D&D General Should NPCs be built using the same rules as PCs?

[Pedantic]

The PCs just can't assume that because the acolyte at the temple can cast guardian of faith, they also have 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 3 3rd level slots, from which they will be able to choose from a menu of roughly between 13-18 other divine spells. Because "cleric" is just a piece of game jargon in my games, not something used within the fictional space.

I just don't see a meaningful difference there. The fictional space is defined by the rules. I don't especially mind PCs as exceptional, if that's the desired trope, but I don't think it resolves the question, it features whole new questions about how the PC is exceptional, what they are exceptional compared to, how their abilities relate to the standard paradigm and so on. I mean, there's no reason you can't build mechanics that support acolytes having access to only a few quite specific miracles (I'd use something like a feat chain, depending on your games chassis), but you'd still want that character to be defined by the rules in a knowable way, not a black box that's defined entirely by it's outputs.

The further you lean into the exceptionalism of everything and everybody the PCs interact with, the less the fictional world and mechanics overlap and the less usefully gameable the space is. Plus it all feels increasingly artificial and disconnected. The wizard tower's defenses aren't a product of the same magic your wizard uses, it's all just set pieces. Mechanical consistency, the ability to exist and function without PC eyes on a thing are essential to giving the thing weight and making it interesting.

I'm fairly amenable to the GM effort/time arguments, I just think that's a cost that pays for something, and if you don't want to pay it, you're not going to get the thing.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I generally agree, in that it's not always necessary to go through the complete process for every single character, and ideally system familiarity should allow you to get close enough without the formal process over time. I specifically called out that some hacks to simplify the process world generally be desirable.

But the questions aren't at all unrelated. The goal is to have a system that both kinds of actors can feed inputs into to see what happens, which requires they be the same kind of object. If the basic rules for functionality can't be understood as a player, if they can't use knowledge about the world to make predictions about what can or will happen, than you don't have a gameplay loop they can engage in.

There is a big gap between “PCs and NPCs use the same mechanics” and “basic rules for functionality can’t be understood by players”. Exhibit A is that “monstrous” enemies AREN’T built using PC mechanics yet no one is arguing that their abilities can’t be functionally understood by players.

 

[TwoSix]

I just don't see a meaningful difference there. The fictional space is defined by the rules. I don't especially mind PCs as exceptional, if that's the desired trope, but I don't think it resolves the question, it features while new questions about how the PC is exceptional, what they are exceptional compared to, how their abilities relate to the standard paradigm and so on. I mean, there's no reason you can't build mechanics that support acolytes having access to only a few quite specific miracles (I'd use something like a feat chain, depending on your games chassis), but you'd still want that character to be defined by the rules in a knowable way, not a black box that's defined entirely by it's outputs.

I mean, that's definitely where we disagree. The fictional space is defined by my (and the players') imagination, although it's generally bounded to within a structure that doesn't overtly conflict with the game engine's core. I'm not going to make a no-magic game using 5e, for example, as that's just wasting a large part of the game's designed rules.

The further you lean into the exceptionalism of everything and everybody the PCs interact with, the less the fictional world and mechanics overlap and the less usefully gameable the space is. Plus it all feels increasingly artificial and disconnected. The wizard tower's defenses aren't a product of the same magic your wizard uses, it's all just set pieces. Mechanical consistency, the ability to exist and function with PC eyes on a thing make are essential to giving the thing weight and making it interesting.

I'm totally fine with that being true within your own games. But my own anecdotal experience is the opposite, as the players seem more engaged when the presentation of special abilities derives purely from the narrative, rather than simply deriving from the use of extant (and familiar) build options.

 

[Lanefan]

I have yet to have a player at a table I was sitting at ask why they can’t do what a NPC does.

I've both seen that player and been that player, at different times.

Many play video games where this sort of design philosophy is highly prevalent.

That's probably a big difference between us, then: pretty much none of our crew come from a video-gaming background (unless you count early-80s coin-ops) and thus we get to largely ignore that design influence.

 

[bloodtide]

Are you arguing for or against "NPCs should be built by the same rules as PCs"?

No. As part of the game NPC don't have to follow the same rules as the PCs. Or maybe to put it better: The GM does not follow the game rules like player follow game rules.

True, but such a thing is to me a far better explanation of why that NPC has that ability than, "I wanted them to have it" or "it works well with the encounter I designed" or the even worse "I wanted to crank up the drama for this scene".

Remember we are only talking about the top 10% of NPCs.

I have Jotn the Innkeeper...who is immune to charm spells. I just say so and the game moves on. Until one hostile player climbs up on a High D20 and demands to know "how, by the offical rules" the innkeeper has that ability. So then I make up a full character write up, "using the offical rules" and make Jotn immune to charm spells. So now the player is all "happy" as they know all the "rules" that give the innkeeper that one ability.

And for a good DM this does not matter....as the DM could have just added the "whatever" in an obvious way. Like the Innkeeper is a constrict....so is immune to charm.

