OD&D Survivor

[philotomy]

How is an NPC with powers and abilities the PCs don't have access to is any less fair than the powers of a medusa or a rust monster or a vampire? Why is it that an NPC with special (or even unique) powers is (or seems to be) breaking the rules or cheating?

[James Maliszewski]

philotomy said:

How is an NPC with powers and abilities the PCs don't have access to is any less fair than the powers of a medusa or a rust monster or a vampire? Why is it that an NPC with special (or even unique) powers is (or seems to be) breaking the rules or cheating?

It isn't.

What I meant is that, in many groups, it can be -- and was, in my experience -- perceived as such. Part of the implied setting in D&D was that there was an unbroken continuum among non-monsters characters, from Normal Men to NPCs to player characters. They all followed the same rules, so a kid a in a village the PCs save could indeed aspire to one day be a Fighter like the hero who saved his family. Likewise, if the PCs met some virtuous knight of the realm, they too could aspire to join his order one day. I never met any player who wanted to be a rust monster or a medusa, however cool their powers might be (vampires are, unfortunately, another matter ...).

Anyway, my point is not that it's wrong to use NPC classes, only that it runs counter to my own sense of how the world D&D describes operates and that the presence of NPC classes (with a few rare exceptions) represents a powerful temptation to players who will rightly ask, "Why can't I become a ninja?" If you don't have these same problems, great. One of the joys of OD&D is that there's no right answer to questions like this. I'm simply offering my own perspective on this and I make no claim that it's in any way magisterial.

[foster1941]

I think that NPCs who work directly with PCs on adventures (either as retainers or as allies) should generally follow the same rules, but that doesn't necessarily apply to either bad-guy or stay-at-home NPCs. I think of something like the Witch rules in The Dragon #7 (reprinted in BoTDv1) -- they don't function like PCs: they don't have an XP chart, levels, regular hit dice or spell progressions, etc. and are much more along the lines of "monsters" (like dragons) than "characters" (like PCs) even though they're human. I don't have any problem with that; neither do I have any problem with declaring that the local bishop can cast remove curse and cure disease even though he has no combat ability and has never once been on an "adventure," without the need to create an entire Lakofka-esque "cloistered cleric" NPC class to justify it. The same with the captain of the guard, who I can declare by fiat to be equivalent in ability to a 3rd or 4th level fighter without having to justify where and how he earned his XP.

I can see the appeal of a consistent world=setting where the same set of rules applies to PCs and NPCs alike and thus, almost by definition, most/all of the mover-and-shaker NPCs in the world are going to be classed ex-adventurers (the World of Greyhawk is pretty much this way -- look for example at the inhabitants of Hommlett) but at this point that's not really the feel I'm after -- I want the PC rules (class/level/XP) to be for PCs (and pseudo-PC NPCs) only, and everything and everyone else wholly at the whim of the GM.

[James Maliszewski]

foster1941 said:

but at this point that's not really the feel I'm after

This is the crux of it, I think. What you describe as the Greyhawk feel is more or less what I like, so it's probably influenced my thinking on this topic a lot. Mind you, I like that particular feel because it jibes with my take on pulp fantasy, so it's self-reinforcing. However, as I hope I've made clear, it's simply my preference, not a dogmatic assertion, and while I think I have lots of justification within the context of old school philosophy for my position (so it's not an arbitrary preference), there are other equally valid preferences.

[korgoth]

Interesting stuff on NPC classes, gents.

My take on it is that there are some things that player races (such as humans) can do that are nevertheless beyond the scope of an adventurer: the sage being a perfect example. If you want to be a sage, you have to sit on your tokhes all day doing your studies (don't I know it!) instead of having cool, un-scholarly exploits like adventurers get to do. Likewise, if you want to be a ninja (or equivalent), you have to be raised in a rigorous secret order or cult, chosen from a young age, get bossed around by some oldster who's always on about grasshoppers, etc. ... and they kill you if you try to leave. Or whatever.

