Should NPCs Have to Follow the Same Rules as PCs?

[Agamon]

For those still traversing the Paizo boards, maybe pass along a suggestion: PF GM's should be called Accountants. Cause if I learned anything from Monty Python, it's that accounting is exciting and fun.

*no offense meant to actual accountants...

 

[RFisher]

This is one of those things that really kept me from getting the most out of the game when I was younger. I had a very simulationist bent, and I too often tended towards the “if it isn’t explicitly permitted, it’s prohibited” mindset.

I’ve found I enjoy the game a lot more since I’ve tried to move away from that.

In other words, if I’m DM, don’t expect my NPCs to always follow the letter of the PC law.

 

[rounser]

While this is true, it's not exactly applicable: we don't have animals that look like artificial structures,

Well, we have moths that are adapted specifically to smog-covered cities, and their particular shade of grey would get them eaten in the wild.

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.

...and your point is?

D&D is not sim-evolution. It's quite possible that some mad mage created one of these things as his pet, it got loose, they began to multiply etc.

With plenty of polymorph and shapechange magic about, I'm quite happy to accept the mimic, regardless of what it looks like through the metagame. The in-game explanations for it are very solid if spared a moment's thought.

May as well ban owlbears. Dragons don't make sense either, you know.

 

[DwarvenDog]

This is a difficult question for me as well.

I like my NPC's to have a certain leeway with what resources they have available, what they know, and what they can bring to the table for/againat the PC's. However, in running a game I am trying to create the sense of a consistent world.

If the kobold in Mouseferatu's post (able to cast raise dead) were merely able to use "raise dead" on an off-scene event (to trigger a plot, for example, where a PC's nemesis is brought back to life) I'd have no problem with it. There's no consequense other than plot. If the kobold couldn't raise the nemesis, I'd have somebody else do it.

However, if the kobold with raise dead were using it throughout an adventure, bringing back its tribe as the PC's advanced to wipe them out, this causes some issues for me. The PC's will rightly wonder "how is he doing this?" and let's say they figure out he is casting raise dead over and over. There are obvious questions that follow... like, how do we prepare against this high-level spellcaster? How is he obtaining the riches needed for this casting? If we defeat him quickly, perhaps these riches can be ours? (I'm talking in 3E-speak because I don't know how the rules for raise dead work in 4E)

But from the DM's side of the screen, this kobold is just a low level dude who can cast a high-level spell. So the PC's over-prepare, find no riches related to raise dead, and are unsure why thiings went so differently than expected.

What the players take away from this sort of thing is a sense that they can't trust in their knowledge of "how the world works" enough to guide their tactics. I have found that when the players can't rely on a consistent setting, they are less invested in that setting. As a DM, I really don't want that.

 

[Umbran]

Thinking in the larger scope - for games in general, rather than for D&D in particular... I don't think there's a general need for this, no. I think the choice should be made by the designers of a system, to enhance how they want the game to play.

For D&D in particluar - I also see no such need. For most of the life of the game, most of the NPCs are "monsters" who certainly work by different rules than the PCs. I see no compelling argument that this needs to change to make the game fun.

 

[Shadeydm]

Very much yes.
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.

This

 

[Snoweel]

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.

What's stopping your 'me too!' PCs from clutching at this restriction as a sign of unfairness though?

Players should understand that since fate favours them (adventures - and indeed life - is designed for them to win) then the DM should be within his rights to restrict NPC-only character choices to NPCs (eg. certain feats, races, powers, alignments).

Otherwise where do you draw the line?

Allowing PCs to become Disciples of Orcus or take the Blessed of Lolth feat or play Vampires, just because they're fighting NPCs who have these options could lead to the sort of game the DM isn't interested in running.

Not to mention the way many powers and abilities just can't be balanced on a per-encounter basis (ie. NPCs) while remaining balanced on the Player Character level.

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.

"For you at least"?

Really?

How exactly is it easier balancing an NPC for an encounter (where Daily powers are essentially Encounter powers) while at the same time going through the mountain of work required to balance them against PCs through the course of a campaign?

 

[Snoweel]

This is one of those things that really kept me from getting the most out of the game when I was younger. I had a very simulationist bent, and I too often tended towards the “if it isn’t explicitly permitted, it’s prohibited” mindset.

I’ve found I enjoy the game a lot more since I’ve tried to move away from that.

Me too.

This obsession with NPCs following the same rules as PCs is another symptom of the same mindset that causes poor DMs to try to make their setting (and they always go on about how detailed it is) the star of the show, rather than the PCs.

I used to be married to my homebrew and couldn't understand why my players were less than thrilled at MY RICHLY DETAILED SETTING that relegated them to passenger status.

When I finally learned to murder my darlings my players had a lot more fun, and I had a lot more time to focus on those elements that would come into play.

 

[Snoweel]

This is a difficult question for me as well.

I like my NPC's to have a certain leeway with what resources they have available, what they know, and what they can bring to the table for/againat the PC's. However, in running a game I am trying to create the sense of a consistent world.

If the kobold in Mouseferatu's post (able to cast raise dead) were merely able to use "raise dead" on an off-scene event (to trigger a plot, for example, where a PC's nemesis is brought back to life) I'd have no problem with it. There's no consequense other than plot. If the kobold couldn't raise the nemesis, I'd have somebody else do it.

However, if the kobold with raise dead were using it throughout an adventure, bringing back its tribe as the PC's advanced to wipe them out, this causes some issues for me. The PC's will rightly wonder "how is he doing this?" and let's say they figure out he is casting raise dead over and over. There are obvious questions that follow... like, how do we prepare against this high-level spellcaster? How is he obtaining the riches needed for this casting? If we defeat him quickly, perhaps these riches can be ours? (I'm talking in 3E-speak because I don't know how the rules for raise dead work in 4E)

But from the DM's side of the screen, this kobold is just a low level dude who can cast a high-level spell. So the PC's over-prepare, find no riches related to raise dead, and are unsure why thiings went so differently than expected.

What the players take away from this sort of thing is a sense that they can't trust in their knowledge of "how the world works" enough to guide their tactics. I have found that when the players can't rely on a consistent setting, they are less invested in that setting. As a DM, I really don't want that.

Do you lead your players to believe they know everything about how magic works in the setting? That the PHB is the entirety of how magic works in the world?

 

[Obryn]

I'd say that modifying monsters and creating NPCs, more than anything else, turned me off of DMing 3.5.

It was way more work than it needed to be, for a character who really would only use 2-3 of their abilities over a 5 round fight.

4e's vastly streamlined this process, and this fact - more than anything else - is why I'm enjoying running it. I can concentrate on the important stuff, not worrying what feat that guy took at 4th level.

-O