Should a DM change an official NPC?

[RobNJ]

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

Let's turn it around: what is the possible danger of altering "official" NPCs?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Nothing is official unless the DM says so. Monte Cook, Gary Gygax, etc don't play in my game. If I had a player who whined that I changed Mordenkainen's stats I'd tell him too bad. If I have the players encounter a demon prince that I have statted as in the Creature Catalog instead of the BOVD they better live with it.

 

[greymarch]

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

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Heck, by golly gosh yes!

A DM should alter that stats/stories/etc. of anything he sees fit, even if using a published and official game world, to tailor it to his campaign. Otherwise, what's the point?

Take my FRCs campaign f'rex. Now, my players will want to stay out of the next paragraph or two.....

I decided that Larloch was the First Lich. Why? Where does it say that officially? Nowhere. I just decided that I liked the idea. He was also the lover of one of the founders of the Eldreth Valt..ah..whatever, the name of that elven supremecists group is...who founded it in part because she was jilted by Larloch way back in Netheril and wanted a little revenge.

Is the organization that old? Well, canonically, it dates back to "only" Myth Drannor. But, at least the seeds, or proto-Eldreth, was already founded, partially by the NPC. After she was freed from her imprisonment, she decided she wanted her organization back so she killed all the other leaders of the Eldreth (trust me, she had the power) and claimed the organization for herself.

Death is a pretty big NPC change, especially when not at the hands of the PCs. So now, the PCs have a thousands-of-years-old lich heading an organization that is growing in power on an almost daily basis (Epic Leadership, here I come...) who knows about the PCs (well, three of 'em anyway) and will come gunning for them soon, and, if the PCs fail to stop her current plans, will deal a destructive blow to Waterdeep.

Much more interesting, IMHO.

I cannibalize the good stuff, rework it and regurtitate it as even better.

But, that's just me, of course, YMMV.

 

[IceBear]

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

Well, since you have our viewpoints, would you mind sharing as to why you don't think they should be changed?

I mean, if a character hasn't encountered something before(players aren't characters) it doesn't have any stats that he's aware of now does it?

IceBear

 

[jasper]

Change what you want when you want.
You think an write up in a mag is too powerful/weak change it.
Look over the past dragons and see how many times conan or robin hood, or arthur has been given stats and how they don't agree

 

[Painfully]

DM'ing is an art, not a science. Don't let anything get in the way of the excitement and mystery of a good adventure--especially some "official" NPC stats!

Be reasonable and consistent with the rules, and keep the NPC believable, but otherwise, as DM, change whatever you need to suit your game.

 

[RobNJ]

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

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

 

[coyote6]

Of course they can be changed. As many others said, once the GM starts his campaign, even if it is on Toril, Oerth, or Krynn, it's no longer WotC's (or any other publisher's) world. It's the GM's.

(Actually, more accurately, it's the GM's & the players', since the actions of the players & their characters will also change the world. I hope it does, anyways.)

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

How do you deal with WotC changing what they print? (e.g., MM elementals vs. MM errata elementals, FR NPCs in FRCS vs. FR NPCs in ELH, the myriad versions of polymorph self, etc. Never mind 1e vs. 2e vs. 3e vs. novels!)

 

[The Serge]

Well, let me state that I do not play in nor do I run any established campaign settings.

Now, I think a DM should have the ability and right to be flexible. S/he should be able to adjust anything s/he wants to adjust so long as the adjustment is balanced and sensible within the framework and context of the given game. This is especially the case in situations when Players (some of whom are other DMs) are familiar with the campaign setting. This grants the DM more ownership of his/her game as well as reduces the potential for meta-gaming.

However, what are the problems with making these adjustments? Well, first off what's the point of playing in the established world then? Why not just create your own campaign setting? For some people the answer is simple: time (and sometimes creativity).

Now, there are potential problems with making changes with established NPCs. First, I wonder about how the change can possibly impact an entire setting. Small tweaks, like level adjustments, typically are going to be harmless. Major tweaks, like turning Elminister into the new Lord of Spells, could have significant ramifications for all involved. Secondly, it means more work for both the DM and players. The DM has to really modify some elements on occasion and Players may find themselves having to constantly ask for more information to clarify what they've always took for granted as the truth.

It's for reason like these that I just have my own campaign setting and why (arch-fiends aside) I tend to stick with the official word rather than secondary source material, which often seem to be a hinderance rather than a bonus.