Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[fba827]

making NPCs by the same rules as PCs is fine. But the system needs to ALSO be able to handle 'on the fly NPC creation rules with different rules' (where the stats are simplified based on a few key factors and then adjust as appropriate for the story of the NPC).

The former is important to me when I do want the "game mechanics detail" the later is important to me when I don't need "the game mechanics detail" -- story detail and roleplay can be applied to either. It's a matter of game mechanical details.

maybe i am just slow (i fully recognize that) but i find it too time consuming to create every single NPC using PC rules to get game mechanic details, particularly as levels increase and therefore more options to consider.

Frankly, using both methods based on how much game mechanical detail i need is how i use NPC creation in 4e. And if the next iteration of d&d isn't able to handle BOTH styles the same way 4e is able to, then i don't think i would personally be able to DM for it.

obviously, YMMV

 

[Aldarc]

Well then you are not reading what I've written very well.

Again, I have MULTIPLE TIMES described how they should work toward a system that pleases everyone. How do you back up your "lip service" claim? Are you going to step up to the plate and offer something or not?

First. Would you mind stop treating people, including myself, so condescendingly? Thanks. I'd really appreciate it.

Now let's move on to your other points.

I don't know you. I just know what you said.

From which you can't presume to know.

Explain to me why "NPCs as props should remain as the base" is a truth.

It's not a truth. But then again, neither is "NPCs should be consistent with PCs." And it's utterly bizarre that you would expect me to explain this as "a truth" when it's not framed as such in the first place.

And remember the goal of the exercise is to get a lot of people who don't play 4E to play 5E. In that context, explain to me "why".

And this is where I see the lip-service, because it presumes "Concessions in 5E should be about me!" You are expecting repeatedly that the game bends to your expectations. I suppose it's only natural, but you have made a number of comments here and elsewhere about "deal breaker" things in 5E. It's not about what works best or what's best for the whole, but about those who do not play 4E, but these are the same people who played 1-2E which operated just as it did in 4E. So why is this framed in terms of "people who don't play 4E to play 5E"? And it's also about retaining people who play 4E. Can your propositions guarantee that?

As I've said multiple times in this thread, the way I'm advocating serves people 4E doesn't serve and can also be worked with to cater to fans of the 4E style.

And I've advocated that NPCs as props should remain as the base, but that they could expanded as characters. Maybe I'm not the only one who could be accused of "not reading what I've written very well."

 

[LostSoul]

All you have done is paint the flavor text I described onto a stock monster.
The "killed if gnome" is mechanically there.

But I could describe another completely different npc of the same power level and you could take the stat block you just made and paint it differently. I already agreed you could paint any narrative you want on top of the same bland mechanics over and over. So simply demonstrating that you can doesn't address the issue.

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from, so let's try a different approach!

What about those mechanics are bland? How would you, in your current system of choice, use the mechanics to create an NPC so that the mechanics aren't bland?

Correct me if I'm wrong: I get the feeling that, when you say "you could take the stat block you just made and paint it differently", you have the idea that the stats I used for those NPCs don't "model" the character. In other words, the mechanics aren't reflective of the fiction (or the game world); the fiction is forced to fit into the mold the mechanics have defined.

Does that address your position?

 

[herrozerro]

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from, so let's try a different approach!

What about those mechanics are bland? How would you, in your current system of choice, use the mechanics to create an NPC so that the mechanics aren't bland?

Correct me if I'm wrong: I get the feeling that, when you say "you could take the stat block you just made and paint it differently", you have the idea that the stats I used for those NPCs don't "model" the character. In other words, the mechanics aren't reflective of the fiction (or the game world); the fiction is forced to fit into the mold the mechanics have defined.

Does that address your position?

See I dont totally understand either, i dont see just a bland statblock with your mechanics, i see the mechanics and the opportunity to use then as i see fit and ill roleplay the monster however I think it should be roleplayed.

