Should a DM change an official NPC?

[IceBear]

I agree with what you just said rounser. I just wanted to put some perspective on this thread from the BoVD thread. The NPC in question is Orcus. Apparently in the Forgotten Realms, Orcus is a god and not 'just' a demon prince. Unfortunately, the Orcus in the BoVD is not a god and many people are unimpressed with his stats. When suggested that he change the stats to whatever he felt was appropriate, he stated that this wasn't an option.

I do not see the issue with changing the stats of Orcus to something more powerful than in the BoVD as being a major crime against WotC or the Forgotten Realms in general. All most character will know is that Orcus is not someone to trifle with

IceBear

 

[Umbran]

I am going to pass on the whole greymarch sub-thread, and return to some of the original topic.

It was RobNJ, who asked:

what is the possible danger of altering "official" NPCs?

Well, I can think of one danger - if you fiddle with "official" NPCs, you risk not being consistent with later game materials, either in rules or world-plot. This can make incorporating new material into a game a bit of a hassle.

But that's about all it is, a hassle. Nothing you cannot overcome with a bit of thought and creativity.

 

[Darkness]

If you want to maintain player suspension of disbelief of an authentic FR, it should be reasonably consistent with the FR as they know it.

...

Of course, this is all an illusion. ... As for canon, it's interpreted differently by everyone who views it

... if you're trying to do "authentic" FR, change what you like, but with the caveat that if you're changing something that's very much taken for granted in the world ... you risk casting a Dispel Suspension of Disbelief of Authentic Forgotten Realms on your players. ...

Heh. I'm just glad that I don't have the problems that greymarch seems to have, and that you described here: Most gamers I know have absolutely no problems re-writing large parts of the Realms - and it never hurt anybody's suspension of disbelief, either.

In fact, myself I made quite a few changes:
For example, I eliminated the existence of the Chosen of Mystra template (instead, I use the Magister template for the - sole - Chosen of Mystra ). Further, Elminster is level 14 (enough for Archmage) or maybe even lower (not sure yet) and never was a noble or a priestess or anything like that, and the Seven Sisters aren't - neither seven nor sisters, that is. Their levels are also decidedly lower than in the FRCS.

Still, mostly, I use them like they were described in the old gray box way back when (except that not all of them are sisters, as I mentioned - and I think I changed one of them into a half-elf...). And I ignore all that silly stuff that came later - especially concerning Elminster...

I think I'd use Drizzt pretty much as written, though - in the novels, that is; I wouldn't use his "official" game stats, though...

 

[hong]

So, what happens if you kill Drizzt, as someone else asked?

Why, he comes back, of course. With spells like true resurrection around, there's no reason why you can't kill Driz'zt again and again.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It was RobNJ, who asked:


Well, I can think of one danger - if you fiddle with "official" NPCs, you risk not being consistent with later game materials, either in rules or world-plot. This can make incorporating new material into a game a bit of a hassle.

But that's about all it is, a hassle. Nothing you cannot overcome with a bit of thought and creativity.

Agreed. I've never hesitated to change anything I didn't agree with, or write-it-out completely if it didn't fit my "ideal".

 

[rounser]

Most gamers I know have absolutely no problems re-writing large parts of the Realms - and it never hurt anybody's suspension of disbelief, either.

Eh. I consider this an ill-considered sentence, Darkness - simply because most gamers don't have a problem with it doesn't mean they all don't. Surely canon sticklers are out there...just as there surely are 3E "official rules only" sticklers as well.

As for me, well, my Mintarn is a hell of a lot livelier and with a lot more going on than the official one (which is touched upon in passing by Salvatore in a very uncreative manner, so I junked his very limited "ideas" for the place), and I like it that way.

 

[Eternalknight]

Why, he comes back, of course. With spells like true resurrection around, there's no reason why you can't kill Driz'zt again and again.

Of course, for some this would be an ideal situation...

 

[William Ronald]

Sometime back, I remember someone asking what version of Greyhawk was the real Greyhawk. I believe Gygax said that the version that YOU the individual DM and player are involved in is real to you and has the validity of any other Greyhawk.

This is all about a game, and in 22 years of gaming, I have seen most types of gamers and campaigns.

I would argue that as soon as you create an NPC, PC, location, creature, adventure that you are playing in your own version of an established campaign setting if you are using one. Indeed, many of the ideas that are incorporated into Third Edition and earlier editions have been created independently.

Back in 1983, I played a 1st Edition game at Gen Con (then at University of Wisconsin -Parkside) where the DM had us roll initiative individually using a d10. This was new. Strangely, something like this made its way into 2nd Edition.

I imagine that the input of players had something to do with the FRCS. Some may have been running their own versions of the Realms, or using Realms products in their own campaigns. To me, an "official" Realms campaign (whatever that is besides one run by Ed Greenwood or someone at WoTC), a modified FR campaign, or a completely independent creation are all equally valid role playing experiences. (My own campaign setting is 23 years old. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I do not feel that because it has not been published makes it any less valid a setting than Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or anything else that has been published.)

I find the contention that this site is anti-WoTC to be somewhat strange. Morrus has been invited by WoTC to participate in an online discussion. Anthony Valterra, E. Gary Gygax, Erik Mona, Monte Cook, Sean Reynolds, Jim Butler, and others who have been associated with WoTC and TSR in the past and present post here regularly. I believe that many people at WoTC regard this site highly.

I would suggest that we avoid personal attacks. I respect the right of people to defend their opinions. However, I do not think it is necessary to attack another's character or credibility. (Ideas, however, should be fair game.)

To me, the key question about gaming is: Is it fun? If something makes my game more enjoyable, I may buy it. I think the issue of enjoyment seems to be getting lost in this debate.

 

[mkletch]

I feel that NPCs, monsters, and virtually anything else printed by WOTC should not be changed, so the verdict is not unanimous.

Players do not have access to stuff that is 'behind the screen', so it is irrelevant. If the DM says that a certain NPC does X, he does, and that is that. How is a character supposed to know if a certain NPC is a wizard, sorcerer or both? Heck, half of my major, campaign-level NPCs have no stats; the other half I know the party will be stupid enough to fight...

-Fletch!

 

[Tewligan]

Another rule my gaming group follows is that the DM is not the final word on a subject. We prefer to use a much more democratic approach. If a rules question, or some other type of problem occurs, we take a vote. Majority wins, but the DM's vote counts as two votes, and all ties go to to the DM. We have followed this rule for 14 years, and have no plans on changing it. When you have a more democratic approach to problem-solving, it is more likely that all the players will abide by the rule, because everyone had a chance to be counted in the decision. If the DM in our campaign simply said "it's my way or the highway gentlemen" I can guarantee that my gaming group would immediately quit playing with that DM, and find someone else to replace him.

I find this practice as odd as the strict adherance to canon. It seems like it would really cut down on the DM's ability to run a game if he was always in danger of having his monster's tactics or the DC he assigned to a trap or task be voted down by his players. Are the players allowed to "call out" the DM, forcing him to explain the mechanic behind something so it can go to a vote?