"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[pemerton]

How does this 1980 supplement fit in? The preamble on the cover seems to suggest a certain methodology was assumed and prevailed:

View attachment 345290
No longer will you the Dungeon Master need to spend precious time laboring over the task of generating non player characters. This valuable booklet contains hundreds of non player characters of all races and types, complete with alignments, sex, personalities and much more.

The race, sex, alignment, six ability scores, hit points, AC, attack bonus, damage bonus, dexterity bonus, save bonuses, reaction attacking adjustments during surprise, and a sketch of the magic item palette are provided for each character. They appear to be consistent with the PHB method.

Isn't this also the one with the lizard man character?

EDIT: Why does a Goblin have the same hit points as a bandit, but +1 to hit. Why does a sergeant have the same hp as a man-at-arms, but +1 to hit; and the same chance to hit as the Goblin, though having hp comparable to a Hobgoblin who has +2 to hit compared to the Goblin?

These differences are arbitrary ones. They're not modelling anything. There's no reason, in the fiction, why there are no humans with the same hp and to hit profiles as Goblins or Hobgoblins.

 

[pemerton]

Slavery is an accepted practice in parts of my setting

Do you mean it's accepted by the enslaved?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Isn't this also the one with the lizard man character?

Yes, Phoebus - he was a reincarnated human fighter.

How about the hundreds of meticulously detailed characters - fighters, paladins, rangers, thieves, clerics, magic users, illusionists, druids and assassins - which don't represent corner cases?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Simple, in my game anyway: there's no way said Fighter could learn pick-pocketing to that extent without either a) formal training (pretty much only available from Thieves' guilds) or b) becoming old and gray with all the many years it would take him to self-train. And no guild would train him in picking pockets without also training him in the other Thiefly skills, thus making him a double-class F-T.

But this isn't how life works. People learnt to pick pocket that well all the time in life (even kids can learn this skill) and they can learn it without formally joining an organization. Some people just get good at it on their own without. Again, not saying you need to let a player do this. They can't for balance reasons. But people populating the world ought to be able to achieve something like this without going through the channels of character creation

 

[Bedrockgames]

PCs tend to already be pretty exceptional. If the PC rules cannot produce such heroic, interesting and exceptional characters that exist in the setting, there is something wrong with the choice of PC creation rules.

And if you want to treat the stat ranges like that that is fine. But I tend to want to leave room for even further exceptions and particularly for magical or supernatural considerations. Even if these represent the standard ranges, you could have someone who is born a total freak in a setting, someone who exceeds those ranges. Again the point isn't that GMs ought be doing this all the time, it is that systems like character creation need not apply to all characters in the setting, especially if you want to prioritize creativity and setting consistency

 

[Bedrockgames]

In D&D 5e noble status is simply a matter of taking the noble background.

That is fair if it is allowed int hat edition. But I think the point is fairly sound, which is there are certain statuses and things, characters can't take in character creation in different editions (and in different games entirely) and that strongly suggests character creation isn't the steps all character who live through the setting undergo

 

[TwoSix]

The spells and spell book exist in the setting, just like pick pocketing exists in the setting and swinging a sword exist in the setting. I think classes though are broad simplifications of how these things might be obtained in the setting and they also don't reflect every possibility in the setting (they are choices tailored for players). But there are so many more possibilities in a typical fantasy milieu that isn't going to be available to to a PC (for balance reasons, for fun reasons, for issues with playability).

My personal position is somewhat between what you state here and @Lanefan's position. A lot of capabilities that I assign to NPCs aren't going to be possible at character creation, but the tools of character creation are only a limited subset of what is available for character growth. All capabilities that NPCs have are ultimately functions of the fiction, even if there isn't an explicitly laid-out mechanic for it, and if the PC's fiction follows the path of what the NPC did to acquire said ability, then that ability might eventually be gained.

Like @Lanefan said above, if you have the One Ring and spend a few centuries with it, your PC can be Gollum too!

 

[Bedrockgames]

My personal position is somewhat between what you state here and @Lanefan's position. A lot of capabilities that I assign to NPCs aren't going to be possible at character creation, but the tools of character creation are only a limited subset of what is available for character growth. All capabilities that NPCs have are ultimately functions of the fiction, even if there isn't an explicitly laid-out mechanic for it, and if the PC's fiction follows the path of what the NPC did to acquire said ability, then that ability might eventually be gained.

I am not necessarily opposed to this. If I understand you, you essentially agree with my view on character creation, but would also allow such exceptions that I am talking about for PCs too if it feels justified. I think that is something the GM should be allowed to consider. I just think that also needs to be balanced against other considerations like whether it is fair to the other players, how the other players feel about it. If I have a group of very RP focused players who love this sort of thing, and won't feel they are being deprived while another player is getting something special, I am much more inclined to allow it. If I have a mixed group, which I often do, that includes more competitive players, I may be more reluctant. At the very least I may want to have a conversation with the group.

Like @Lanefan said above, if you have the One Ring and spend a few centuries with it, your PC can be Gollum too!

Sure, in that example there is likely a baked in balancing factor of time. But we can easily imagine an item where time isn't such a concern

 

[TwoSix]

I am not necessarily opposed to this. If I understand you, you essentially agree with my view on character creation, but would also allow such exceptions that I am talking about for PCs too if it feels justified. I think that is something the GM should be allowed to consider. I just think that also needs to be balanced against other considerations like whether it is fair to the other players, how the other players feel about it. If I have a group of very RP focused players who love this sort of thing, and won't feel they are being deprived while another player is getting something special, I am much more inclined to allow it. If I have a mixed group, which I often do, that includes more competitive players, I may be more reluctant. At the very least I may want to have a conversation with the group.

My players know that when I'm the DM, the character building rules are at best a suggestion. I'm willing to entertain almost any idea as long as the player is rooting it in concept first. Any complaint rooted in "This player got X, so I should get Y" isn't going to get any traction with me. I

Sure, in that example there is likely a baked in balancing factor of time. But we can easily imagine an item where time isn't such a concern

Sure, but there's always going to be a cost associated with any powerful ability that isn't rooted in the standard class progressions, unless the ability is gained through the normal play mode of "find cool loot".

 

[TwoSix]

But this isn't how life works. People learnt to pick pocket that well all the time in life (even kids can learn this skill) and they can learn it without formally joining an organization. Some people just get good at it on their own without. Again, not saying you need to let a player do this. They can't for balance reasons. But people populating the world ought to be able to achieve something like this without going through the channels of character creation

Honestly, this just boils down to the fact that classes are terrible for any sort of realistic simulation of gaining abilities, and if you want to have the idea of class exist in the fiction, you're going to have do a lot of contortion to make realistic NPCs. Or just accept that NPCs with a thief skill on the side, or any other sort of realistic NPC, aren't going to exist.