So PCs are meant to be the heroes of the story, yeah?  And NPCs ... not so much, in most styles of play.

I actually wonder that more games haven't followed D&Ds solid and venerable lead on encouraging this with the rules:  Monsters ain't built the same way PCs are built.  There are whole other sets of rules ... and while they interact cleanly (at least in the ideal case) they're clearly aiming at creating different kinds of things.

The monster rules are built to create a threat.  The PC rules are built to create a warrior (of some stripe).  Warriors often are threats, but the emphasis is different.

Now the siren call of unified mechanics seems to have done a lot to push a different style of creating these characters.  Champions, for instance, does a different (also cool) thing by letting the NPCs be built in precisely the same way as PCs ... though I'm not sure how purely that happens in practice (how many NPCs, for instance, roll "Hunted" disad checks every session?  Mine don't ... I just don't buy "Hunted" as a disad).

If folks could point me to (or remind me of) other recent games that cash in on the strength of having two different character-generation systems, that'd be awesome.  What do you think are the strengths of the technique?  What are the weaknesses?

Anything I've written, Tony. I have a whole chapter in each game dedicated to creating NPCs.

Since NPCs can be created by the same rules PCs are, or by the special NPC rules, I'm giving the GMs a choice. I have several ranks of NPC:

            Generic Opponents, pick-from-a-list gunmen and mooks, where interaction comes through the barrel of a gun;
            Instant Characters, created using the special quick-create rules to give NPCs important skills, missions, drives, personalities, and goals;
            and Full NPCs, created using the normal PC process.

Each rank is a subset of the one below, allowing the GM to rachet up the complexity of an NPC if the situation warrants it - for example, the PCs capture one of the gunmen and start interrogating him. The GM can, in seconds, upgrade the Generic gunman to an Instant Character. If the complexity of the situation grows, he can be remade as a Full NPC, given time, retaining all the qualities he had before.

-clash

Quote from: TonyLBIf folks could point me to (or remind me of) other recent games that cash in on the strength of having two different character-generation systems, that'd be awesome.  What do you think are the strengths of the technique?  What are the weaknesses?

The Cinematic Unisystem games (i.e. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and possibly Army of  Darkness) have all NPCs operate through a simplified set of stats.  The GM never rolls for NPCs -- they have a fixed number.  If the PC is attacking, the player rolls for the attack.  If the PC is defending, the player rolls for the dodge.  I found this invaluable when running and statting things up.  There was a weakness when NPCs fought NPCs.  With a little bit of tweaking, though, I think this could be very good -- I hate rolling for NPC vs NPC.  

Feng Shui (from a while ago) and now Spirit of the Century have "mook" rules for simplified NPCs, though named NPCs still have full stats.  

There is a potential problem in believability if PCs can do things that NPCs can't.  i.e. Someone asks in-character "Who can cast X spell?" -- and the NPCs can't answer because that was simplified away for them.  Some people already consider "PC glow" to be a problem for the feel of a game.

Quote from: TonyLBChampions, for instance, does a different (also cool) thing by letting the NPCs be built in precisely the same way as PCs ... though I'm not sure how purely that happens in practice (how many NPCs, for instance, roll "Hunted" disad checks every session?  Mine don't ... I just don't buy "Hunted" as a disad).

Ah, but what if the NPCs are being hunted by the PCs?

The planned method for A Song in the Dark's monsters and NPCs is basically directly inspired by the older D&D approach.  They're a simple statblock, with just what you need to know to be able to run a combat with them, plus their base stats, in case a more general roll is needed for something.  

I'm of the opinion that full PC-style character generation is, at most, for major NPCs, and maybe not even then.  But then, on the rare occasions when I do GM, I'm very much a "just wing it" kind of guy.

Quote from: TonyLBSo PCs are meant to be the heroes of the story, yeah?  And NPCs ... not so much, in most styles of play.

Pardon? In "most styles of play," considered in terms of player base size, the PCs aren't heroes from the get-go. The PCs will have been heroes, note the tense, if they were smart enough to best the opposition. To wit, those NPCs/monsters that are quite rightly statted up just as comprehensively* as they themselves, so as to make it clear mechanically that the existential playing field in the game world is level, and that to become a hero is to tilt it in one's favor or die trying.

In short, no Potemkin Villages.

*That they seem not to be in D&D is an optical illusion. Monsters are statted up just as comprehensively as PCs with respect to that mode of interaction--that ontological status--they will most likely be engaged and opposed in, i.e. combat.

