What I don't get RE: FR and High Level NPC's

[drothgery]

On the subject of Star Wars... I had heard that Saga stats up a few of the movie characters as fairly low level. Am I inventing memories, or is that the case?

Hmm... the game caps out at 20th level. Yoda's 20th, the Emperor's 20th, Vader's 19th. Everyone else was somewhat lower level, though, and I can't remember the exact details.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I´m afraid i´ve run into lot´s of people in "meatspace" so to speak, that share the "OMG Elminster WTFBBQ he solves anything" mentality.
I can life with those NPCs but also have no problem if they change or are killed of. I own the version of the realms where they are alive.

 

[frankthedm]

As long as there are novels created for FR that are considered canon there is no escaping having larger than life NPCs. The novels rake in more money than the game products do so I do not think they are going anywhere. The reduction/redaction of some major NPCs will be a temporary measure new super NPCs will fill the void with every novel published. It is inevitable.

That is why what HAPPENS in the novels should be canon, but not WHO does it.

The Thousand Orcs go up against Drizzt in the novel, in the game setting; The Paragon level PCs are their foes

Eliminster in Hell is a fine idea for a novel, but in the Game setting it is better if the happenings are a Solo adventure for an epic level wizard.

 

[ruleslawyer]

That's kind of a loaded question. The topic at hand seems closer to "who keeps them all in check if there aren't as many powerful NPCs?"

For powerful NPCs to be a consistent problem in players' perception of how much they matter in the world, there are two factors at stake: magnitude, and frequency. The Forgotten Realms get the most flak for this sort of thing because there are both NPCs of orders of magnitude well above what the average campaign will ever see (unless I'm really misjudging just how many epic campaigns are out there), and there are lots of them, not just one or two. The Chosen of Mystra are probably being singled out in particular because not only are they really powerful, but there are so many of them that they have their own sub-grouping of "ways to be a really powerful NPC".

The optimal answer to the "who keeps the evil in check" question is typically "enough NPCs to just barely handle it, until a significant variable arises, then you need PCs." WotC, and many fans, likely feel that the FR currently have "more than enough NPCs to handle it", and are adjusting accordingly. The other solution would be to increase the level of evil threat so much that the current standard of NPCs is just barely holding it back, in which case I would assume the Forgotten Realms would wind up looking a lot like a heavy metal album cover. (Which would be kind of cool, but probably no more "like the Forgotten Realms" than a reduction in NPCs would be.)

Except, of course, that the perception that the Realms have "more than enough [good] NPCs to handle [evil]" is pretty demonstrably false; check out the list of potential threats I made upthread. The Chosen of Mystra are also an interesting bunch in that one of them (Sylune) is dead, two of them (Dove and Storm) have little to no significant magical ability, one of them (Qilue) is highly restricted in what she can do outside her domain, and one of them (the Simbul) shouldn't, under RAW, be able to ever leave Aglarond without the realm falling in mere minutes under the onslaught of the Red Wizards. So that leaves Laeral, Alustriel, Elminster, and Khelben; four epic-level wizards. The Shades have many times that in magical ability, as do the phaerimm. There are several named (evil) dragons in the Realms that are individually more powerful than either Laeral or Alustriel. So the idea of there being a power imbalance is extremely sketchy.

As to the general ubiquity of high-level NPCs: I agree that the Realms has too many of them, but the numbers are pretty evenly split on the good-evil axis, with the majority actually being neutral. So imbalance, or the potential for a new evil threat to go unopposed unless the PCs show up to deal with it, isn't really the problem; the players feeling that their PCs are "special enough" seems to be the problem.

 

[Barastrondo]

Except, of course, that the perception that the Realms have "more than enough [good] NPCs to handle [evil]" is pretty demonstrably false; check out the list of potential threats I made upthread.

Possibly so. I don't have a horse in this race (no business nor personal stake in the Realms getting better or worse), so I'm really only talking about perception as a third party observer. If it's demonstrably false, though, it just isn't being demonstrated in ways that are correcting the general perception. Me, I'd guess that WotC is in fact "demonstrating" the need for PCs to handle stuff the NPCs can't by this cull. In fact, it may end up that good and evil were balanced before and are balanced just as equally after the cull; the cull is to help deal with perception of the Realms as much as anything. (And maybe to have players matter more quickly in their level curve. I can only speculate.)