Though i love that I can take your statblock and just say that it is a dragon that has a thing for killing gnomes. i love that the stats presented are not locked into a cage of rules that define what it is.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yes, I can get behind this, but here is the rub, what stats define living creature? within D&D I define it as HP, and maybe some attributes. thats really all you need.

not every single living creature needs AC, nor skills, or even attacks.

So every living creature has HP... thats pretty much all it needs, HP gone its no longer a living creature.

What does it add to the game to stat up every single creature in the game? does it give you a sense of living worldlyness that you could say "hey this hut has 3 HP Ill bet you didnt know that?

Even objects have AC. Not every creature has skills, but every intelligent creature should. Obviously, not every creature has the capacity to attack.

The point is not that I expect a physical book to have the statistics for every creature in the world, but that the basic theory of the game is that if I had a need for those statistics, they could exist. Even in instances where I don't fully stat up an NPC, it's assumed that his statistics exist, that I could generate them if he became important, and that they would make sense in the context of the rules for character creation. I similarly assume that every part of my campaign world has terrain, even if I have not bothered to draw a map of it yet.

Likewise, the point is not that I need to make full use of every statblock that is published, but it's important that if I need to know how intelligent a bullywug is or what skills a Lammasu has I can find that out quickly.

 

[BryonD]

It's not a truth. But then again, neither is "NPCs should be consistent with PCs." And it's utterly bizarre that you would expect me to explain this as "a truth" when it's not framed as such in the first place.

You stated it as a fact.

And this is where I see the lip-service, because it presumes "Concessions in 5E should be about me!" You are expecting repeatedly that the game bends to your expectations.

But I'm going beyond that and explaining how it is good for the market. Obviously I'm presenting my opinion, but I'm not saying they should do anything "for me" despite the impacts to the overall market. You are. I think this change should come toward me. But not because of me but because it will grow the market and I've expressed why I believe that to be the case. You have done nothing of that nature.

I suppose it's only natural, but you have made a number of comments here and elsewhere about "deal breaker" things in 5E. It's not about what works best or what's best for the whole, but about those who do not play 4E, but these are the same people who played 1-2E which operated just as it did in 4E. So why is this framed in terms of "people who don't play 4E to play 5E"?

Can you offer a reason they would go to the expense and effort of this otherwise?

And it's also about retaining people who play 4E.

Of course, I've acknowledged that multiple times.[/quote]

Can your propositions guarantee that?

Oh, I've said I think they are in a jam for which there may be NO solution whatsoever. So obviously I won't promise success. But I predicted dissatisfaction with the current approach before 4E came out. And I predict that if they don't make some change they will repeat history. I can practically guarantee that staying the coarse will fail. Going back to things that worked MIGHT work again. But it might not. And, of course, there will be a lot of other factors as well.

And I've advocated that NPCs as props should remain as the base, but that they could expanded as characters. Maybe I'm not the only one who could be accused of "not reading what I've written very well."

Um, no. I read that. And as I've said, if 4E worked for creating a bigger market there would be no reason for this conversation to exist. There needs to be something different. Are you willing to advocate a change that tries to serve both me and you, or must it stay fixed on you alone?

 

[herrozerro]

Even objects have AC. Not every creature has skills, but every intelligent creature should. Obviously, not every creature has the capacity to attack.

The point is not that I expect a physical book to have the statistics for every creature in the world, but that the basic theory of the game is that if I had a need for those statistics, they could exist. Even in instances where I don't fully stat up an NPC, it's assumed that his statistics exist, that I could generate them if he became important, and that they would make sense in the context of the rules for character creation. I similarly assume that every part of my campaign world has terrain, even if I have not bothered to draw a map of it yet.

Likewise, the point is not that I need to make full use of every statblock that is published, but it's important that if I need to know how intelligent a bullywug is or what skills a Lammasu has I can find that out quickly.

See I read your post and I wonder why 4e's version of how things work doesn't work for you.

in 4e, especially using the assumed by level default stats, and DCs. I dont see why you need to have everything prestatted out.

with my 4e cheat sheets, like i said before, I can stat out a creature if i need it in almost no time flat. set the level of the creature and you have almost all the stats right away and any DCs that you might need for skills against that creature.

