Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[Dannyalcatraz]

For anyone who played AD&D in the past or even now, is the exception-based monster design in it a problem, or is its monster design perceived as different in some way?

To me- playing all editions since '77- I just never liked the idea of NPCs having access to something the PCs never could unless there was a specific and meaningful (non-arbitrary) plot based reason for it- an item that requires a particular bloodline to activate, for instance.

Also, as I stated before, its easier (for me at least) to balance encounters when all of the NPCs go through the same "accounting procedures" as do PCs.

 

[Shining Dragon]

Its nice for the DM to have a set of rules to fast-track NPC creation.

If a DM wants to fully stat out an NPC, their are the character creation rules available.

 

[Khairn]

Speak for yourself-as a DM and a player, I'm 100% in favor of one unified system covering both PCs and NPCs.

I'm thoroughly satisfied with the amount of time it takes to generate NPCs by standard rulsets, even in games like HERO, because I can see the balance, I can see where problems might arise, and I get exactly the NPC I want.

If I want to, I can always pare things down, use standardized equipment lists, etc.

Agreed. A single system for PC's and NPC's is my preference as well.

 

[Slife]

Difficult question to answer.

I don't like there to be an artificial distinction between "monsters" and the holy chosen PCs. Both of them exist within a world that goes on regardless of their success or not in my view. Neither is automatically better or worse than the other, and I don't really care for treating non-PCs as "monsters" like in 2e or now a wierd shade of that in 4e that seems to relegate anything not a PC to an automatic lesser status as I read it. Not my cup of tea.

That said, as a DM I'll break or ignore the rules for particular NPCs if it makes for a more enjoyable game and a better advancement of campaign plot. Regardless of the rules I'll give abilities to NPCs as it applies to the character, regardless of what the rules care to say that I can or can't do. Rules lawyers would despise me I think.

Agreed.


At the risk of creating an internet backdraft by mentioning video games, one of the things I most liked in Final Fantasy Tactics was that all but a handful of enemies were not only built with the same rules as your party, but also recruitable.

I don't like the explanation that "you can't do that because you're a player character". Creating NPCs with the same rules makes this impossible. I have no problem with the creation of houserules, such as "selling your soul to Mammon gives you 1/day flesh to gold, and +4 int". If the villain did that... fine.

 

[jdrakeh]

No, the first statement is an absolute--> Conditions A & B cannot coexist.

I know. I tried to edit my earlier post to indicate that I missed a portion of a post from somebody on my ignore list that put your initial post in the appropriate context. However. . . the EN2 forums aren't working properly, as they showed the edited post on my end but, apparently, didn't apply those changes.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I like fully-fleshed out NPCs that follow the same rules as PCs. It leads to maximum possible characteriztion.

Minutely developing an NPC gives me plot ideas that I would never have even considered without that level of detail. For me, the game statistics can help define the personality: I find this an enormous aid to role-playing.

 

[Nifft]

What should be fair: player expectations.

What need not be fair: anything else.

- - -

Mimics, gas spores and nilbogs are examples of bad monster exceptions. They rely on betraying player expectations as their shtick. (Of course, they've been in the game for so long they have probably shaped the expectations of many players.)

The core 3.5e monster "cat" being allowed to use its Dexterity to climb (in place of Strength)? That's just fine, even if no PC is ever allowed to get the same benefit.

An interesting borderline case is the Jovoc: a small demon that has an aura which damages enemies every time it gets hurt, and also has fast healing. IMHO it's a fair monster if the DM somehow alerts the players that it has a constant self-healing ability.

Cheers, -- N

 

[rounser]

Mimics, gas spores and nilbogs are examples of bad monster exceptions. They rely on betraying player expectations as their shtick.

But...but...what on earth is wrong with that? The real world is full of such things that look like something, but aren't.

The whole game balance as political correctness thing seems to have really infected thinking about D&D.

To follow your line of thought about expectations, the PCs should also never be betrayed, never be lied to, never find a twist in the plot. In fact, they shouldn't be told a joke, either - there might be a surprise in punchline.

 

[Nifft]

But...but...what on earth is wrong with that? The real world is full of such things that look like something, but aren't.

While this is true, it's not exactly applicable: we don't have animals that look like artificial structures, who survive exclusively off of human explorers (because other animals don't pay much attention to treasure chests). The mimic is a monster aimed directly at PCs.

Because I grew up with them, I do have a bit of a soft spot for the utterly implausible buggers, but I can't excuse their designer: he took the easy way out.

The whole game balance as political correctness thing seems to have really infected thinking about D&D.

My "bad monster" list has nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with making players feel stupid. Not PCs: players.

Violating expectations as a gimmick is a cheap trick.

It's far more rewarding IMHO to make players go "OH CRAP!" when they realize a monster has good synergy in its visible abilities -- for example, a group of Jovocs -- than it is to spring some secret unexpectable ability on them.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

To follow your line of thought about expectations, the PCs should also never be betrayed, never be lied to, never find a twist in the plot. In fact, they shouldn't be told a joke, either - there might be a surprise in punchline.

You know that's not my point.

-- N