Technically, a player could be allowed to run such a character, but there would be a number of limitations. For one thing, actual advancement would probably be impossible, since the conditions for advancement would be necessarily abandoned in order to take up an adventuring career.

That being said, my own inclination is just to take Normal Men or Figthing Men and apply ad hoc abilities to them, rather than having an organized class, xp progression, etc.
Example: "Ninja" [FM 3, AC 8, Dex 18, HP 10, First attack provokes a Save vs. Death if it hits and is from surprise].

[ffilz]

Foster - I definitely agree with this. There are games where the monsters being more or less like PCs works well (though 3.x took this to an extreme that ends up NOT working well, RuneQuest is perhaps a better example of such a game that works reasonably well).

I like the idea of NPC classes for a handful of archetypes that would be useful in quantities that would justify formalized rules for what a 5th level example looks like. This ideally then makes it easy for me to decide what the witch (for an example) on the 5th level of the dungeon looks like. Nothing more than this is necessary.

NPCs that accompany the party for one-off or very short term situations can be arbitrarily created. Also, and NPC that won't advance can also be arbitrarily created (for example, perhaps the PCs drag the local priest down to the 2nd level of the dungeon to remove a curse on a door - no need to stat him out as a cleric that can cast remove curse, just assign him hit points, AC, and perhaps combat ability if he actually winds up in combat). An issue does arise if you want an NPC to advance. I think then it becomes problematical if a PC couldn't be that race/class.

Frank

[philotomy]

As I mentioned up-thread, I think it's unfortunate that some of these concepts were presented in class format. Even though the term "NPC Class" indicates the concept is separate from standard PC Classes, there's too much similarity in the presentation, and thus you get the perception problem that both James and I mentioned. Foster brought up the Witch; I think that is a much better way to present an "NPC Concept," and helps avoid the "this is just another class -- why can't I be one" perception problem.

I view NPC Classes more as "NPC Concepts," similar to the Witch. That's what I was getting at when I said I look at them more as guidelines for creating an appropriate NPC, rather than as a structure for an advancing/developing character.

My take on it is that there are some things that player races (such as humans) can do that are nevertheless beyond the scope of an adventurer: the sage being a perfect example.

Yes, the sage is a good example. If a player asked me, "Why can't I be a sage?" I'd say "Well, you could, but it's not really in keeping with this game." I'd give the same response to someone asking why they can't be a vampire, or a ninja. There can be exceptions, of course (maybe it would be fun to have a PC vampire -- didn't someone make an entire separate game like that...), but as a general rule, the PC Classes define the "supported" player character archetypes.

[philotomy]

ffilz said:

An issue does arise if you want an NPC to advance. I think then it becomes problematical if a PC couldn't be that race/class.

I agree. In practice, I don't find this to be a big problem, though. You can handle advancement by fiat for NPCs that are mostly "off camera." The only real problem is henchmen/followers that are with the party for long periods of time. I treat henchmen the same as PCs -- they normally use PC classes. If a PC gains a "special" follower like a monster or an NPC-classed retainer, then that character doesn't advance, or advances by fiat.

[crimhthanthegreat]

Here is my list of OD&D survivors:

• Fighting Men: This is the prime class that always makes the cut. They are the main class.
  
• Clerics: This is the second of the prime classes and in many ways the most interesting class to play.
  
• Magic-users: Ya just gotta have them!
  
• Thieves: Sometimes I have them in the game, but most of the time I just get rid of them and let the others classes absorb a few of their capablities. I just don't like the whole back stab thing and they just don't fit too well with the way that we play the game.
  
• Paladins: I love paladins, and I have a variety of ways that they can be created and played.
  
• Rangers, Scouts, and the ilk: I like them but they are not real common IMC as PCs.
  
• Monks: I don't like them and don't use them. No real reason just don't like them.
  
• Assassins: NPCs only IMC.
  
• Bards: Love bards and while we start with the SR bard we do rework it a bit.
  
• Druids: Just an NPC IMC.
  
• There are other things that we play but they are usually just a one shot and the player works it out with me OOG and them we just run it and enjoy it.