Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[Jackelope King]

Yes and no.

All of the characters, PC or NPC, who share a game world should use the same basic rules for creating them.

However, this is assuming that the rules for creating the PCs are flexible enough to cover everything from human fighters to ancient golden wyrms. If not, then NPCs/monsters need special rules.

And even assuming that the system for creating PCs is sufficient for creating the NPCs a GM needs, a GM still needs to be able to churn out NPCs/monsters who aren't going to be around longer than William Henry Harrison. There need to be short-cuts a GM can use to rapidly create NPCs/monsters. These short-cuts might not be appropriate for PCs, but so long as they reasonably approximate PCs, then it's still fine.

But those are ideals. I've pulled NPCs out of thin air more than a few times. It's why I've come to love M&M: I just pick a power level for the bad guy, figure out if he has any trade-offs, and then all of his attacks and defenses basically decide themselves.

 

[billd91]

I prefer my NPCs to follow the same basic rules. Whether or not I fully develop the NPC according to them is a completely different question. But the parts I do develop, I should follow the same rules. That's my preference.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As many others here have said, I vastly prefer NPCs to have the same BASE rules of PCs, that I can then tweak or choose not to fill *everything* out in.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm a big believer in the idea that the only rule the DM has to follow is "Do whatever is best and most fun for the adventure and the campaign."

So if the adventure calls for a kobold who can create artifacts and cast raise dead, but is otherwise the equivalent of a 2nd-level character, that's what I'm going to create.

 

[Snoweel]

I think that's essential to the players sense of plausibility and continuity and fairness.

Fairness?!?

So do you think the PCs should have to face encounters where in almost every case the odds of survival are less than 50%?

Because that's what the vast majority of NPCs in the gameworld have to deal with.

The players get more than their share of 'fairness' - they have a DM balancing encounters for them; NPCs have no such luxury.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In 4e, NPCs follow similar rules to PCs. IMO, that's A-OK, and still better than 2e's "Hit Dice are the only stat that matters" philosophy.

The unified system for 3.x was one thing that attracted me to it, but it turned out to be too much work. I never want to stat up a 3.x mage again!

 

[CountPopeula]

It always annoyed me from a design stand-point that NPCs and Monsters followed a specific formula that was rather strictly enforced by publishers and fans. I always hated getting notes back about monsters or NPCs with things like "what point buy did you use for these attributes, they're all different" or "this character has 4 too many skill points, you need to fix this."

4e gives you some rough guidelines. Deconstruct some of the monsters in the MM and see how many fit into the construction guidelines.

I think it's both quicker and more fun when they don't follow the same rules. Not all fey have to have d6 hit dice anymore, so you can give a faerie more HP and not have to increase its skills, or vice versa. It's what works for the monsters now, not a rigid mathematical formula that must not be deviated from.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

As many others here have said, I vastly prefer NPCs to have the same BASE rules of PCs, that I can then tweak or choose not to fill *everything* out in.

This, because I want to be able to easily modify existing creatures without having to run a playtest to see if I've broken the game.

But I do want simple NPCs that only need enough interestign abilities to last for their time on stage.

 

[BryonD]

Very much yes.

I want stories that feature character that make themselves the heroes. Not stories where the characters are heroes because the rules said so.

I'm a big believer in the idea that the only rule the DM has to follow is "Do whatever is best and most fun for the adventure and the campaign."

So if the adventure calls for a kobold who can create artifacts and cast raise dead, but is otherwise the equivalent of a 2nd-level character, that's what I'm going to create.

The idea that this is a contradiction boggles me. I've had special case npcs dozens of times in 3E games. And yet the basic system of npcs and PCS working by the same rules persists quite excellently, keeping intact all the sense of the PCs being *part* of the world. 4E has jettisoned so much to "give" me something I already had. Very disappointing.

 

[Grazzt]

NPCs needn't follow the same rules as PCs. They should have whatever powers the DM wants to define for them. PCs benefit from a structure to manage their advancement, etc. over a longer period. This kind of thing for NPCs and monsters is just a waste of time.

What PJ said. Agreed.