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

[Arnwyn]

I have never understood this argument. Not ever. There is nothing in any of the core rulebooks saying that the high level NPC's have to be used - or for that matter even brought up or introduced. Absolutely nothing. So if they are being used to "clean up PC messes" then ultimately whose fault is that? The high level NPC's? Or the DM's running the games?

If you're in a FR campaign and you're disgruntled or otherwise nonplussed because Elminster, Drizzt or the Simbul routinely rush in and crash the party and steal your fun... you need to take a step back and accurately assess that blame. It's poor DM'ing, folks - it doesn't stem from having high level NPC's. 'Nuking' Mystra's Chosen isn't going to correct poor DM'ing. Not ever.

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. (Not that that's surprising.)

Of course, considering the speed of leveling, the millions of square miles of the Realms combined with the population size and demographics, there are, in fact, not enough high level NPCs there. How 'bout that?


(Now, if someone wants to talk about how all the crappy RSE novels are poisoning the game world, I'm listening. Of course, the solution has certainly nothing to do with removing game world NPCs, and everything to do with wiping out all the ty novels that are vomited forth.)

but why in bloody hell are there high and epic level archmages in Saerloon?

Did poor Saerloon kick your dog or something? I kid! Isn't there, like, a giant temple of Azuth there - that, if not being the center of Azuth's faith, is one of the main bastions of his religion? I don't think anyone should be surprised there are high level mages there... :\

 

[ruleslawyer]

The problem with the Realms, IMO, is not the NPCs per se ... it's the novels impacting on the campaign setting. Novels sell with familiar, powerful characters and Realms-Shattering Events. By themselves this is not bad, but when the novels also become canon to the campaign setting you end up with a lot of machinations in the campaign setting. Plus the large number of novel fans represent a portion of the fanbase that expects to see novel-like continuity within the campaign. I think that portion is much smaller than projected, but it is there.

The gaming Realms would be better off if not impacted by the novel Realms, but since that is the relationship FR has grown into I don't see it changing.

Sums up my thoughts on the matter. My question is: "Since when *are* the novels "canon," anyway? I don't read them, and while I understand that some things that happen in the novels get mirrored in the game materials, 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.

This of course brings up the idea of "canon," which I find woefully inapplicable to gaming in general. D&D is a game of the imagination, and it has a Storyteller/DM role for several reasons. One of those reasons is to shape and flesh out the world through which the PCs journey, and that act is in itself about customizing prefab materials to fit the individual needs of the campaign.

Finally, on the high-level NPC thing in general: I will say this. Eberron may have no NPCs above 7th level, but if it weren't for the unique scenario of Khorvaire just having undergone a massive war in which all the higher-level folk were presumably killed off, this would come off just as problematic as the FR high-level NPCs situation, IMO. Why haven't the Lords of Dust, or the servants of the daelkyr, or the Blood of Vol just steamrollered over the continent and obtained their objectives? Balance of power works both ways. (It's also worth noting that Eberron *does* in fact have "good" high-level NPCs: The Chamber.)

The existence of high-level good NPCs in Faerun does serve to explain why the continent's nations, city-states, and so on were able to survive before the PCs arrived on the scene, and help preserve some notion of stability. The need for such NPCs is further bolstered by the fact that Faerun is also loaded with powerful evil NPCs. Assume for a second that the Chosen are busy with monitoring and warding against plots and incursions from:

-The drow cities of the Underdark
-The Red Wizards
-The phaerimm of Anauroch
-The alhoon, nagas, phaerimm, and devils of Myth Drannor
-The dark powers of the Moonsea
-The churches and allied forces of Bane, Cyric, and Shar, among others
-The Shades
-and, all those nasty, intelligent, powerful monsters!

and you suddenly have a very overworked group of people.

The real problem, IMO, is with the D&D mechanics that imply that a high-level wizard can be everywhere at once solving every problem. My guess is that Ed originally wrote in all these folks without considering the effects of ubiquitous teleportation and divination effects. If one reduced the availability of such effects (I'm lucky enough to use a magic system that does this, and 4e may end up doing this as well), then the implication of the presence of those NPCs changes.

 

[Nine Hands]

Hey all. A recurring theme I've always heard come up when players complain about FR is the number of high level NPC's who apparently steal the PC's thunder.

I bring this up now because Chris Perkins just discussed it with Gamer Zer0 and pointed to that argument as justification for 'nuking' high level FR NPC's.

I have never understood this argument. Not ever. There is nothing in any of the core rulebooks saying that the high level NPC's have to be used - or for that matter even brought up or introduced. Absolutely nothing. So if they are being used to "clean up PC messes" then ultimately whose fault is that? The high level NPC's? Or the DM's running the games?

If you're in a FR campaign and you're disgruntled or otherwise nonplussed because Elminster, Drizzt or the Simbul routinely rush in and crash the party and steal your fun... you need to take a step back and accurately assess that blame. It's poor DM'ing, folks - it doesn't stem from having high level NPC's. 'Nuking' Mystra's Chosen isn't going to correct poor DM'ing. Not ever.

I agree its a sign of bad GMing but its the PERCEPTION that the setting is providing the NPCs to save the day that is the problem.

Due to this perception, the setting has gotten a bad rep.

