Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Stray" data-source="post: 9147153" data-attributes="member: 21691">While this might be true, the problem isn't usually a setting problem. Again, this is a problem that comes down to the function of the NPC as they exist as a Doyalist game construct, not as they exist as a fictional representation of a being within the Watsonian dialectic. Game balance usually only exists in the space between NPCs/Monster and PCs, or between PCs and other PCs. NPCs do not need to be balanced against other NPCs and/or Monsters (if such a distinction is important to the ruleset in use), and NPCs have no niches to protect.Are you rolling mighty and epic battles of NPC vs. NPC against yourself on the regular, then? Because that sounds like a lot of tedious and potentially pointless work.And believe me, I get the temptation to do this (and rolled the odd attack roll or saving throw when I was unsure if a specific NPC could affect another one when constructing stories for prep work), but it was always in service to creating material that the players, at least, would eventually see, even if their characters didn't learn of the events until much later. But the occasional roll-off against myself is a far cry from considering them to being always on-screen just off-screen. Heck, sometimes when I'm doing this, I specifically want to show off a way a particular NPC is breaking the setting rules in some way, in order to foreshadow these abilities for the players who follow my incessant bluebooking.Sure, but this is still a cheat, isn't it? You'll still get results you wouldn't get doing a level-by-level build sometimes, it's just less noticeable because it doesn't tend to be in the NPC's favor.There's usually a clear difference between wangrod characters and wangrod players. If the other players are entertained by the joker, then it's not an issue. I suspect this is more a difference of philosophy than one of actual action, but we're not at each other's tables so I don't know.Ah, alrighty, I can see where that would be a problem, then.Well, they succeeded.</blockquote>

Verification