Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[Balesir]

I'm not claiming it is "only". I'm claiming that having and controlling abilities that a person in that role would not have or control is not strictly PLAYING that role.

Eh? It's not the only form of "roleplaying", but if you don't do it you are not "playing a role"? How does that work?

It seems to me that a person sat at a table in a different world with utterly different society and technology is bound to 'have and control abilities that a person in that role would not have or control'. It being otherwise would mean them BEING that person, not PLAYING that role. RPGs must necessarily be emulations, with players using their imaginations to picture the game world from the character's point of view. Systems that directly model that game world are not, necessarily, the best way to do that, since a game world even approaching the depth and subltety of the 'real' world we inhabit most of our lives is not readily susceptible to direct modelling in the conscious mind.

The certainly doesn't EXCLUDE role-playing. As I said, you can easily be changing hats back and forth. So one could argue that my version is more limited.

Yes, it is "purist", in the sense of seeing only the "immersive" part of play as valuable, but it is also partial, in that it omits to model in any way the deep, semi-subconscious insights and perceptions that any human-like character should be expected to have of the world they live in.

But to me the limitations are part of the fun. If you have control that person doesn't have, then you are implicitly making your experience different to one that is exclusively within the shoes of THAT person.

Sure - and there are systems that cater to that value set, which brings us to...

I have limited experience with those systems. But what I have know of them I'd happily agree they were designed with goals kindred to mine at heart.

So, knowing that there are already (high) fantasy games "out there" that have goals 'kindred' to yous own, you spend time trying to get a game that does not have such kindred goals to change such as to have your goals instead?? Is it just me that finds that both bizarre and perverse?

 

[BryonD]

Eh? It's not the only form of "roleplaying", but if you don't do it you are not "playing a role"? How does that work?

It seems to me that a person sat at a table in a different world with utterly different society and technology is bound to 'have and control abilities that a person in that role would not have or control'. It being otherwise would mean them BEING that person, not PLAYING that role. RPGs must necessarily be emulations, with players using their imaginations to picture the game world from the character's point of view. Systems that directly model that game world are not, necessarily, the best way to do that, since a game world even approaching the depth and subltety of the 'real' world we inhabit most of our lives is not readily susceptible to direct modelling in the conscious mind.

I don't think you are following.
You appear to be confusing abilities the character should have and abilities the player does have.

Gandalf has powers no person has. A person roleplaying Gandalf does not have those powers but should role play that they do. There are also powers that Gandalf does NOT have but an author of a story involving Gandalf WOULD have. If the the person playing Gandalf has THOSE powers, then, when using them, I am defining THAT as something outside of a meaningfully valid defintion of "roleplaying".

I am not calling it badwrongfun.
I am ABSOLUTELY not calling it anything in the realm of "roll playing".

And I will also agree that whatever person A has always done when they play roleplaying games is going to conceptually fall under the general label of "roleplaying" to them.

But for effective communication there is a need for more objective and clear definitions.

Having powers that an author would have but the character would not is not part of BEING that character.

Yes, it is "purist", in the sense of seeing only the "immersive" part of play as valuable, but it is also partial, in that it omits to model in any way the deep, semi-subconscious insights and perceptions that any human-like character should be expected to have of the world they live in.

No, I didn't say that. If the character SHOULD have that ability then I completely agree that this fits.

Sure - and there are systems that cater to that value set, which brings us to...

So, knowing that there are already (high) fantasy games "out there" that have goals 'kindred' to yous own, you spend time trying to get a game that does not have such kindred goals to change such as to have your goals instead?? Is it just me that finds that both bizarre and perverse?

why do you find it bizarre and perverse that I'd like to see the next edition of D&D be more popular than 4E?

To be clear, for my own personal interest I'd LOVE to see D&D cater to me in the future. But I'm perfectly fine with it not trying under 4E and I'll be perfectly fine with it not doing so in the future, if that turns out to be the case.

But we are now not talking about "a game that does not have such kindred goals". We are talking about options for a game that is yet to be revealed. Some prior editions of that game have been HIGHLY kindred to my desire and at least one has not been. I have no desire to change 4E. But your comments presume that 5E must be judged purely as a relative change comapred to 4E. I'd call that short sighted.

