Can NPCs break the rules? (moved from KS discussion)

[hcobb]

40 attributes is not a hard limit and an active adventurer in her early fifties should be expected to be in the low 40s in atributes. My question is why she doesn't have dozens of extra talents and spells.

[larsdangly]

This issue of NPC power level is such a high-level design decision that I think there can't really be right and wrong answers. And clearly I have a minority view (here at least). One reason I would give for my view is simply the sense of fairness. Players understand that the world is not completely 'flat' when it comes to the powers of various beings, and that when they encounter a dragon or demon or god any player will grasp that they are not really in a situation where a fight or contest is likely to go their way. But when you have a mundane person outstrip anything any player character can achieve, it violates this sense that player characters have a fair shot at making their way through the world. In this sense, it feels manipulative to me, in the same way that scripted adventures or awkward deus ex mechina events can feel like the GM is 'railroading' the players into a certain set of actions or events. There are tables where this level of GM control of the mechanistic details of the universe is welcome, but mine isn't one of them. To me, the idea of arbitrarily over powered NPC's feels analogous to the suggestion that for a player a mundane broadsword does 2d damage but when an NPC holds a mundane broadsword it could do 2d or 3d or 4d or whatever the GM wishes. Of course the GM is the 'boss' and if he or she declares something to be true in the game world then the players have no option but to go along with it. But when the GM uses that power to crack open basic mechanical rules that constrain what norma mortal beings can do, it feels to me like an unfair manipulation.

[tomc]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

But when you have a mundane person outstrip anything any player character can achieve, it violates this sense that player characters have a fair shot at making their way through the world.

Good point. It's about setting and meeting player's expectations.

[Jeff Lord]

@larsdangly, FWIW, I share your "minority view."

@tomc, agreed, it is about setting and meeting player's expectations (usually).

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

To me, the idea of arbitrarily over powered NPC's feels analogous to the suggestion that for a player a mundane broadsword does 2d damage but when an NPC holds a mundane broadsword it could do 2d or 3d or 4d or whatever the GM wishes... [snip] But when the GM uses that power to crack open basic mechanical rules that constrain what norma mortal beings can do, it feels to me like an unfair manipulation.

I think I'll hold my position on flexibility in NPC design, while still agreeing with you otherwise lars.

The operative words here are "mechanical rules". Such as in your broadsword example, these are things that cannot be messed with and not insult the players' intelligence. Like playing a game of Monopoly and saying, I get $300 for passing, Go but you only get $200, and just because I say so. Nobody would enjoy any game on those terms. Mechanical rules are those equally enforced for all players.

PC advancement also has its mechanical rules, but that's literally PC advancement. Those rules aren't being violated unless and until a player violates them. There is no mechanical rule requiring an NPC to be built as a 32-point starting character and then "walked thru" the process of becoming an advanced character, adhering to XP tables and attribute progression rules until they become the character who will appear in the story. That way lies madness.

An NPC doesn't even have to be one of the races players can use for their PCs. And every character in the World doesn't necessarily start as a 32 point figure with 8 discretionary points. That's only a rule to keep the PCs on a level playing field with each other.

NPCs are really not players, they are part of the landscape. The GM should put what's needed where, keeping things just realistic enough not to upset everyone's sense of willing disbelief. If I put a castle on a hill, do I really have to work out how the castle was built down to where every brick came from, and if the builder could have afforded it? If I put a river running by the hill, do I need a geological survey to justify the possibility that river exists? Similarly, if I build an IQ 12 NPC and say she knows this many spells, languages, and skills, I shouldn't have to force that to add up to the same age, XP, attribute totals and IQ limits that were intended for the player characters. The GM has more important work to do. and shouldn't be so restricted.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

... And every character in the World doesn't necessarily start as a 32 point figure with 8 discretionary points. ...

NPCs explicitly do NOT "start" at 32 points. The average person is supposed to be 30 points, meaning that 32-point PCs are "starting" their adventures as above-average people, and that most people in the world do not just all steadily improve the way successful PCs might.

[hcobb]

Bilbo: (Glancing up from the rulebook) "How come Gandalf is able to do things that aren't listed in the player's handbook?"

GM: "Because he's not human."

Bilbo: "My character isn't human either."

GM: "And therefore has the listed Hobbit bonuses."

[zot]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

But when you have a mundane person outstrip anything any player character can achieve, it violates this sense that player characters have a fair shot at making their way through the world. In this sense, it feels manipulative to me, in the same way that scripted adventures or awkward deus ex mechina events can feel like the GM is 'railroading' the players into a certain set of actions or events. There are tables where this level of GM control of the mechanistic details of the universe is welcome, but mine isn't one of them.

I heartily agree with this and I'm a hugely story-based GM. In my book, the key is that it's really all about the players and the GM is both entertainer and judge.

[hcobb]

Tollenkar is at 2,062,800 XPs at age 50 or 68,760 XPs per year or 188 XPs every day since he was 20.

Let us assume that he reasonably left his ST at 8 until he wished that up very recently. Then he is only 142,800 total XPs or 4,760 XPs per year since 20, or 400 XPs per month. Which means his entire life has been a major adventure every week.

If his DX were reduced to wish maxed 14 then he'd be a completely reasonable character.

[larsdangly]

Agreed. You can totally paint within the lines of the experience and advancement rules and still create extremely dangerous, extremely interesting NPCs. Anyone who has played for a while understands that points above 14 are generally an unimportant extravagance, other than when you need the IQ to access a certain spell. A ST or DX above 14 is only relevant to a hero who is aiming for Conan-like natural physical gifts.