My recent sessions in my D&D campaign have pitted the PCs against a party of evil adventurers - in this case a mastermind rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and an evil paladin. They were secretly doing business of a cult the party has been fighting in the empire's capital.
They followed them some through a gateway into a labyrinth, and ended up capturing one of them. In today's game, the conclusion was laying a trap for the others to rescue the prisoner. And he almost got away with it, but they ended up capturing the two rescuers though the prisoner did get away.
It worked as an interesting change of pace for the players to be considering PC powers among their opponents. Dealing with wild shape, rogue skills, and their magic items was definitely a challenge for the players. I plan to go back to dungeons and monsters soon, but it was an interesting side adventure.
I was just wondering about how often DMs do this, particularly in D&D-like systems. I felt like it made them think about their opponents more, which made the exercise more interesting.
More than once I've had additional parties of adventurers in a dungeon. If the location is newly-discovered, for example, there may be a "gold rush" to plunder the good stuff first!
Players can be quite wily, too, letting the other guys get mauled by monsters first, then swooping in to nail both the monsters and the NPCs when their resources are depleted.
The other parties need not be of different alignments to the PCs either, just another group of treasure hunters. I've not had them team up yet, only for a sudden-yet-inevitable betrayal over the spoils, but that could work really well, though could increase the DM's workload significantly.
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 12:55:52 AM
I was just wondering about how often DMs do this, particularly in D&D-like systems. I felt like it made them think about their opponents more, which made the exercise more interesting.
Back when I ran dark sun for 2nd ed dnd, I used rival adventurers often. It was a good way to create tension, especially when the rivals were working for the same contractor.
Before I abandoned dungeons and dragons (and Wotc), I was working on a series of eberron adventures where rival adventurers would play a big part. It's got good flavor (rival adventurers). Three rival groups competing for the same prize. Lots of potential!
Classed opponents have a thing in D&D adventures since the early days. Look through classic adventures for B/X or AD&D and they will be full of them. I use them all the time, not always as blood enemies but sometimes merely rivals. Just other adventurers after the same loot that the party is after. It helps to motivate players to ACT when they know if they fart around, another bunch of yahoos is going to eat their lunch. " You guys hung out in town for two days because you wanted to scribe scrolls -NO SOUP FOR YOU."
AD&D DMG has tables for rolling up random friendly, or rival, adventuring parties.
Also in Keep on the Borderlands you can end up saving one or more evil adventurers who will turn on you the moment they get a chance.
Quote from: Omega on August 28, 2023, 08:07:41 AM
AD&D DMG has tables for rolling up random friendly, or rival, adventuring parties.
Also in Keep on the Borderlands you can end up saving one or more evil adventurers who will turn on you the moment they get a chance.
Oh man we hated that ungrateful barbarian guy. I think most of us were about 3rd level when we rescued him. We had to kick his ass. Fun times.
Don't forget about the slave lords! They were all classed enemies, and nasty too.
??? GM's don't do this all the time? Who knew? ???
Using classed NPCs is automatic for me. Those NPCs can be anything, too--deadly enemies to friends and everything in between. If nothing else, they are always a pool of potential henchmen, though that potential is thwarted in various ways more often than not.
I treat all adversarial NPC's no different as the PC's. If they're "adventurers" - then they will use every dirty trick I expect players to do assuming I believe the NPC's are of sufficient cunning and intelligence. I play to my NPC's actual stats - so low-Wisdom characters might be smart, but they lack cunning. The inverse is true too.
But my players can expect my NPC's to be as well constructed and thought-out as their own PCs. It keeps everyone sharp and on their toes.
So, my kids current party makeup is a Tiefling Wizard, Bue Dragonborn Barbarian, Drow Paladin of Loth, Tabaxi Assassin, Tabaxi Ranger. And they're going down a long, dark corridor in the somewhat silly dungeon with the killer vending machines at the enterance that I've mentioned before and they see a torch light coming down the corridor. Ahead of them stand a Human Paladin in full plate, Human Cleric in Breastplate with a shield, Dwarf Rogue with leather armour, generic Elf Ranger that might as well be Orlando Bloom, and a Human Wizard in a robe and pointy hat. That's right a classic D&D party. The Human Paladin, upon spotting the PCs shouts, "Wandering Monsters!" and the party forms up for battle.
