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!"