Personally I'm not going to be using the new campaign setting when I run 4th Edition, I think I will go back to the old grey box set and get back to my 1st Ed roots for a bit.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Not to point fingers, but I also think that any players who see a crisis and immediately go looking for the nearest high-level NPC to solve it have a bit of an attitude problem. After all, this problem is potentially present in *any* campaign in which there are good NPCs higher than, say, 3rd level, since a 1st-level PC party with that attitude will prefer to go find those good NPCs and ask them to solve the problem.

In general, I'd like to see the number of "ubiquitous" high-level NPCs reduced. The hate on the "iconic" FR NPCs, though, I think is more an artifact of the novels than anything else.

 

[Nebulous]

Am I a bad DM because I said "Drizzt is the most powerful warrior in the kingdom, but he's visiting friends in the South?" To wit, a player indicated that Drizzt would never leave the North if he had even an inkling that there would be a menace to Silverymoon.

This problem can happen in any well-published setting, but it just seems to happen way to much to different DMs in FR games.

Bad bad DM! Shame on you! No, just kidding. I think this is perfectly acceptable, but as you pointed out, it depends on who you're playing with. A player obviously got insulted by your creative license.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I agree its a sign of bad GMing but its the PERCEPTION that the setting is providing the NPCs to save the day that is the problem.

Due to this perception, the setting has gotten a bad rep.

That perception does appear to be an artifact of messageboards, though. I haven'r really seen it in gamers who don't peruse these communities.

Personally I'm not going to be using the new campaign setting when I run 4th Edition, I think I will go back to the old grey box set and get back to my 1st Ed roots for a bit.

That's how I started my latest (Iron Heroes) FR campaign; 1 Hammer, Year of the Prince (1357 DR) right out of the gray box, with the timeline going forward from there and "canon" to be written by the PCs. Works well!

 

[amethal]

Sums up my thoughts on the matter. My question is: "Since when *are* the novels "canon," anyway? I don't read them, and while I understand that some things that happen in the novels get mirrored in the game materials, 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.

The implication is that FR setting fans are not reasonable. I've never been in a FR game, so I don't know if its true or not.

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.

I think a lot of problems would be avoided if the DM explained his position at the start of the campaign. The FR fan who wants everything to be consistent with the novels can then decide whether to play in the game or not, instead of being disappointed later.

 

[Cyronax]

Bad bad DM! Shame on you! No, just kidding. I think this is perfectly acceptable, but as you pointed out, it depends on who you're playing with. A player obviously got insulted by your creative license.

In their eyes I was a bad DM, but these are the same players who have 'extra lives' in their new campaign (I don't take part).

At 1st level in their campaign, they each got 4 crystals that act as a raise dead is they expend an action point. Likewise, each character equates out to roughly a 40-50 point buy .... however their dice rolling method goes.

I hate to say it but those guys were the exact stereotype I have in my mind when I hear people say 4e is being pushed for the video game/anime crowd.

Arghh!!!! And I say this as a guy who has already pre-purchased 4e core on Amazon and I like anime!

C.I.D.

 

[Eldragon]

I run FR games a lot, and I have never used one of the major NPCs as anything other than flavor (e.g. never using their stats for anything). There is no reason to ever use them as a DM.

Having said that, I hope they get written out of the realms. Why?

The advantage of nuking the major NPCs is that maybe the FR books can write themselves out of the hole there are in. 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). An author can't ignore the high level NPCs as easily as a DM can.

Additionally, the actual plot thread (spread over several books) that involves the death of beloved characters would create a sense of suspense not seen in a long time. When you start reading the book, you don't know who is going to be alive at the end.

 

[Singing Smurf]

Finally, on the high-level NPC thing in general: I will say this. Eberron may have no NPCs above 7th level, but if it weren't for the unique scenario of Khorvaire just having undergone a massive war in which all the higher-level folk were presumably killed off, this would come off just as problematic as the FR high-level NPCs situation, IMO. Why haven't the Lords of Dust, or the servants of the daelkyr, or the Blood of Vol just steamrollered over the continent and obtained their objectives? Balance of power works both ways. (It's also worth noting that Eberron *does* in fact have "good" high-level NPCs: The Chamber.)

You used the words "good" and "The Chamber" in the same sentence, which makes me giggle. The Chamber is actively involved in meddling in the affairs of the dragonmarked races to further the Prophecy, but there's nothing specifically capital-g good about them in the sourcebooks I've read. What are you referring to?

Why haven't the Lords of Dust, or the servants of the daelkyr, or the Blood of Vol just steamrollered over the continent and obtained their objectives?

In responce to your rhetorical question, one might offer another - what makes you think this isn't already happening? For example, the widespread atrocities of the Last War are very consistent with the plans of Rage of War, one of the Lords of Dust. As written, Eberron is very dark indeed - almost like Call of Cthulhu if you want to emphasize those elements.

The Blood of Vol is arguably achieving thier objectives fairly well, though the conflict with Kaius (who is lawful evil, fwiw) has certainly put a damper on things recently.The Daelkyr are noted to be crazy and immortal, not really persuing anything in a coherant way.

All bets are off in Argonnessen, though - Dragons of Eberron is crawling with high and even epic-level NPCs...which I'm not a big fan of, myself.