Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[Jack99]

But creating NPCs that can do things that no PC can ever learn to do is unfair to the players; it's like the DM telling them, "my characters are more special than you because they can do things your characters can never do."

First of all, let me say that I have a lot of respect for your work, and grats on landing a job with Pathfinder, it sounds like a perfect fit.

When that is said, I have got to ask - Have you honestly ever experienced that any player felt that way? If so, was said player over 18 years old? Because, to me, that kind of reaction sounds extremely immature, and could well be attributed to younger people.

I know that some people whine about it on messageboards, but as we all know, the interweb tends to bring out the worst in people, and when it comes down to it all, a lot of what is complained about here, stays here, simply because people know they are going to look silly if ever put forth in RL.

 

[Ximenes088]

In my world, the rules for PC creation and development represent the optimal path for a hero. Other entities and combatants might have their own suite of tricks, but they either don't ultimately equal the flexibility and potential of the PC route, or they require backgrounds or sacrifices that no PC would reasonably make- at least, no PC I want to run a game for. Yes, city guards can do a halberd-hook at-will power, but that's because it's the only thing their training is good for, and their training is incompatible with the PC's own. Yes, the BBEG can summon flaming serpents from Hell at-will, but that's because he sold his soul to a devil. And no, you can't learn how to garrote people the same way a bugbear strangler does, because their god originally blessed their ancestors with a supernatural talent for it that non-bugbears will never learn. And if the PC _is_ a bugbear and does somehow want to revolve his concept around strangling people, then I'll work with that.

But under no circumstances am I going to fork over some BBEG's unique power because some 3.5-minded PC is demanding to know what the feat chain to get it is. The world is big and scary and PCs- and players- have a mechanically perfect grasp of only their small corner of it.

 

[BryonD]

This is something that I think is a "big shift" in 4e, and one that I also think is a big shift back to the original way of the game...

3e's almost "obsessed" need to have a rules explanation for almost everything that could be done, seemed to force people in a way to "metagme think."

Oh, he can cast raise dead? We'd better be carefull... Became "He can cast raise dead? he must be an X level priest, so we'd better watch out for X abilities.

One of the things that really peved me off about 3e actually... it let the "rules lawyers" assume too much power.

"He can't do that he's obviously not an X level kobold priest!!!"

I'm hoping once people get used to the system. (re used to the system) it will once again get back to: "Oh man, watch out, he can do something nasty..."

It sounds to me like you played with some pretty bad groups. I don't recognize what you describe as 3E at all. Self-imposed barriers are not the fault of the system, because the system absolutely does not require any of this.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It sounds to me like you played with some pretty bad groups. I don't recognize what you describe as 3E at all. Self-imposed barriers are not the fault of the system, because the system absolutely does not require any of this.

I don't know. If a game leads me to do "X", and others playing the game don't do "X", is that a self-imposed barrier? If I don't like "Y" in a game, is it a self-imposed barrier if others like it?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Aah nostalgia... I still remember you sharing how you got your username.

Most one-sided deathmatch ever, right?

Something like that.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm coming around to "No, NPCs don't need to follow the same creation rules as PCs, but should at least maintain the illusion that they do." In other words, if they have an ability that PCs can't have, or can't have at that level, there should be a reason for it. If the human wizard with nothing oh so special about him can cast an iceball spell, then other human wizards with nothing special shouldn't be barred from learning that same iceball spell. If the human wizard is a Legate of Ymir or something, on the other hand, the iceball might be a supernatural gift that other wizards might not be able to duplicate.

I think this is an excellent point. The rules might give you as a DM the ability to create whatever NPCs you want, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect the verisimilitude of your own campaign setting. If you create a wizard college that the PC wizard can join, and this college has a signature spell that all the NPC wizards have, that power should be available to the PC, also. But the 2nd level kobold can have raise dead as an at-will power, if you want, because it's easy to rationalize as a gift of Tiamat, or a demonic possession, or whatever else you want to explain it as. The key to designing NPCs is fitting them to the expectations the player has for the story.

 

[seankreynolds]

There's this. Plus there's the fact that "the villain empowered by the ancient ritual/evil god/unholy artifact/forgotten lore/vile mutation," and thus able to do something nobody else can, is an absolute trope of fantasy.
While I agree that the average NPC should probably not be able to do things that the PCs absolutely never could, I don't think allowing such an exception where appropriate is at all a bad thing.

I agree.

More like:
It's not fair if NPCs wizards can raise undead and PCs can't?
It's not fair if NPCs soldiers can use their halberd to trip every round and PCs can't? (Not sure if that is correct as I can't find the preview document here anymore)

Yes, that's what I mean.

