Shades of Eternity
Hero
Are npcs like the Seven Sisters from the Forgotten Realms an asset or a detriment to a world?
that is well put... It is a level of stasiss, the more power house NPCs you have the more you lock your world into what it is and the less agency of change the players have.Yes.
It depends.
Those powerful NPCs are a detriment to the extent they make the world something the PCs cannot change. They are an asset to the extent they make the world something that can react to the PCs.
I don't always think they are necessary. Not every game is 'save the world' (please take that hint WotC). If your PCs are dungeon delvers or dragon hunters having a powerful order of paladin/monks that serve as Marshals in the wild west (Totally not jedi don't look at me like that... why yes they all have radiant swords) is fine, they are NOT dungeon delvers or dragon slayers.why are the players even necessary?
The term Mary Sue gets thrown around a lot now adays. I think if anything it is being abuised... but I can't imagine any definition of Mary Sue that doesn't line up with an author insert (that looks like the author no less) that is one of if not the most powerful mage, who sleeps with all the hot women including the goddesses (and a set of sisters) and who can lie to/argue with the over deity that other gods can't even talk to... and that is NOT an all encompassing list with Elminster.Too often, I find powerful NPC's detract from the story, because they are simply a deus ex machina. I prefer to use NPC's who may very well have knowledge and resources the players lack, but still need the PC's, instead of having so much power that they can just solve problems themselves.
They are an asset unless the DM uses them as a DMPC to outperform the players, or as a crutch to save the day if the PCs fail. If the DM doesn't do those things, they are a story element to interact with on rare occasions that enhances the game.Are npcs like the Seven Sisters from the Forgotten Realms an asset or a detriment to a world?
If you are going to have your powerful NPCs off maintaining a state of dynamic equilibrium in your world it's probably a good idea to make that state of affairs visible to the PCs and/or the players. Otherwise they might jump to the obvious if incorrect conclusion.They are an asset unless the DM uses them as a DMPC to outperform the players, or as a crutch to save the day if the PCs fail. If the DM doesn't do those things, they are a story element to interact with on rare occasions that enhances the game.
A lot of people have the mistaken idea that having high level NPCs around invalidates the PCs because they would stop problem the PCs are facing, but it doesn't. They are all off doing their own thing thwarting one another leaving nobody around to handle the problem the PCs encounter.
I don't agree with that. At least it is not necessarily an issue. If you have 16 forces of good and the world has 23 forces of evil, the PCs will still be needed and have their hands full. You don't even have to know what all the forces of evil are plotting. Just assume they are keeping those forces of good busy.In play and in the setting you are expected to play in you have to be real careful to keep it to a minimum. If you have 7 powerful forces for good in the world that can be an issue, but most DMs can work around it. If you have 10 powerful forces of good in the world it gets worse, and each more you add makes it worse still...
My players know, because I've told them. And sometimes if they seek out an NPC, they will find out that the NPC is off handling an issue. This recently happened with a high level Harper superior that they wanted to speak with.If you are going to have your powerful NPCs off maintaining a state of dynamic equilibrium in your world it's probably a good idea to make that state of affairs visible to the PCs and/or the players. Otherwise they might jump to the obvious if incorrect conclusion.
That is indeed a good way to handle it.My players know, because I've told them. And sometimes if they seek out an NPC, they will find out that the NPC is off handling an issue. This recently happened with a high level Harper superior that they wanted to speak with.
The answer to both parts of that question can be - and in my case is - yes. These things are not exclusive, nor are they zero-sum.In other words, is your game focused on the players and their deeds, or are they just bit players in a larger story?
Thw 'why aren't they?' piece is easy: those NPCs have already got too many other things on their plates, things that may or may not be at all related to what the PCs are doing.If your game is player-centric, then all these NPC's are doing things that your players could be doing, and if they have the ability to solve problems better than your players, then not only do you have to answer the question of why aren't they?, you also have to answer the question of why are the players even necessary?
Again, the bolded piece states two things that are neither exclusive nor zero-sum. The NPCs can have more than enough power to solve the problems themselves but if they don't have the time because they're too busy solving other problems, or are too busy arguing among themselves, or whatever, then they still need the PCs to deal with such problems as they can.Note you still basically have to answer these questions even if the players are merely the main characters of their story, but not the main characters of the world.
Too often, I find powerful NPC's detract from the story, because they are simply a deus ex machina. I prefer to use NPC's who may very well have knowledge and resources the players lack, but still need the PC's, instead of having so much power that they can just solve problems themselves.
and this is were homebrew (or atleast a world the players don't know) works better... if I run 2 FR campaigns for 10 people that know nothing of the setting, and just don't bring the archmages or chosen or whatever in for the first 12 levels, they don't know they exsist...A lot of it depends on how your campaign develops. If the very first session has high level NPCs telling the PCs to go adventure because the world relies on them, level 1 randos to save it, then its going to feel weird in those power disparity levels. If you start on a smaller scale, it makes a lot more narrative sense. Crawl, walk, run.
That is a curious situation. I guess I would have turned that around on my players and ask them exactly what they expected the Queen to do in the situation? Published settings have an advantage in a lore built out that folks can read up on in their own time. However, I do think you need to give the GM some leeway when they are running the game. To me this is like a GM getting a combat mechanical rule wrong and not just discussing it at the table and working it out. I expect these mistakes to happen on occasion, I don't think GMs are prefect, and don't expect them to be.and this is were homebrew (or atleast a world the players don't know) works better... if I run 2 FR campaigns for 10 people that know nothing of the setting, and just don't bring the archmages or chosen or whatever in for the first 12 levels, they don't know they exsist...
on the other hand in 3e when I tried to run it and didn't read all the stats and had the red wizard threat be something that the PCs should handle, for them to ask if they could get an audiance with the queen (that I quickly looked up her name but not stats) and had her thank them and ask them to handle it they would be rewarded... it destroyed there immersion, I didn't realize they were going to a 30th level sorcerer that hated the red wizard, I though they were going to a queen