Quote from: tenbones on August 28, 2023, 11:46:18 AM
I treat all adversarial NPC's no different as the PC's. If they're "adventurers" - then they will use every dirty trick I expect players to do assuming I believe the NPC's are of sufficient cunning and intelligence. I play to my NPC's actual stats - so low-Wisdom characters might be smart, but they lack cunning. The inverse is true too.
But my players can expect my NPC's to be as well constructed and thought-out as their own PCs. It keeps everyone sharp and on their toes.
Yeah.
I'd actually be interested in doing more with adventurer NPCs, but it's a pain in the ass as far as bookkeeping to manage many NPCs in combat compared to handling monsters in D&D. I'm considering ways to simplify the bookkeeping while still keeping the ideal of NPCs who run by the same rules. (I'm using 5e, but especially spellcasting NPCs in any version of D&D are a pain.)
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 28, 2023, 11:46:18 AM
I treat all adversarial NPC's no different as the PC's. If they're "adventurers" - then they will use every dirty trick I expect players to do assuming I believe the NPC's are of sufficient cunning and intelligence. I play to my NPC's actual stats - so low-Wisdom characters might be smart, but they lack cunning. The inverse is true too.
But my players can expect my NPC's to be as well constructed and thought-out as their own PCs. It keeps everyone sharp and on their toes.
Yeah.
I'd actually be interested in doing more with adventurer NPCs, but it's a pain in the ass as far as bookkeeping to manage many NPCs in combat compared to handling monsters in D&D. I'm considering ways to simplify the bookkeeping while still keeping the ideal of NPCs who run by the same rules. (I'm using 5e, but especially spellcasting NPCs in any version of D&D are a pain.)
This(!) became a big issue for me in the 3e era. One of my longest running campaigns which ran multiple years, was a PF1e game that reached 20th+ lvl. I had a list of NPC's with minimalist (as in - index notes) of my NPC's that was *42-pages* long. Some of their actual individual stat-bloc's were 6-pages long. It was nuts. It killed any desire for me to run 3.x campaigns ever again.
It was only after I discovered Fantasy Craft, which has tables that lets you create and adjust NPC's on the fly to scale NPCs or monsters up/down as needed that I released my annoyance at 3.x
Of course... then I went to Savage Worlds... now this issue is pretty much inconsequential to me, so I get my cake and eat it too.
The next step is to have those enemy NPCs as recurring characters. One of the most epic AD&D campaigns I've ever played in (30+ years ago now) was run by a good friend who had a pair of adventurers/mercenaries called "Fire and Ice." Fire was a Magic-User with an artifact (making him punch way above his weight class), and Ice was a tall, bald, barbarian-type who had a permanent anti-magic field cast on him (that perfectly conformed to his body shape, so he could wield magic items, but not be affected by them). We met them when we were 3rd or so, and they played Belloc to our Indy, which pissed us off. Every couple of sessions, we'd catch sight of them, run a mission counter to theirs, etc., until we grew to hate them with a passion. The final showdown (when we had leveled to 15th, if I remember correctly) is one of my most treasured RPG moments, just because it was the culmination of a long rivalry and payback for loss after loss to them.
I've used those types of characters over and over in my campaigns. NPCs that stumble into the PCs plans and screw them up, then show up later and do it again. I think these kinds of NPCs have gotten more passion and player involvement than any other monster I've ever run (though, there was that one campaign against the Githyanki that was so magnificent...).
The concept of the PCs having a Nemesis, which always seems to be a step or two ahead of them; until one day when...... Is a good story hook.
I've done it on occasion, but both generating and running NPCs as enemies is a lot more work that just using monsters. I usually prefer to us my limited time on other things.
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 28, 2023, 11:46:18 AM
I treat all adversarial NPC's no different as the PC's. If they're "adventurers" - then they will use every dirty trick I expect players to do assuming I believe the NPC's are of sufficient cunning and intelligence. I play to my NPC's actual stats - so low-Wisdom characters might be smart, but they lack cunning. The inverse is true too.
But my players can expect my NPC's to be as well constructed and thought-out as their own PCs. It keeps everyone sharp and on their toes.
Yeah.
I'd actually be interested in doing more with adventurer NPCs, but it's a pain in the ass as far as bookkeeping to manage many NPCs in combat compared to handling monsters in D&D. I'm considering ways to simplify the bookkeeping while still keeping the ideal of NPCs who run by the same rules. (I'm using 5e, but especially spellcasting NPCs in any version of D&D are a pain.)
