but I'll describe my ideas for the future.

I abandoned the "Town Table" Demographics in favor of my own, which are sorta based off the following ideas.

1) XP is given out via Challenges (w/ CRs) not due to time.

2) Every six months of normal life is equivalent to a CR 1 encounter, difficult times would have a higher CR.

3) Only NPCs in extraordinary circumstances would be exposed to a higher CR for basic life. These individuals would of course have a higher level skew, and their advancement would stop higher.

4) We can expect the typical challenge of an NPCs life to remain constant over their lifespan, thus subjecting the NPC to diminishing XP returns, and placing a de facto limit on NPC advancement, regardless of the maximum age of the race.

5) Only NPC classes can advance like this.

Under my ideas:
1) Most typical NPCs are around 5th level, maximum is 9th.

2) Long-lived races have a higher percentage of max-level NPCs, but 9th level commoners Elves aren't exactly world conquering.

3) Level 1 PCs are basically untrained 15 yr. olds. I'll probably start the PCs as 20 yr. olds, about 3rd level.

 

[Xeriar]

I made a program that generates a number of people (a million if you have two gigs of RAM , usually using the 3d6 method, and assigning them an age category (randomly, based on a slightly extended Roman distribution with Infant Mortality thrown out).

It currently sorts them by ability score total, and drops them into Commoner, Expert, Warrior and 'Upper' piles based on selected percentages.

It then uses their attributes and classes to get a CR reward at each age category they've experienced (there are 16 age categories). It's nice because you can take two generated groups and add them together, unlike the DMG and some other methods.

Overall, noone seemed to be really interested in it, and I couldn't think of a good way to assign classes, especially considering the percentages some people give for the adventuring caste (and proceed to insist on 22 point buy).

 

[LGodamus]

I like the idea you guys have but I have a hard time believing normal folks over about level 6.. I am a firm believer that in real life , if people were made into d&d stats there wouldnt be anyone over level5.

 

[Xeriar]

I like the idea you guys have but I have a hard time believing normal folks over about level 6.. I am a firm believer that in real life , if people were made into d&d stats there wouldnt be anyone over level5.

By what measure? By standard deviation, ability scores are pretty pathetic - there are about 40 people on Earth who should have 28s, for example.

And there are definately more than 8 or so defined grades of skill... in just about everything.

Hit points are just about the only thing you could be possibly basing that off of, and that's just being silly.

 

[S'mon]

I use, for non-elite (NPC) classes:

3/4 1st level, then of remainder 1/2 are 2nd, 1/4 3rd, 1/8 4th etc, up to 9th level.

For elite (PC) classes I use:
1/2 1st level, 1/4 2nd, 1/8 3rd, etc up to 9th level.

I don't like 'automatic XP accumulation of XP over time' systems at all, certainly not for NPC demographics. D&D experience points represent the overcoming of heroic challenges, not the daily life of the commoner.

Edit: If you remove all combat abilities from the equation, having XP represent general 'life experience' may make more sense - Traveller20 pretty much does this.

What I really hate though is systems that produce results where an army of 50-year-old commoners are vastly tougher than an army of 18-year-old warriors, because the old commoners are all 5th level or higher.

I'm not sure what the point is of starting 1st level PCs being weaker than the average villager, either.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

In Defense of Weak PCs.

They aren't really weaker...

They have powers and abilities no NPC class has.

In this campaign, I'd start the characters at 3-4th level.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

My system is somewhat tweakable. I like having the average old geezer farmer with scythe be a 9th-level commoner with age penalties.

If you mod the "CR 1" time period, you can have humans that will not go above lvl 6 easily. (Elves still get up that high.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Edit: If you remove all combat abilities from the equation, having XP represent general 'life experience' may make more sense - Traveller20 pretty much does this.

What I really hate though is systems that produce results where an army of 50-year-old commoners are vastly tougher than an army of 18-year-old warriors, because the old commoners are all 5th level or higher.

I'm not sure what the point is of starting 1st level PCs being weaker than the average villager, either.

The basic problem you're running up against is that all classes scale fighting ability up along with whatever they are focused on. Or to come at it from the other direction, you can only scale your skills up (significantly) by raising your class level. It may be dumb that a 5th level commoner is tougher than a 1st level warrior, but isn't it equally dumb that a 10th level rogue who's thrown a spare point into a craft skill most levels (but never left any room in her history for learning or practicing that skill) is a better crafter than any of the villagers who have been devoting their whole (4 level) lives to it?

Bottom line is, you get better at something by doing it. The D&D system doesn't work that way. You could massively mess with the system somehow (remove all skills from the base classes and introduce mini 'profession classes' that you can divert XP and character time to if you want to learn a craft and give no relevant combat or magic abilities) or you can live with it, or you can arbitrarily add abilities together to make npc's you like, or you can switch to a point based system...

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, its just such a basic flaw of the class/level based system its hard to surpress the urge to yell "deal or play GURPS!"

Kahuna Burger (doing both alternately)

 

[Darkness]

Charwoman Gene,

Have you read Sean K. Reynolds' article on this subject?

'cause your approach is quite similar to his. (BTW, he makes a convincing case as to why life consisting CR 1 equivalent 'encounters' is a bit much for NPC class characters.)

 

[S'mon]

The basic problem you're running up against is that all classes scale fighting ability up along with whatever they are focused on. Or to come at it from the other direction, you can only scale your skills up (significantly) by raising your class level. It may be dumb that a 5th level commoner is tougher than a 1st level warrior, but isn't it equally dumb that a 10th level rogue who's thrown a spare point into a craft skill most levels (but never left any room in her history for learning or practicing that skill) is a better crafter than any of the villagers who have been devoting their whole (4 level) lives to it?

Well, the PC classes represent 'larger than life' heroes; to my mind high-level NPC-class characters also represent exceptional people, albeit in a more mundane way. Eg: my wife's maternal grandfather has had an exceptional life with many outstanding accomplishments, but is not exceptionally educated or trained, I could see him being modelled in D&D most accurately as a high level commoner (possibly with a warrior level for WW2 combat experience, although he's adamant he always tried to avoid killing anyone). OTOH my own maternal grandfather, who would be of similar age if still alive, spent most of his life unemployed and to my knowledge never did very much of anything, a pretty mundane character - I don't think he, and the great bulk of similar unexceptional individuals in any society, should be rated as above 1st level just for having lived a long time.

I agree the D&D system is unrealistic in that it's almost impossible to make characters who have great skill in a field, but are otherwise unexceptional. One obvious fix would be to simply remove the level+3 skill cap for NPC classes, particularly for the Commoner & Expert classes.

The problem is less than commonly stated though, many people seem to regard +10 in an abiility as mediocre, even though it lets you get DC20 with a 'take 10'. If you acknowledge that +5 in a skill is journeyman competence (take 10 gives DC 15), and +10 actually represents a highly skilled individual - a master craftsman, say - the problem almost goes away, since most NPCs can get +5 in their main skill at 1st level, and one with stat 18, skill focus & 4 ranks can get +10.