 

[keterys]

At its core, I hope the system allows near instant creation of both PCs, NPCs, and monsters, with the ability to make them far more complex as desired.

In that way, they could use the same system, but in a good way, rather than a forced way that puts the onus on more DM preparation time.

Ie, I want to make a PC as easily as I can make a 4E monster, and I want to be able to take that result - only when I choose - and delve deeper adding skills, feats, or other results as I need.

That said, it is _extremely_ important that DM controlled resources (ie, NPCs and monsters) be able to access things that PCs can't. Ie, you should be able to give a monster or NPC a power with the sure knowledge that the PCs can never get it (via polymorph or other reason)

 

[Li Shenron]

At its core, I hope the system allows near instant creation of both PCs, NPCs, and monsters, with the ability to make them far more complex as desired.

In that way, they could use the same system, but in a good way, rather than a forced way that puts the onus on more DM preparation time.

Ie, I want to make a PC as easily as I can make a 4E monster, and I want to be able to take that result - only when I choose - and delve deeper adding skills, feats, or other results as I need.

That said, it is _extremely_ important that DM controlled resources (ie, NPCs and monsters) be able to access things that PCs can't. Ie, you should be able to give a monster or NPC a power with the sure knowledge that the PCs can never get it (via polymorph or other reason)

Good points.

I'm not exactly in the same position. Personally (but I suppose this is just my own way of DMing) I have no need for creating PCs and monsters quickly, but I do have need for creating NPCs and monsters with classes quickly.

------

For PC, normally each player design and play one at a time, so the character creation doesn't strictly need to be fast for me. 30 minutes to create a character which is then supposed to be played for months is acceptable (or even 1 hour, if you need to start at high level).

NPCs however... I always make plenty of them, and in almost all cases they don't need to be designed as detailed as the PCs. The 3ed character creation rules are slow for NPCs, there has to be guidelines on how to make simplified NPCs (especially at high levels) that are on par with the PC level for combat purposes. Everything non-combat doesn't need to be balanced with the PC, and only whatever is needed for the player's POW needs to be fleshed out. For example, if the villain is a renowed thieves' guildmaster... do we really need to know how good in rules terms he is at finding/disarming/crafting traps? He's never going to to those things in practice even if that's what he's famous for!

It would then be nice however if the game made it easy to create "one night" adventures, quick to setup for both the DM and the players: in such case the PCs did not need to be designed to last past this adventure, and could use the NPC simplified rules, or alternatively use a lot of standard values and default static abilities.

------

Monsters... could be my personal style, but I never design "new" monsters. There is no reason for me why I would prefer my own design over the ready design from a MMx book. Anyway there are thousands of monsters available...

OTOH, sometimes you want to make a "chief" monster to lead the tribe or something like a monster trained to be an assassin or even a spellcaster. Actually now that I think about it, this to me mostly still happens only with humanoids or with similar monsters, so this may still fall under the NPC creation task after all.

------

My bottom line is that as a DM quick NPC design is a very much needed feature of the game. Quick monster creation is not, and quick PC creation is needed only to a point and certainly not at the price of sacrificing PC depth.

 

[keterys]

Sure, we're old hands, we're used to taking a while to design a PC.

But I want to introduce my nephew to the game and have him listen for a couple minutes, make a few decisions, and _play_. If he's gotta read two chapters and pick from 100 choices just to start, then that's a tough sell over the investment needed for a console or PC game.

Heck, it becomes a real choice for me - maybe waste my afternoon working through that with him and anyone else involved, not knowing if he'll consider it a waste of his time - or play castle ravenloft or star wars old republic or whatever with him.

Later on, he can switch over from the simplified and streamlined (but effective) PC build to the more in depth one. Once he's hooked. But first, you hook 'em

 

[Hassassin]

Sure, we're old hands, we're used to taking a while to design a PC.

But I want to introduce my nephew to the game and have him listen for a couple minutes, make a few decisions, and _play_. If he's gotta read two chapters and pick from 100 choices just to start, then that's a tough sell over the investment needed for a console or PC game.

This would also be good for when a PC dies. Quick-and-dirty version to introduce and play for the rest of the session, and you can take the time to have a complex, interesting PC statted for the next session. (Either the same or another.)