 

[Ahnehnois]

See I read your post and I wonder why 4e's version of how things work doesn't work for you.

It's hard for me to address a game I don't play. And the thread topic was more generic. From the 4e monster stat block I've seen, I can't understand where the skills, attacks, powers etc. would be derived from.

3e statblocks had hit dice, and it was easy to find out what the BAB/skills/etc. was for those hit dice. The difference isn't really radical between 4e (which aren't perfect but aren't disastrous) and the late 3e statblocks (which I hated purely because of readibility). I just don't want to see statblocks without ability scores and skills that are limited to combat statistics, which seems to be what some are pushing for.

 

[Aldarc]

You stated it as a fact.

Not what you quoted.

But I'm going beyond that and explaining how it is good for the market. Obviously I'm presenting my opinion, but I'm not saying they should do anything "for me" despite the impacts to the overall market. You are. I think this change should come toward me. But not because of me but because it will grow the market and I've expressed why I believe that to be the case. You have done nothing of that nature.

There is a substantial amount that I have refrained from saying in terms of my wishes for what 5E was as they do not fit with the 5E design goals. But NPC exceptionalism makes the game both far more accessible for new gamers and flexible for veteran gamers. Does that not sound like an expanded market? It keeps NPCs from suffering from the same rules bloat that plagues PCs. It saves on book-keeping and DM prep time. Can you create what you are asking for in a way that satisfies NPC exceptionalism and that minimizes DM prep time?

Can you offer a reason they would go to the expense and effort of this otherwise?

Of what? I cannot recall anything so far indicating that one of the goals of 5E is to lose all the people who play 4E or that it's just about the people who like 3E.

Um, no. I read that. And as I've said, if 4E worked for creating a bigger market there would be no reason for this conversation to exist. There needs to be something different. Are you willing to advocate a change that tries to serve both me and you, or must it stay fixed on you alone?

If you read that, then you know that it's not fixed on me alone. My statement is more about the narrativist role that NPCs play in the game in which NPCs are the cogs and props that push the game forward and are utterly subservient to the story. Requiring rule consistency in the construction of NPCs and PCs strikes me as oddly gamist and out of focus for the primary concern of the D&D narrative.

 

[herrozerro]

It's hard for me to address a game I don't play. And the thread topic was more generic. From the 4e monster stat block I've seen, I can't understand where the skills, attacks, powers etc. would be derived from.

3e statblocks had hit dice, and it was easy to find out what the BAB/skills/etc. was for those hit dice. The difference isn't really radical between 4e (which aren't perfect but aren't disastrous) and the late 3e statblocks (which I hated purely because of readibility). I just don't want to see statblocks without ability scores and skills that are limited to combat statistics, which seems to be what some are pushing for.

Okay so we both have a bit of a communication issue between us.

Personally im not advocating that an NPCs statblock have only combat mechanics, but rather the question is do NPCs need to be bound by the same rules that PCs are when they are created?

When you create an NPC that is meant to be interacted with by a level 10 party does that NPC need to be built with the same rules that the PCs abide by?

My position is that an NPC really only needs to have stats that are relevant to what the Party needs to interact with. and basically that is either to interact with skills or to be interacted in combat with. Those are really IMO the only stats that matter, if a special NPC needs to have ritual casting ability then it does. it doenst need to take a feat, it just has the ability as the narrative directs.

I had gotten into a similar debate with a fellow DM recently, he was designing an encounter where his BBEG was going to gate in, start and attack and then gate out. and he was stressing out over the fact that he couldnt find any way "by the rules" to have his BBEG open a portal and keep it open for the time he needed for him to do the stuff he needed to do.

I told him that he should just have this be a special gate or that he had an artifact that could hold open gates, or he just had an ability that let him do it. But he wanted to "play by the rules".

To me I think it cheapens the game, the BBEG isnt supposed to play by the rules, he supposed to cheat, lie and steal. he shouldn't be limited by the rules the players play by it makes him more powerful or dangerous that certain things just dont apply to him.