Should a DM change an official NPC?

[IceBear]

I just remember the first time that I played D&D and I had no idea how powerful a hobgoblin was or an orc, etc.

If I make kobolds a powerful race in my section of the Forgotten Realms (as long as it's done before the PCs meet them) I think it's fine. Let the players be surprised and learn things along with their characters - it makes it feel new again

IceBear

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The question shouldn't be: "Should you diverge from canon?", but "How can you tweak your campaign to make it better?"

Anything in a published setting is fair gain. Admittedly, some changes should be explained to the players if it affects their characters directly, or if their PCs might have heared some rumors ("you have heard that Elminster has been mysteriously ill for a few years..."). But that's it. If a player complains that "in the official WotC supplement, that character has Charisma 20 and a Staff of the Archmage!", then feel free to smack him with any copy of Dangerous Journeys you might have lying around the house...

Or if you are feeling merciful, just tell them that the PCs shouldn't believe every rumor they hear.

 

[Balgus]

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

The MM states that the monsters are of "average" stats for their kind, and that the DM should feel free to change the stats to reflect a better or lesser than average monster

EX- minotaurs - don't have book so just accept numbers without criticism- have a str of 23 and a int of 15. you can say that a JAck, the outcasted minotaur raised by elves have a int of 19 and str of 14. Because of this, he has classes in wizardry instead of fighter or barbarian.

Or there is a superminotaur with a str of 35, and a con of 29. But his wis is 4, int is 5, and cha of 2. He is a superbarbarian- but not much more....

But I do agree that I am hesitant to change the "official" NPCs to fit my campaign. People like Eldritch are Drizzt are iconic- so I proibably would not change thme- but rather use them as is.

Actually, I would not add any of these people into my campaigns at all- except as myths and legends...

 

[Psion]

Whether it's appropriate or not depends on the implied contract of the group. If you assembled a group that comes to your table expecint an "authentic FR experience" then perhaps it would be ill considered to deviate.

That said, while I know some fans like to play this way, I would not want to play that way. If you intend to make major deviations from the campaign as advertised (frex, were I ever to run FR, I'd kill Elminster in a heartbeat), then it might be a good idea to announce so from the get-go to ensure the true blue fans know what they are getting into.
I am pretty much of the "books are tools not straighjackets" camp. Use what you want, change or chuck the rest. Just make sure your players know that, and all should be fine.

 

[Greybar]

Should DMs change the stats of official NPCs? Can it ruin continuity of the game, and the trust of the players?

Yes, in a heartbeat.
It's *your* game.

If you've got a good story going that ends in a dramatic climax that Elminster is discovered to be an undercover minion of Evil, and now your heroes have to undo his foul plans while everyone else worships at his feet... go for it!

John

 

[Darkness]

NPCs, monsters, and virtually anything else printed by WOTC should not be changed

Umm... Why?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Yes, in a heartbeat.
It's *your* game.

If you've got a good story going that ends in a dramatic climax that Elminster is discovered to be an undercover minion of Evil, and now your heroes have to undo his foul plans while everyone else worships at his feet... go for it!

That being said, a major change like this should be carefully worked into the campaign - or else the players simply won't believe it.

Make them slowly realize that he is a bad guy, all the while playing up to his "kindly old sage" image. Make him get away with his plans time and again, while nobody will believe the PCs' ranting. Make the players really appreciate hating the old bastard.

In short, just play him like every other cool villain...

 

[barsoomcore]

If you assembled a group that comes to your table expecint an "authentic FR experience" then perhaps it would be ill considered to deviate.

Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I can imagine for NOT altering NPCs. And I dunno, but I can't imagine that's a very common situation.

And frankly, even in such a scenario I find it hard to imagine that the DM wouldn't at some point be forced to alter things. Players can be awfully surprising at times, bless their little hearts...

 

[nsruf]

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

I'd be interested in your reasons for that. And why just WOTC? Some other companies have equal or better quality products, IMO

Even if the core books did not state in various places that all rules are just a guideline, I would change things I found uninteresting, unbalanced or plain stupid. This is the DM's prerogative really.

No offense intended, but the only reason I can see a player arguing against it would be because he wants to use OOC knowledge to get an advantage. If someone really believes he needs that to "win" my campaign or that I am trying to "cheat" by changing things, he is better off leaving the group.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

What does the phrase, ". . . so the verdict is not unanimous," mean?

I think he's referring to my earlier statement that almost 100% of the people who answer this question would agree that NPCs can and should be changed.