Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest&amp;nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9255120">Sure, I think that is interesting. I don't disagree at all. And I have pointed out in my posts D&amp;D is inconsistent here to make the point that I prefer it when there isn't strict parity in D&amp;D between NPCs and PCs (and monsters) in terms of how they are constructed Sure, I don't disagree at all. I was struggling to find the right language here (which I think you can see in my shifting from term to term in my last post). What I was trying to say is sometimes I do want those things to be the same, because I am trying to create a sense of equal challenge, actually probably less fair in the broad span of things. So I have a wuxia RPG and I want the NPCs and PCs to have the same chance of winning or losing a fight if they are equals. I am not super into bean counting on the NPC end, I think eyeballing is fine, but generally I want the NPCs to follow the same rules of design as the PCs in that game, in order to create the feel of the jianghu I want. But when I run a game like Ravenloft, I absolutely don't want that. I want freedom to imagine gothic monsters and characters, and I want my NPCs and monsters to be less mechanically constrained than that (and even in my first example where PCs and NPCs are largely handled the same, exceptions still need to exist for in game and setting reasons). Again, I don't think we are disagreeing here. If you look at my posts on this particular issue in this thread, I have only been bringing up D&amp;D to point to where this is a matter of preference. My whole point is whether or not NPCs and PCs and Monsters are designed in the same way or whether more exceptions are allowed, is a matter of what you want to do at the table and what your preferences are. And it has nothing to do with setting consistency. It is more likely to be about considerations like balance, creative freedom, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 85555, post: 9255120"] Sure, I think that is interesting. I don't disagree at all. And I have pointed out in my posts D&D is inconsistent here to make the point that I prefer it when there isn't strict parity in D&D between NPCs and PCs (and monsters) in terms of how they are constructed Sure, I don't disagree at all. I was struggling to find the right language here (which I think you can see in my shifting from term to term in my last post). What I was trying to say is sometimes I do want those things to be the same, because I am trying to create a sense of equal challenge, actually probably less fair in the broad span of things. So I have a wuxia RPG and I want the NPCs and PCs to have the same chance of winning or losing a fight if they are equals. I am not super into bean counting on the NPC end, I think eyeballing is fine, but generally I want the NPCs to follow the same rules of design as the PCs in that game, in order to create the feel of the jianghu I want. But when I run a game like Ravenloft, I absolutely don't want that. I want freedom to imagine gothic monsters and characters, and I want my NPCs and monsters to be less mechanically constrained than that (and even in my first example where PCs and NPCs are largely handled the same, exceptions still need to exist for in game and setting reasons). Again, I don't think we are disagreeing here. If you look at my posts on this particular issue in this thread, I have only been bringing up D&D to point to where this is a matter of preference. My whole point is whether or not NPCs and PCs and Monsters are designed in the same way or whether more exceptions are allowed, is a matter of what you want to do at the table and what your preferences are. And it has nothing to do with setting consistency. It is more likely to be about considerations like balance, creative freedom, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification