Quote from: Phillip;861657It's obscure just how a descriptor is supposed to be detrimental; perhaps you could explain? On the other hand, it's easy to see how something could be not likely to be useful, and in that case I'd go ahead and leave it out, just as the TSR-era monster write-ups usually don't go into many details not relevant to a fight.

A manticora waiting to waylay travellers and eat them hardly needs more than HD, AC, move, and appropriate attack data. On the other hand, a household serving girl probably does NOT require those details; personality factors would be more obviously relevant.

Yeah, it's the household serving girl that comes to mind.
In my Yggsburgh game using 1e AD&D rules there was a girl, Tabitha Kallent, who became the girlfriend, fiancee & wife of a PC, Garrick - and actually redeemed him; he was an utter bastard, and her goodness and her love gradually turned him around. She was brave (she stood up to her aunt who beat her savagely for sneaking out to see Garrick), determined, loving, good. She'd presumably be a noncombatant zero level character, but I don't think any D&D stats could do her justice. I found it worked best to leave her unstatted and let her develop in play; assigned attributes would have been a straitjacket on the character.

Quote from: Phillip;861649In other words, for a PC we have rules dictating the rolling of ability scores, selection of character class, available cash and equipment, etc. However, if I want an NPC Wise Woman who can make some kinds of potions, do some kinds of divination, or whatever, then I as GM can simply make her so. Even if a PC with that set of powers -- if so available at all -- might have to be of a certain level (bringing with it a level of fighting power), I do not feel obligated to make the Wise Woman some sort of adventurous monster-slayer; she can be a peasant of but ordinary (or even sub-average) combat strength.

Rolling ability scores, selecting class, available cash and equipment are rules that govern player choices, not character choices.

There are three things being discussed in this thread, but often they are not considered separately.

1) Are the NPCs created using the exact same process as are the PCs?

2) Do the NPCs have the same type and kind of stats in roughly the same range as do the PCs?

3) Are the same rules used to determine the outcome of PC and NPC actions? This looks at the left side of the following conflicts PC vs NPC, NPC vs PC, NPC vs NPC, and PC vs PC.

4) Are the same rules used to determine the effect of actions on the PC and the NPC? This looks at the right side of the same four conflicts.

For 1), in my experience not many people play this way nor is the GM usually expected to create NPCs in the exact same way as players create PCs. A number of games, Traveller and Runequest would be examples, allow the GM to create the same sorts of statblocs using the same sorts of methods as for creating PCs, but the level or degree of skill is often selected by the GM to fit the position and role of the NPC rather than being randomly generated.

For 2) traditional games, like OD&D, Traveller, Runequest assumed NPCs had the same type of stats and abilities as often the same range as did the PCs. Games with simplified stat blocs and mook rules often do not assume the same type or range of stats and abilities for the NPCs.
 
For 3) many games (especaially traditional games) use the same rules for determining effect of actions e.g. combat works the same, but some games use player facing mechanics that treat the NPCs very differently from the PCs. Also, a number of games suggest that GMs fiat the outcome of NPC vs NPC actions so as to speed up the game, not bore the players, or because the focus of the game is supposed to be the PCs.

For 4) often this is the same as 3) but PCs in many games are treated as exceptional vs. persuasion or other soft skills. So a PC may persuade an NPC via persuasion, but an NPC can never persuade a PC. That is left up to the sole discretion of the player. Pendragon is one of the closest games to treating all four interactions the same. So an NPC can seduce a PC despite player preference.

It depends on the type of NPC. The high-level mage will be statted out in full. The low-level fighters guarding the front gate of the mage's tower will not.

With the exception of a handful of NPCs, I don't give them stats or equipment the PCs couldn't possibly have.

If I'm creating an NPC that the PCs will fight I doubt I'll jump through all the same hoops as PCs do. For example: the PCs come across an Orc raiding party with a very scary leader who wields two axes I'm probably not going to list level/class X or figure out Y-amount of feats, or do the run down of every skill point (assuming 3.5 here). He'll use two battle axes, probably rage some, and maybe I'll throw in some shamanist spells or powers.

Quote from: S'mon;861651I guess I think of "no rules" as meaning "no stat block". Stat blocks often seem detrimental to running certain NPCs, especially in D&D and other level-based games.

I wouldn't qualify it.  It pisses me off to see stat-block-itis in GURPS products, and I can think of a couple where we've gotten stat blocks for the top twenty movers-and-shakers in the city.  Really?  I need combat stats for the archbishop?  For the head of the guild council?  For the lead foreign envoy?  For everything the writers need to jam into the book, they honestly think the probability of the players throwing down with random prelates and ambassadors is worth spending time on?

I agree that the mass of detail a lot of D&D works feel compelled to provide make it worse -- no, I don't think that every schmuck farmer has 10 +1 arrows, a suit of scale "mail" packed away, and 20 gold ingots under a floorboard, or the equivalent thereof -- but they're sure not the only sinners.

I like how Numenera/Cypher System handles this : your NPCs are not made as PCs are. You give them a level on 1 to 10 scale (it will become the target number for roll), armor, HP, weapons, special abilities and powers et voilà. it is quite to do NPCs on the spot !

Quote from: Ravenswing;862118I wouldn't qualify it.  It pisses me off to see stat-block-itis in GURPS products, and I can think of a couple where we've gotten stat blocks for the top twenty movers-and-shakers in the city.  Really?  I need combat stats for the archbishop?  For the head of the guild council?  For the lead foreign envoy?  For everything the writers need to jam into the book, they honestly think the probability of the players throwing down with random prelates and ambassadors is worth spending time on?

I agree that the mass of detail a lot of D&D works feel compelled to provide make it worse -- no, I don't think that every schmuck farmer has 10 +1 arrows, a suit of scale "mail" packed away, and 20 gold ingots under a floorboard, or the equivalent thereof -- but they're sure not the only sinners.

When I think of D&D, I think mainly of the 1970s-80s products. The default assumption is that your movers and shakers are pretty badass, but something like "Ftr 10, N" or "Clr 11, LG" may be all you get stat-wise in a publication such as World of Greyhawk. If you really need more about the Emperor of the Great Kingdom than that he's diabolical and mad, you can work it up; PCs aren't likely to get an audience at the drop of a d20.

The amount of really useful material early scenarios packed into 8 pages was nifty. "6 Goblins, hp 6, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2"  is actually more than I need; "6 Goblins" will do.

Quote from: Phillip;862122The amount of really useful material early scenarios packed into 8 pages was nifty. "6 Goblins, hp 6, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2"  is actually more than I need; "6 Goblins" will do.

I'm really appreciating how BFRPG adventures give me individual goblin hp with check-boxes, and random hp not higher to lower. Makes running them a dream.

On-topic, I like generic books of well-done role-based NPC stats, eg the ones in the 5e MM or the Paizo Gamemastery Guide (sadly their NPC Codex sucks), I also find "Cleric-11" type notes useful, and sometimes listing exceptional things about the character is useful too. But most of the 'normal people' IMCs stay unstatted these days, & the game works better that way.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861640Nexus, could you clarify what you mean by 'Same rules or Different'?  Does short hand count as 'different' rules?

Just to explain my view:  You're still using the same stat systems, the same limitations for humanoid NPCs, just shortening them to key points, rather than writing it all out.  Which to me, means 'Same Rules'.

There's a spectrum but I am thinking of the high end. Like Cipher System where NPCs work by totally different rules and are represented a Level. I've found I really don't enjoy that degree of difference (unfortunately the Cipher system is keyed on it but its a shame as the character generation system is interesting and I think would create more detailed interactive NPCs that don't feel like scenery )

Shorthand doesn't really seem like quite the same thing though I guess its lower on the spectrum but the NPCs still use generally the same rules for interacting with he mechanics. "Mook" rules, Swarm rules, etc available as options are generally inside my comfort zone as well.

Quote from: Phillip;862122When I think of D&D, I think mainly of the 1970s-80s products. The default assumption is that your movers and shakers are pretty badass, but something like "Ftr 10, N" or "Clr 11, LG" may be all you get stat-wise in a publication such as World of Greyhawk. If you really need more about the Emperor of the Great Kingdom than that he's diabolical and mad, you can work it up; PCs aren't likely to get an audience at the drop of a d20.

The amount of really useful material early scenarios packed into 8 pages was nifty. "6 Goblins, hp 6, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2"  is actually more than I need; "6 Goblins" will do.

I like seeing stats for the Archbishop in GURPS, because it can come up and I like showing what the author is thinking for them (and in interesting games, their stats, especially their professional and social skills, can be relevant - even their combat stats in some cases). But also because I think it helps non-expert GURPS players think about such things, and also realize that expectations they may have from other games (such as badass archbishops as Phillip mentions above) would probably not be the case in GURPS, and that in GURPS often less is more - e.g. using realistic modest human values for most people can make the game more realistic and interesting. The GURPS Who's Who books that give stats for historical people (Galileo, Einstein, Hitler, etc...) are also really interesting that way.

What annoys me about statblocks in GURPS printed products is when they list more math than needed which to me tends to make them more noisy and less relevant to use, and as Ravenswing said, uses space. It only takes a few text characters to say e.g.  ST 10 DX 11 HT 9 Brawling 10 Knife 12. I don't need to know how many character points each thing is, or his total points, or that Knife 12 is at DX +1 (obviously) or that his Basic Speed is 5.0, Dodge 5, unarmed damage etc, as those things follow directly by simple math from the basic stats listed.