Switch to B/X or a clone like Labyrinth Lord or OSE. The Advanced versions of both of those clones have lots of character options and seperate race and class options. Also, stat blocks for NPCs, even higher level ones are a snap.
I'm a little surprised at this thread... I always thought people did this in their campaigns/one-shots.
Its kinda interesting. I do understand the extra work it takes to maintain it, but I just always assumed this was what people did, heh. Not to beat the dead horse (yet again), Savage Worlds Wild Card/Minion rules helps a *lot* with this.
From a GMing perspective, having "Adventurer Adversaries" is a must for long-term campaigning. I'm fine with PC's making assumptions about the NPC's abilities based on their perception of the NPC being a specific class etc. It's more murky in a skill-based system like SW, but the point is the same. I both want the PC's to feel they can speculate freely, and test those waters of their adversaries before going head-on with them. I *want* them to feel risk, that's part of the tension and fun.
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 12:55:52 AM
My recent sessions in my D&D campaign have pitted the PCs against a party of evil adventurers - in this case a mastermind rogue, a barbarian, a druid, and an evil paladin. They were secretly doing business of a cult the party has been fighting in the empire's capital.
I do this all the time with D&D, both back in the day with AD&D 1e and today with my Majestic Fantasy Rules.
For example
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Bandits%20&%20Brigands%20Ver%2001.pdf
When I publish the version of the Majestic Fantasy RPG, one of the core books will be the Domesday Codex, which will be a bunch of NPCs in the style of the Monster manual. But unlike the Rogues Gallery style products, it is not bunch of sample characters with backstories. It is like the Bandit & Brigand doc where each entries is stated out and placed in a specific context like Mage's Guild, Thieves Guild, Guards, Royal Court, farming villages, monastery, and so on.
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 12:55:52 AM
I was just wondering about how often DMs do this, particularly in D&D-like systems. I felt like it made them think about their opponents more, which made the exercise more interesting.
I like using this tactic a lot, and have used rival adventurers in my Planescape (2E) game quite frequently. The PCs are contractors for a collector of antiquities from across the multiverse who runs a store catering to eclectic and far-ranging tastes. And he has several groups of contractors working for him, as well as a couple of rival collectors with their own contractors. A lot of the adventures I've run for them began at an auction house. I need to get back to that game soon I think, but my players have changed... I have considered using Savage Worlds to run it this time around.
Aside from D&D, which I have not been running much since 2018 really (burned out on 5E and no plans to go back to it at all), I've also used rival adventurers in a recent Deadlands game, numerous Shadowrun games in the past and in my currently running SR campaign.
Quote from: Dropbear on August 29, 2023, 08:34:22 PM
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 12:55:52 AM
I was just wondering about how often DMs do this, particularly in D&D-like systems. I felt like it made them think about their opponents more, which made the exercise more interesting.
I like using this tactic a lot, and have used rival adventurers in my Planescape (2E) game quite frequently. The PCs are contractors for a collector of antiquities from across the multiverse who runs a store catering to eclectic and far-ranging tastes. And he has several groups of contractors working for him, as well as a couple of rival collectors with their own contractors. A lot of the adventures I've run for them began at an auction house. I need to get back to that game soon I think, but my players have changed... I have considered using Savage Worlds to run it this time around.
Aside from D&D, which I have not been running much since 2018 really (burned out on 5E and no plans to go back to it at all), I've also used rival adventurers in a recent Deadlands game, numerous Shadowrun games in the past and in my currently running SR campaign.
Regarding Deadlands and Shadowrun -- Yeah, it's the norm for me in many games that the opposition are humans or the same creature types as the PCs. i.e. In a vampire game, the opposition are often other vampires.
So as a step further -- how many people do a D&D-like game (i.e. D&D, fantasy OSR, Pathfinder, etc.) where the opposition are *primarily* NPCs of the same creature type as the PCs?
I've always preferred human, humanoid or otherwise "PC-like" adversaries to "monsters", whether it's D&D or anything else. I just find it makes for far more engaging encounters, both on the combat and roleplay sides of the equation.
