Quote from: RPGPundit;986729Generally speaking, I strongly disagree, because this affects Immersion.

There may be some situations where this makes sense; for example, when playing out a mass combat.

How could it affect immersion? The players wouldn't even be aware of it. They woukd only know of the npcs exploits through the GM'S description as in any game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984275A rules set I'm reading advises GMS to run npcs allied to the player "summarily" only. Not to roll for them or play them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general as the attention should be focused on the PCs. I have my own feelings about this practice but would like to hear others.

Quote from: RPGPundit;986729Generally speaking, I strongly disagree, because this affects Immersion.

There may be some situations where this makes sense; for example, when playing out a mass combat.

Quote from: rgrove0172;986818How could it affect immersion? The players wouldn't even be aware of it. They woukd only know of the npcs exploits through the GM'S description as in any game.

Speaking for my own immersion, if the GM is rolling for actions involving PCs but not for NPCs, I'll notice it. Same if he is "not ... play[ing} them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general" - that is going to be noticeable, so unless they aren't very observant, they will be aware of it. I certainly would. As I am interested in playing a game where I get to be in the fictional situation and when I immerse in it, I will be relating to the PCs and NPCs as if they are the same sort of people, subject to the same kind of cause and effect, and acting appropriately, if it is clear that the PCs get treated one way and the NPCs in quite another, that is going to affect my ability to immerse, believe, and be interested in and care about the supposed situation.

Quote from: Skarg;986830Speaking for my own immersion, if the GM is rolling for actions involving PCs but not for NPCs, I'll notice it. Same if he is "not ... play[ing} them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general" - that is going to be noticeable, so unless they aren't very observant, they will be aware of it. I certainly would. As I am interested in playing a game where I get to be in the fictional situation and when I immerse in it, I will be relating to the PCs and NPCs as if they are the same sort of people, subject to the same kind of cause and effect, and acting appropriately, if it is clear that the PCs get treated one way and the NPCs in quite another, that is going to affect my ability to immerse, believe, and be interested in and care about the supposed situation.

But none of this interests you at all when the situation reaches and exceeds the threshold from large battle to mass combat? You care deeply about the specifics of performance surrounding the 8 orc warriors against you but no so much when its 28?

Now if you are saying you do care but simply resolve to lay those cares aside when the numbers become too difficult to manage in the interest of brevity, play-ability, pace of the game etc. I totally get it but Im doing the same thing, just at a lower threshold.

Quote from: rgrove0172;987120But none of this interests you at all when the situation reaches and exceeds the threshold from large battle to mass combat? You care deeply about the specifics of performance surrounding the 8 orc warriors against you but no so much when its 28?

Now if you are saying you do care but simply resolve to lay those cares aside when the numbers become too difficult to manage in the interest of brevity, play-ability, pace of the game etc. I totally get it but Im doing the same thing, just at a lower threshold.

You'll at least need to raise your numbers a bit. I have played out tactical battles with over 100 characters on each side on hex maps using TFT and GURPS, and they all have stats and equipment and skills and are all tracked for facing, dropped weapons, effects of injury, etc etc. However on those rare occasions, it did end up seeming pretty excessive, but it was done intentionally, and was the culmination/climax of several sessions leading up to it, with the players' side all of NPCs recruited before, so it would've seemed something of a lame anticlimax to handwave what happened to them.

My interest doesn't really go down with high numbers of combatants, but when there is a ton going on, it can become impractical to track everything. I do still want things to happen for good reasons and not be hand-waved. See for example the thread where a couple of us were discussing our dissatisfactions with the GURPS Mass Combat system, although my main gripe is the results, and that the details are a bit too detailed for the level of accuracy they provide.

I have also developed systems for very quickly handling combat results between non-detailed NPCs, for the purposes of being able to do large combats very quickly but without losing much accuracy. I have sometimes just handwaved some stuff and dictated what happens between NPCs, but it's not as interesting or satisfying to me as trying to keep it randomized and having about the right odds for stuff. After having played tactical battles out with a system for years, I can get a pretty good sense of what the likely outcomes are, and how likely they are. Though in GURPS, if you play it out, the specifics can be fun and interesting and leave a lot of nice chaotic details about where the bodies, blood and breakages end up.

When the PCs are present and directly interacting with NPCs, I will almost certainly be using the rules the same for the PC and NPC.

(Also I'm not sure why the topic drifted from the published game's suggestion for generalizing all NPCs, to situations where one would shift for large combats.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;986818How could it affect immersion? The players wouldn't even be aware of it. They woukd only know of the npcs exploits through the GM'S description as in any game.

Because the impression on players could easily be that NPCs are just literary elements that accomplish or fail things based on where the GM imagines the "story" should go.