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

[kigmatzomat]

How often do players demand to learn Rary's Double Jeopardy Laser Grid in situations not constructed to win this specific argument?

Just gonna say that for 25+ years, a common feature of our games is "take the weird thing the NPC had and deconstruct it". This applied to DnD, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Mage, Runequest, EarthDawn, etc, etc.

The default answer when the GM didn't want us to have it is usually "sacrifices most vile", and then we see if we can find a way where a voluntary sacrifice makes sense. Mostly the answer was "no" but every so often we did find a way.

Like, we found a Dragon golem that was fed maidens to raid other kingdoms. (GM loved reinterpreted tropes) We re-enchanted it so it would defend a kingdom, but only when a royal sacrificed themselves willingly and knowingly. That royal would be the animating spirit & sentience of the golem until they ran dry.

 

[Lanefan]

Seems like an odd demand that the DM has to be so defensive and say "ok, look here on this page" and the hostile players look over the page to approve of what the DM is doing.
"Ok...DM....page 111 says constructs are immune to charm....so we will drop this...for now " just does not make for great game play.

And guess your saying you refuse to have any homebrew ever.....and that's a bit harsh.

Au contraire - homebrew rules are every bit as much rules as those in the books, says he whose almost-entire game system is homebrew.

That is my point though. When you have hostile players who are doing the "attack the DM game" all the time, the wise DM just stops their attack before it even happens.

By narrating properly? If so, sounds good to me.

 

[Aldarc]

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

How often does it come up?

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.

I would not attribute this difference in design preferences to video games alone. I'm just saying that many of us are no stranger to this sort of design elsewhere.

 

[The Stray]

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.

And for the millionth time:

No they do not.

That may be your preference, but this is not a requirement. And it's bad game-design to expect it to be so.

for Gygax's sake, can you please stop asserting your preferences as universal axioms that must be followed from on high!? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Translation: "Just because."

 

[TwoSix]

And for the millionth time:

No they do not.

That may be your preference, but this is not a requirement. And it's bad game-design to expect it to be so.

for Gygax's sake, can you please stop asserting your preferences as universal axioms that must be followed from on high!? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

To be fair, the thread topic is “Should NPCs be built like PCs”. Asserting a normative preference should generally be OK if the thread topic is asking you to do that.

 

[The Stray]

To be fair, the thread topic is “Should NPCs be built like PCs”. Asserting a normative preference should generally be OK if the thread topic is asking you to do that.

Asserting a normative preference, fine, make the argument. But it would be nice if @Lanefan would stop talking down to people as if they don't understand/didn't hear him. I've been gaming since 1996, I think I know a thing or two about what I'm talking about my own self when I disagree with his position.

 

[aco175]

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.

Remember how much easier things were back when you could not play monsters. Now we have threads about how my snakeman walks into a bar with the rabbitman and the hippoman. Seems like there is a joke somewhere in this.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If I were to restrict myself to only giving "monster" NPCs non-PC abilities, then I'd only be able to do that for the most extreme monster types. Generally speaking, if a player asks to play a monster, it's a reasonable request, and I have the time to stat it up, I'll allow it. Sometimes this happens in the middle of a campaign, after a character death.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The innkeeper's mechanical derivation for me has to do with "he has it because I say so" versus "he has it as a species ability" or "he has it from a ring he kept from his adventuring days". Both of the latter I, as DM, can build in to that particular NPC if his being immune to charm was likely to be a major plot element. Both an ability or a magic items are things a PC could learn about. "Because the DM said so" or "because the 5e stat block says so", has less of a RP element, unless I make it up on the spot where it actually derives, imo.

Or he’s a fey creature. Or he’s a rakhasa. Or he was affected by a wild surge in his youth. Or he was born that way: a sorcerer bloodline whose only feature is protection from charm. You could play one, but why would you want to play a sorcereer class without spells. Or he did a favour for a celestial and got an epic boon.

Edit. Forgot construct.