As to the general ubiquity of high-level NPCs: I agree that the Realms has too many of them, but the numbers are pretty evenly split on the good-evil axis, with the majority actually being neutral. So imbalance, or the potential for a new evil threat to go unopposed unless the PCs show up to deal with it, isn't really the problem; the players feeling that their PCs are "special enough" seems to be the problem.

Pretty much. I picked up the Volo's Guides back in the day (I had a weakness for food porn and Valerie Valusek illustrations, what can I say), and I was struck at how many NPCs with levels in the double digits there were in the setting — running businesses, hanging out in inns, doing all kinds of mundane stuff. Particularly mages; they seemed very disproportionate. And this was second edition — when the PCs would have to work at least twice as hard to get to the levels that these NPCs were achieving every other page. I can see where Eberron's explicit move away from a lot of high-level NPCs might have gotten its inspiration.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think Ed also went a little crazy with the high-level NPCs in 2e. There are a fair number of them in the original FR boxed set, but it really isn't until the FR Adventures hardcover that you suddenly not only see everyone gain 3-4 levels with each revision (which I guess is sorta logical, but a problem for PCs who see everyone else advancing to keep pace with them), but you also see "teen" level NPCs cropping up everywhere. My favorite example (and one that caused me to get out the Red Pen of DM Revision) was the replacement of the quite reasonable 1e Harpells (reigning village elder: 9th level) with the Harpells of Volo's Guide to the North (over a dozen Wiz14+!) and the equally reasonable Arcane Brotherhood (archmage 18th level, senior wizards 11th level) with a raft of 21+ level wizards and their dozens of "high teen" level underlings.

Interestingly, 3e actually reigned this in somewhat via simple retcon. I wish that they'd do the same with 4e, but oh well...

 

[Cyronax]

I think Ed also went a little crazy with the high-level NPCs in 2e. There are a fair number of them in the original FR boxed set, but it really isn't until the FR Adventures hardcover that you suddenly not only see everyone gain 3-4 levels with each revision (which I guess is sorta logical, but a problem for PCs who see everyone else advancing to keep pace with them), but you also see "teen" level NPCs cropping up everywhere. My favorite example (and one that caused me to get out the Red Pen of DM Revision) was the replacement of the quite reasonable 1e Harpells (reigning village elder: 9th level) with the Harpells of Volo's Guide to the North (over a dozen Wiz14+!) and the equally reasonable Arcane Brotherhood (archmage 18th level, senior wizards 11th level) with a raft of 21+ level wizards and their dozens of "high teen" level underlings.

Interestingly, 3e actually reigned this in somewhat via simple retcon. I wish that they'd do the same with 4e, but oh well...

I agree to a point, but I recently read through the old gray box FR from 1987 for the first time. I actually counted out which alignments had the most high level representatives.

It still was Elminster and the side of Good by much more than a nose. BUT, that said ... it was much more balanced and the thing I noticed about the evil/barbaric lands were that they vastly outnumbered the good guys/regions. So overall, that's not a bad thing. It just tilts FR in a slightly different direction than the very Balance-oriented Greyhawk (pre From the Ashes) or the dark and gritty feel of Eberron.

I've already said in this thread good things about that product, but damn it is a right proper setting. I daresay that it is a more complete world to run from than my beloved 1983 Greyhawk Boxed Set.

C.I.D.

 

[Cyronax]

Ah yes, the finality of death in a game with 4 separate spells to bring back the dead in the PHB alone. [/Tongue in cheek]

Heh ... raise dead is usually the only that has been realistically available in most of my campaigns. Its one of the few areas that I stray from core, but it has created the tension and the caution that I want (sometimes). On the flip side, the players are grateful, since they know that what is good for them is good for the villains. I tend not to bring back villains.

 

[Henry]

Eras outside the movie timeline are popular settings for Star Wars games, because the uber-NPCs of the movies (Vader, Yoda, Palpatine) aren't around. And Star Wars RPG fans on WotC's message boards have been pretty vocal about wanting support for campaigns in timelines with little canon and few uber-NPCs, like the Knights of the Old Republic era or the Legacy era.

There's also another point to note: There aren't nearly as many high-level NPCs in Star Wars as there are in the Realms. There's Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Lando, R2 and 3PO, Obi-wan, Yoda -- and that's about it. Obi-wan and Yoda are arguably the most powerful of the bunch, and both are in seclusion when the film opens. In the realms, I can name at least 15 good or good-disposed NPCs over 20th level, off the top of my head. I can probably name at least 20 Wizards at or over 15th level. I have always enjoyed these ladies and gents, partly because how well Ed Greenwood makes them come alive for me, but I do have to admit there's a LOT of them out there.