Since the principal argument against NPCs being built differently is consistency, it seems even a few NPCs built differently wouldn’t be acceptable to those who want NPCs and PCs built the same way.

Except the flaw is NPC don't have to be built like PCs. Even more so, combat ones.

You can make an "unplayable" character that is a one trick pony in most rule systems easy enough. Oh, the character just takes whatever to get a +4 trip attacks at the expensive of everything else. You can put that five in constitution, as you don't care about the NPCs HPs....just make that Dexterity a high number. Or oh...look the character is a half hill giant/half troll with a massive build penetaily.....but who cares, the NPC just bashes with a club.

 

[Lanefan]

And I'm saying, any ruleset where NPCs are built using only (and precisely) identical rules to what PCs are built with will, necessarily, be what you describe here--that is, so long as the game has sufficient complexity to actually offer interesting character-building choices, of course. A trivial game avoids this problem...and is trivial, which is pretty clearly even worse.

When someone says, "NPCs should be built using the same rules as PCs" they are explicitly meaning identical rules. Not "mostly similar rules, with a few exceptions," they say "same" and they mean it.

They need to fit in to what a PC can be and-or do, yes, regardless of how you actually go about "building" them.

And being restricted to exclusively rules identical to what PCs use is a recipe for many, many problems solely to have slightly more verisimilitude purely for the DM, because players have no idea whether a creature was built with PC rules or not.

Err...wha?

The players, IMO, ought to be able to (and IMO have a right to) assume their own characters are representative of the characters in the setting unless it has been made clearly obvious that they are not (e.g. the PCs are all aliens).

Given that, it's also a pretty obvious corollary assumption that the DM has built her NPCs - no matter what method of doing so she uses - so as to fit within the same parameters and limits as the players have to observe when rolling up their characters.

That said, I note you use the word "creature" in there. For about the seventh time this thread I'll repeat: this doesn't apply to non-PC-playable monsters.

 

[Lanefan]

Is this really a problem? I've literally never, in any game I've ever played or run, had a player respond like that. Much the reverse, in fact; as players we enjoy being surprised and wouldn't even consider demanding to play a monstrous being. Wouldn't this mean you couldn't have ancient dragons, because players would want to play ancient dragons if you used them? Etc.

Facepalm.

Eighth time: this only applies to species that are PC-playable. If dragons aren't playable as PCs in your game then you can design 'em any old way you like.

But if Dwarves are playable as PCs then NPC Dwarves need to observe the same limitations as PC Dwarves.

Does this happen with any degree of regularity? Is this actually an issue or is it a theoretical possibility one wishes to leave open?

Yes to all. I've had NPCs become PCs, PCs become NPCs, yes it's an issue, and it's also a door I want to have and leave open.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure on what this means. This sounds like a case where the NPC is allied with the PCs, and would need to be converted to a PC, perhaps on character death?

The most common is henches being promoted to full party members.

I've also given non-hench adventuring NPCs over when a player has asked to take them on as a PC.

I also want the means to explain the existence of all the as-yet-unmet replacement PCs booting around in the setting (of which sometimes there need to be quite a few!).

I mean, I would either say "Sure", and let them play the NPC block, or say "This character doesn't make sense as a PC, and I need them to stay an NPC." If I'm converting a PC to an NPC (for some reason), I would just not adjust their stat block.

Most common reason for that is a player leaves the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly. I mean, if you accept the idea that "the world doesn't revolve around the PCs" and "the setting functions independently of the PC's presence", then the obvious extrapolation is that NPCs are just as likely to be the target of unique events and special boons as the PCs. Just because an NPC was the lucky recipient of a 1-in-1000 chance of something happening doesn't mean your PC is just as lucky.

Sure, and I'm fine with this. Wild magic surges can happen to anyone.

If there's either or both of a) an in-game explanation for what the NPC did that the PCs could eventually learn if they really wanted to or b) a means for the PCs to replicate whatever the NPC did, no problem.

It's the whole "just do whatever seems cool" argument with no underlying in-game rationale behind it that gets in my craw.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I don't think we disagree on that point; I just don't see why it's a necessity for the players to be able to extrapolate from the character building rules into what would be present in the setting.

All of the NPCs in my setting have the 6 abilities, they all exist within (generally) within the normal parameters of the 3-18 paradigm. They all have proficiencies, they all have attack bonus and defenses and stat checks within what one would expect for their "level". Nothing prevents them from engaging within ad-hoc situations.

The PCs just can't assume that because the acolyte at the temple can cast guardian of faith, they also have 4 1st, 3 2nd, and 3 3rd level slots, from which they will be able to choose from a menu of roughly between 13-18 other divine spells. Because "cleric" is just a piece of game jargon in my games, not something used within the fictional space.

Ah, that's a difference between us: for me, Cleric is very much a thing within the fictional space; and if a Cleric can cast Guardian of Faith then people in the fiction who know a bit about Clerics (including almost all seasoned adventurers) have every reason to expect she can cast various other common Clerical spells up to and including the same degree of difficulty (i.e. spell level) as GoF.