PC/NPC Symmetry

[szilard]

In a game I'm working on, I'm struggling with the issue of whether PCs and NPCs should be constructed in (at least vaguely) the same manner.

My immediate inclination (born of habit, no doubt) is that (1) unless player characters are vastly different than NPCs and (2) the game lacks a Sim emphasis, then they should be constructed fairly similarly.

On further consideration, though, I'm not at all sure I believe that.

In many games, NPCs are (insofar as their stats matter, at least) obstacles to be overcome. Why not treat them, then, like any other such obstacle?

In many more games, protagonization of PCs is desired, so why not treat PCs very differently from NPCs in order to reinforce that? For example, if an NPC is created, statistically, akin to a PC, it is usually possible for an NPC to be statistically superior to a PC. While this might be appropriate from a Sim standpoint, how does this facillitate PC protagonism?

Stuart

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Stuart,

Several games treat NPCs as target numbers alone, without (e.g.) attributes or what-have-you in the same manner as player-characters. They include Legendary Lives, The Whispering Vault, and two of my games (Elfs and Trollbabe), among others.

Or to turn it around a bit, many other games treat non-character problems or causes for rolls in exactly the same form as NPC-ones, such that a fence to be hopped in Hero Wars is handled precisely the same as an NPC who disagrees with you in some manner. Sorcerer does it this way.

These methods are well-suited to play in which (a) conflict resolution is the key rather than task resolution, and (b) characters are not built in a layered fashion which relies on knowing just how an attribute relates to a skill relates to an advantage, and similar.

So, the question then becomes, what kind of game tends toward (a) and (b)? My off-the-cuff answer is that both Gamist and Narrativist play of the non-hybrid varieties are aided by such a design, although arguably, certain sorts of Simulationist play could be as well (I'm thinking of the kind of Illusionism that Christoffer, or Pale Fire, was aiming at).

I'm not sure that the issue relates directly to protagonism. I think it relates more directly to handling time and to keeping game-elements of the character (e.g. Effectiveness values) nicely established in a logistic sense, so one is not forever juggling points in order to "get" a particular sword-move, but rather simply has it. From within the character's own sheet, the non-layering helps toward this goal; making the NPC-values into objects/subjects of the PC-rules helps it further.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, this should go into the Imponderables thread that I just started.

Meaning that the answer can only be, "It all depends."

The reasons you give are good ones for making NPCs differ. Another is simply that, usually you van make generating an NPC much simpler than PC generation (or even enumeration). So the question really is, how Sim is the game intended to be? If the answer is "little" then, the only reasons I can see for using the same system is so that the GM only has to know one system for chargen. So, if PC generation is simple, then there's less advantage in enumerating the NPCs differently. At that point I'd go with your protagonization argument.

So, where do you stand on these issues for this game?

Mike

[szilard]

So, where do you stand on these issues for this game?

Well, actually, there are two games.

The first is Standard Deviants, which there are a couple of threads about on the game design board. It is slow going, because I occaisionally have "Will anyone ever want to play this game?" sorts of demotivational thoughts. In any case, that game sort of demands that characters be treated differently insofar as they are practically part of a group organism. This is the one that got me thinking...

The second game is an as-yet-unnamed fantasy game. The key concept of this game is that the PCs are the protagonists in the story. Unless there is an important story to be told in the process, the PCs will not fail in their ultimate goal (though they might be set back in a variety of ways). This is the one that I'm really having the issue with...

Stuart

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. If the PCs are handled so differently that they can't fail (implying that the NPCs they battle can), then I'd definitely look at doing it differently. In fact, the target number system that Ron mentions might be right up your alley.

Mike

[szilard]

Well, they can fail at specific tasks on a relatively small scale, but they are going to complete their ultimate goals... the idea is that if you go and see an action movie or pick up a fantasy novel or whatnot, there is generally little doubt how it will end. What is interesting is how it gets to the end.

I'm toying with something like a target number system. I'm thinking of ways to emphasize gaining/losing the advantage (as a tension-building device) rather than simply meeting overcoming a target number.

Stuart

[Mike Holmes]

Back on an Iron Game Chef sponsored by Sean Wipfli on GO, I posted a game called Final Fight where NPCs didn't matter, stat-wise. The game was supposed to emulate Action Films. To that extent, players simply decided whether they suceeded or falied on any task. They had incentive to fail, however, because that's how they accumulated points to fight the ultimate bad guy in the Final Fight at the end of the game.

Have you considered a PC only system?

Mike