 

[Faraer]

It, however, reads to me as hollow words for anyone who knows anything about the setting.

The people who dismiss "The Concerns of the Mighty" are ones who've formed false impressions of the Realms from hearsay. Any kind of in-depth reading shows that that sidebar is an excellent but brief summary of a subtle, exquisitely complex, quite consistent milieu of high-level intrigue: everything in it is borne out directly in the lore.

Absolutely so. I've never understood it either - and certainly no on on ENWorld (or elsewhere) has ever put forth and even half-coherent argument as to why there might be a problem.

Over hundreds of these threads, I've not read one such argument that was either coherent or well informed. Perhaps even more strikingly, in every case the poster either claims this 'problem' is suffered by notional 'other people' or says how they cleverly fixed it in their campaign, usually by doing exactly what the sources suggest.

Of course, some people quite legitimately prefer settings with a thinner high-level stratum, where PCs get to be the biggest guys around more easily, but this shouldn't be confused with the utter Chinese-whispers fantasies others spread about the Realms.

. . . I don't for the life of me understand how anyone can reasonably expect people playing a game to be required to consult novels for purposes of reference.

Unfortunately, when a world built 'as if real' is often reduced in narrowly focused sourcebooks to a 'campaign milieu in which to base adventures and characters, place dungeons, etc.', basic information like what merchant caravans are like and why gates aren't used for large-scale trade get shunted into novels (here, Hand of Fire and Swords of Dragonfire).

My guess is that Ed originally wrote in all these folks without considering the effects of ubiquitous teleportation and divination effects.

Maybe in the 60s, but the published setting considers this thoroughly, assuming many counters to farscrying and translocation spells, such as wards, so that using them is often a difficult, even dangerous magical chess game (see, for instance, the section on guardianship magic in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical).

If it's demonstrably false, though, it just isn't being demonstrated in ways that are correcting the general perception.

Who knows what the general perception is? I'm not so pessimistic as to think a view without basis in the sources is so prevalent. But yes, Wizards have failed to take basic steps to amend these canards. I'll repost this example. In the lead-up to the 2001 FRCS, Rich Baker wrote:

Finally, we’ve decided to shift the spotlight of the game materials toward the player characters by highlighting villains, challenges, and adventure sites. This isn’t Elminster’s world. This is the world where your player characters are engaged in writing the story of their deeds, their defeats, and their triumphs.

But they didn't take the spotlight off Elminster. Instead, they formalized him as an 'iconic character', redesigned his look to be more active and adventurous, put him at the front of the setting book, kept his face on the Realms homepage and insisted that he introduce it over Alaundo, published two more novels and several short stories starring him and a short-story collection with him in the middle of the cover, led the promotion of an adventure with his tower exploding...

So when it's claimed that new and severe fixes are needed, when obvious and long-called-for ones weren't tried, who, in the light of this publishing history, is convinced?

As far as I'm concerned, the FR campaign setting itself isn't canon. The DM is free to do what he likes with it.

This being Ed Greenwood's own attitude, which he made clear through the framing devices of the original Dragon articles and the Old Grey Box. Wizards decided to stop using these devices, instead promoting their novel-driven official timeline, and now say some people worry about canon too much!

With so many high level NPCs, every plot seems to revolve around saving the realms from evil on an epic scale (One could argue that is the whole point of the FR books, but I digress).

This is nothing more or less than the downward spiral the books department made for itself when Elminster's popularity as a sage led to his being statted in Dragon #110 then misused as a novel protagonist over Ed's own favoured heroes, and the popularity of the Avatar trilogy set an appetite for End of All-type extravaganzas in direct contradiction to the Realms' natural focus on local concerns, down-and-dirty intrigues, and humanist sword and sorcery adventure.

Yeah, the problem with FR isn't that high-level NPCs exist. It's that you can't throw a dead rat without hitting one.

The merest glance at the scale of the map shows this isn't distantly true.

I think Ed also went a little crazy with the high-level NPCs in 2e. There are a fair number of them in the original FR boxed set, but it really isn't until the FR Adventures hardcover that you suddenly not only see everyone gain 3-4 levels with each revision

In fact, Ed was reluctant to give NPC stats at all, thus the recommendation in the DM's Sourcebook that they be freely adjusted for the particular campaign. The levels in Forgotten Realms Adventures were contributed by Jeff Grubb, and most of those in the Volo's Guides were added in by the editors. This is just the level scale inflating as it always does, not a specifically Realms thing at all.