That said, often I use "adventurers" as opponents varies on a few factors. For one, I assume "adventurers" would mean other characters of the adventuring profession. Personally I rarely run settings where "adventurer" is a recognized profession in the sense that it is in say, Forgotten Realms, though ironically, I'm running a world like that right now. In that kind of setting, adventurers will definitely feature as antagonists, just because they're ubiquitous in the setting and are inevitably going to turn up in positions that oppose the PCs. More often though, I use settings where the PCs as adventurers are either exceptions, or their adventuring is couched in some more reasonable in-use profession (such as bounty hunters, border guards, private investigators). In that situation, they're going to more often come up against other characters whose role in the world puts them in adventurer-like positions.
An adjacent question is how often you use classed (or otherwise made the same way a PC is made) characters as antagonists. For me, that's entirely a function of how much of a pain in the ass making characters in the system. In something like Shadow of the Demon Lord or Savage Worlds, my players are rarely going to come up against a fully statted "NPC-PC". It's just too much work for a character that won't be around every session. But in a game like Lamentations of the Flame Princess or Dragon Warriors where I can stat a PC in less than five minutes, then even Tom the Shopkeeper is probably going to be a third-level Specialist.
Quote from: jhkim on August 31, 2023, 03:17:14 PM
So as a step further -- how many people do a D&D-like game (i.e. D&D, fantasy OSR, Pathfinder, etc.) where the opposition are *primarily* NPCs of the same creature type as the PCs?
For me it depends entirely on the PC's and what they decide to get themselves mixed up in. In dark dungeon there may be other adventuers, either individuals or whole parties, but they will not represent the majority of the the inhabitants of such a place. In civilized lands and areas other people will represent the bulk of npcs they will likely encounter. The wild wilderness will be a very mixed bag. There could be be lost civilizations, and whole groups of folks with whom the PCs are unfamiliar, as well as natural wild animals and monsters perhaps never seen or recorded by any in the known world.
The question is usually easily answered after finding out, what are you doing? Where are you going?
Quote from: jhkim on August 28, 2023, 12:55:52 AM
I was just wondering about how often DMs do this, particularly in D&D-like systems. I felt like it made them think about their opponents more, which made the exercise more interesting.
Very common in my experience going back to the early days of D&D
Well, I use human(oid) characters with classes as adversaries, certainly.
I don't think of them as "adventurers", though. Most of the time when I'm running a world, "adventuring groups" and "adventurers" aren't, in world, a thing. They're rare aberrations that tend to exist outside of society. It's sort of like the thing with superheroes. Normal, sane people don't become superheroes, and normal, sane people don't become adventurers. You've gotta be broken inside somehow to choose that life.
Quote from: jhkim on August 31, 2023, 03:17:14 PMSo as a step further -- how many people do a D&D-like game (i.e. D&D, fantasy OSR, Pathfinder, etc.) where the opposition are *primarily* NPCs of the same creature type as the PCs?
Well, generically, me, I suppose. Sometimes. I mean, I still use goblins and stuff, don't get me wrong, but a lot of times it's dealing with humanoids, too. Although I don't use full character sheets or anything most of the time. I come up with a few base "monster templates" that I can drag out with some variations. "Human guard", "human bandit", "elven warden", "drow stalker", etc. I only go through the full character creation process for key figures.
Quote from: tenbones on August 29, 2023, 09:59:13 AM
I'm a little surprised at this thread... I always thought people did this in their campaigns/one-shots.
I thought classed NPCs was the norm.
Apparently thered been breeding a new strain of stupid over on Reddit and now having classed NPCs is having a DMPC, and that is bad. Despite that not being at all what the fuck a DMPC is.
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2023, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 29, 2023, 09:59:13 AM
I'm a little surprised at this thread... I always thought people did this in their campaigns/one-shots.
I thought classed NPCs was the norm.
Apparently thered been breeding a new strain of stupid over on Reddit and now having classed NPCs is having a DMPC, and that is bad. Despite that not being at all what the fuck a DMPC is.
Don't read that crap unless you are prepared to make a sanity saving throw. This probably grew from some butthurt players over facing some npcs that could do the same kind of bullshit that they could do.
Its more the usual stupid of people misusing a term.
So somehow DMPC went from "A DM also playing a PC at the same time." which tends to not go well. To "Any Classed NPC the DM runs that joins the party to bolster it." to "Any NPC that bolsters the party" to "All NPCs durrrr!"