Pierce! While you are posting, they are bidding!
Reserve was met.

Quote from: TonyLBIf folks could point me to (or remind me of) other recent games that cash in on the strength of having two different character-generation systems, that'd be awesome.  What do you think are the strengths of the technique?  What are the weaknesses?

Well, I just discussed this in the modern games thread, but here goes again:

Spycraft 2.0

SC 2.0 provides a simplified, more open-form design system for NPCs. NPCs don't need to have classes or levels. The GM can choose how good an NPC is in some standard areas: initiative, attack, defense, resilience (all saving throws), and competence. Standard NPCs (minions/mooks) also have a damage save. Special NPCs have VP/WP (vitality and wound points) instead. These are all rated in roman numerals I-X. When it's actually time to play, these number translate into a modifier for each sort of roll.

I can also give NPCs ability scores (otherwise they default to 10), feats, class abilities (yes, you can cherry pick), skills, or a variety of NPC special qualities.

You aren't required to use this system; you can make special NPCs using the standard rules.

The options you pick determine how much the NPC is worth towards the adventure XP reward. Note that you don't have to kill the NPC to get these XP. You merely have to have the NPC appear in an adversary manner (i.e., attempt to impede the PC's goals.)

Strength of the technique: puts the detail where it's needed... on PCs. GMs typically have more characters to create and NPCs are typically transient, so less detail is needed. Also simplifies class design because you don't need to make a class just to hold all the mundane positions out there, and even a 1st level character can credibly be thought of as better than an average NPC.

Disadvantages... well, you can game this, but then, the GM is all powerful anyways, so this is less concerning. Also, though this technique really cuts down on NPC design time, it does take a few minutes to look up the modifiers once it's time to play.


To the pedigree of this technique... I really didn't like the fact that monsters couldn't have classes, levels, or attributes in AD&D 1e/2e. I always preferred monsters like Drow that had classes and levels more like PC races. But this approach surmounts my concerns there. I can choose to make a full NPC if that's what I want, or a special version of a standardize race or creature, no problem.

In Reign, NPC's are either done with full stats just like a PC, or use the mook rules where they have virtually no detail at all.

I wanted something kind of in between, so I created an informal NPC system.  Reign is a dice pool system (ORE), so for the major NPC's I just listed how many dice they will roll, and perhaps one or two special moves they can perform.  For the one magic using adversary, I listed his spells.

So, an NPC looked like this:

  John (7 dice fighting, has level 2 of the duelist path, roll 5 dice for other stuff).

It worked fine.

Im strongly of the opinion that NPCs should not have to be designed following the same rules as PC creation, but that instead the dominant consideration should be what the GM wants the NPC to do.

RPGPundit

My simple rule of thumb:

 If an NPC is just a combat opponent , then I just need a simple set of attribute stats, bare minimum weapon skills covered and maybe whats on the NPC if the body gets loot...er um searched.

 IF the NPC becomes a recurring characer and might bolster the playing group as an ally at some point - THEN I work up full stats using the regular character creation system.


 Also "Major Adversary" characters that I know will last more than 4 or 5 sessions get a full character work up.

- Ed C.

Okay, I think that in general I'm seeing a lot of good advice for making NPCs with a subset or simplification of the PC character creation system.

But what if the systems are actually ... y'know ... independent in some ways?  Monsters in D&D have abilities and rules that PCs do not have, and in the same way PCs have abilities and rules that monsters do not have.  Monsters aren't just PCs writ small, they're a distinct thing.

Any thoughts and/or systems that shed light on doing things that way?

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, I think that in general I'm seeing a lot of good advice for making NPCs with a subset or simplification of the PC character creation system.

But what if the systems are actually ... y'know ... independent in some ways?
  Monsters in D&D have abilities and rules that PCs do not have, and in the same way PCs have abilities and rules that monsters do not have.  Monsters aren't just PCs writ small, they're a distinct thing.

The system I mentioned is sort of like that. Though you do generally tap from the same pool of options, the NPC system is less structured, and there are NPC qualities that are not generally available to PCs.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, I think that in general I'm seeing a lot of good advice for making NPCs with a subset or simplification of the PC character creation system.

But what if the systems are actually ... y'know ... independent in some ways?  Monsters in D&D have abilities and rules that PCs do not have, and in the same way PCs have abilities and rules that monsters do not have.  Monsters aren't just PCs writ small, they're a distinct thing.

Any thoughts and/or systems that shed light on doing things that way?

I have no problem either way, so long as it's appropriate to the genre and world.

-clash