When that is said, I have got to ask - Have you honestly ever experienced that any player felt that way? If so, was said player over 18 years old? Because, to me, that kind of reaction sounds extremely immature, and could well be attributed to younger people.

Remember that as "Greyhawk guy" and then "Forgotten Realms guy," I got tons and tons and tons of feedback (particularly about FR NPCs) from players & DMs who thought it was very cheesy that when official TSR people statted out official TSR novel characters, in many cases these NPCs ended up with unique powers that couldn't be explained by their class and level, and were things that no PC could ever do (like 2e Drizzt's ability to instantly kill a target when he rolled a 20, not to mention his illegal class combination). I don't have data on their age or maturity level, but I think it's a valid complaint that NPCs that flagrantly break the rules (rules that the PCs have to live by) is cheesy and lazy. To point back at Mouseferatu's post, I do believe there are exceptions, but when you're talking about a nonmagical character that's able to do crazy things outside the rules, and it has nothing to do with a unique bloodline, artifact, demonic pact, or mutation, the equivalent nonmagical PC (who can't do those crazy things) is less cool by comparison. And the PCs are supposed to be the stars of the show.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

To point back at Mouseferatu's post, I do believe there are exceptions, but when you're talking about a nonmagical character that's able to do crazy things outside the rules, and it has nothing to do with a unique bloodline, artifact, demonic pact, or mutation, the equivalent nonmagical PC (who can't do those crazy things) is less cool by comparison. And the PCs are supposed to be the stars of the show.

But, in what I've seen so far in running the game, all the things that non-magical creatures do in 4E seem to be easily explainable as things that some martial class character can do at some point, though usually something at a slightly higher level and, then the PCs do it, much more effectively.

There are a very few exceptions in what the NPCs do, and these could be mimicked by an Ability Mod. vs. Def. check, or perhaps an attack followed up, with the help of an action point, by such a check.

As an aid to the story, I'd be willing to let a PC abandon all the benefits of going up in levels to train exclusively in one combat technique. I am assuming that PCs are either training in some specific style or haphazardly developing their own style. In any case, their pursuit of that style put different combat maneuvers at different places and in different ways in their development.

But all this is a gloss on what the heroes of the story do, not what physical bodies do given the laws of physics and biology. NPC abilities are supposed to be cool because they are something the PCs overcome, not because they are something the PCs master. I'm willing to let PCs do any number of maneuvers, described in any number of ways, as long as in the end it comes down, mechanically, to whatever feats and powers they have. A fighter can strike brutally all day long but, storywise, he only performs a truly Brutal Strike once per day. If a player thinks an NPC maneuver is cool, then that player can describe an existing power (or ability check) in this way.

 

[wally]

I kind of like the idea of playing in a game where a low-level kobold can start raising his minions at will.

When my character got back to town I would have a little chat with the local priest. "What do you mean you can't raise dead?! We easily beat a kobold out in the wilderness who could. Are you worse than a kobold? Maybe I should start worshipping his god if yours is so weak!"

Sounds like there could be a lot of fun starting a religious war.

-wally

 

[Jhaelen]

It sounds to me like you played with some pretty bad groups. I don't recognize what you describe as 3E at all.

Well, I've experienced exactly the same thing in my 3E group and I wouldn't say it's a bad group at all.
There's lots of metagame thinking and talking going on but it's clearly separated from in-game speaking and (mostly) actions. They accept abilities they cannot explain during play, but they'll typically ask me about them after the session: 'How did they do this?' More often than not, I feel it's better if I can tell them that everything that happened can be explained within the game rules, i.e. it was a feat/spell/item that allowed them to do it.

Self-imposed barriers are not the fault of the system, because the system absolutely does not require any of this.

'Require' is a bit too strong a word for this. I'd say the system encourages it, though. Since there are quite clear rules for everything, players expect them to be applied to everything, including npcs.

In fact that's one of the main points that initially drew me to 3E: identical rules for monsters, npcs and player characters. As years went by and the campaign progressed into higher levels I began to realize the disadvantages of this approach.

The 4E approach also has disadvantages, though. I dislike that there is no way to tell if a monster's stats are exactly as intended or in error. Unless something is blatantly out of order, every deviation from the design guidelines can be explained away by exceptional design.

Good for the 4E designers, bad for DMs:
I can always change statblocks if I feel they're in error, but comparing stat blocks to the guidelines to make sure they're not in error is exactly the kind of thing the new approach was supposed to render unnecessary.
Errors like the hill giant's damage don't exactly help to make me trust the stat blocks.