You know, I've seen this over and over again. Presumably, most RPG writers are also GMs/players, so you'd think they'd know this. But for some reason, virtually every NPCs who's ever mattered enough for me to look up his stats in an RPG book is very underpowered for his level (particularly in D&D products, though in other games I've seen it too).

Why do they do this??? Ignorance? Laziness? Lust for gold?

RPGPundit

They are more interesting. I only play optimal characters to avoid being stepped on by other players. It would be nice to play a rogue sometime that had 2 15s instead of a 20 dex or who could hang onto his odd wonderous items instead of hocking them for combat shit.

As a RPG author who frequently has had to write up stats for characters from TV/movies/books, I try to assign stats based on what would be "in character" for that NPC, and that's usually not a min-max/optimized approach.

Whenever I'm statting up an original character, I also try to get "into their head" and come up with a logical distribution of attributes/talents/traits/skills/etc., unless the character's focus is being the very best at something.

If I'm statting up, say Mr. Miracle from DC Comics... he's going to be the best escape artist in the universe. He will have an optimized set of attributes and advantages to make that happen. On the other hand, if I'm statting up someone like Badger from Firefly, he's just gonna be a pretty clever guy with some good resources and contacts.

Quote from: RPGPundit;344269You know, I've seen this over and over again. Presumably, most RPG writers are also GMs/players, so you'd think they'd know this. But for some reason, virtually every NPCs who's ever mattered enough for me to look up his stats in an RPG book is very underpowered for his level (particularly in D&D products, though in other games I've seen it too).

Why do they do this??? Ignorance? Laziness? Lust for gold?

RPGPundit

They must envision a world that isn't populated by min-maxers.

Of course, then they are designing for games that have "Post Your Optimal Build" forums.

That said, I generally find Deadlands NPCs to be incredibly stacked, especially in Deadlands Reloaded, and the old Star Wars d6 write-ups of the movie cast were pretty loaded.

Rodney Thompson, current developer for Star Wars Saga Edition, has recently lamented online about the decision to make the movie cast less than 20th level (the hard cap for levels in Star Wars Saga).

I answer only for myself: I don't do optimal. I prefer interesting. Then again, it's strange to even think of the concept of an optimal character in my games...

-clash

RPGPundit, I've noticed that too. And, often stats on "monsters" are too low to.

When I create NPCs they are just like the characters the players in the game are using. They might be higher or lower level, but they will have something interesting or above average about them. Just the like the PCs in my games.

My players are pretty good about writing up characters based on a concept. Sometimes that concept is the over the top powerful mage, sometimes it is the sneaky agile assassin, and other times they are a jack of all trades. Our min-maxing usually stops at making sure the character is good at what they are supposed to be good at. That is not to say I don't end up with powerful characters in some aspects.

So, I match my NPCs to be roughly equal to the PCs in most cases. Although, there are those occasional super dangerous enemies that have at least one if not a few huge advantages over the PCs. That is always fun.

You may have a point Pundit, but consider D6 Star Wars.

The iconic NPCs in that product line were just about Godlike in comparison to PCs.

Interesting beats out optimal for me too.

Quote from: PaladinCA;344304You may have a point Pundit, but consider D6 Star Wars.

The iconic NPCs in that product line were just about Godlike in comparison to PCs.

I had an 8-month long SW d6 game, using the listed skill point rates, under 1E+RC. Ecept for the Ewok-cum-jedi, they all had several skills in the 7D+, and most had a 9D+ or two skill. The Ewok had C 7D S6+2 A 7D and Lightsaber 6D+2...

Only the Jedi characters were really too far over the top. someone running a longer term game found himself with PC's exceeding the Iconics in just over a year of play.

Quote from: Cranewings;344271They are more interesting. I only play optimal characters to avoid being stepped on by other players. It would be nice to play a rogue sometime that had 2 15s instead of a 20 dex or who could hang onto his odd wonderous items instead of hocking them for combat shit.

Ok, that's fine for characters that are there as NPCs for the players to interact with in a friendly sense, I suppose. But when you're talking about characters who are meant to be opponents, that's just sloppy. Likewise, if someone is supposed to be a paragon of something-or-other (the greatest warrior, or the greatest thief, or the greatest starfighter pilot, or whatever), then its just stupid if they're statted in such a way that another character of the same level vastly outstrips them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PaladinCA;344304You may have a point Pundit, but consider D6 Star Wars.

The iconic NPCs in that product line were just about Godlike in comparison to PCs.

Yes, that's true, that is an opposite sort of problem that can occur in some games, where essentially NPCs are created in ways that break the very definition of the rules, so that no player can ever hope to have the level of power those NPCs have, just because they're either licensed characters, or the Designer's Pets.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;344352Ok, that's fine for characters that are there as NPCs for the players to interact with in a friendly sense, I suppose. But when you're talking about characters who are meant to be opponents, that's just sloppy. Likewise, if someone is supposed to be a paragon of something-or-other (the greatest warrior, or the greatest thief, or the greatest starfighter pilot, or whatever), then its just stupid if they're statted in such a way that another character of the same level vastly outstrips them.

RPGPundit

I think a lot of the time, players learn the game better than the designers. That's why so many Magic the Gathering cards get banned. The designers come up with sub optimal decks, and the players break them.

A) So players can beat them.
B) Because designers don't play the min max way so much I don't think... at least I don't and none of the others I know do.

Supposing we have a "Garage Game Guy". He sells a thousand copies of A RPG. Woot for him.
Let's say that, overall, he gets 1,000 at least semi-consistent players out of that.

That means that A RPG will then be scrutinized by 1000x more people than it was written by.

It doesn't take bad design to get broken combos.

Now, let's take D&D. Let's say, 20 designers and 3,000,000 players... 3,000,000 / 20 = 150,000...

... = Pun-Pun. Or worse.

Largely depends on the game mechanics.

In RuneQuest 1-3 a Runelord could get decapitated by a puny Trollkin if the Trollkin criticalled - hell, the Runelord could decapitate himself if he rolled badly enough on his attack and then again on the fumble chart.

In fact I can't think of any BRP-derived game where I've looked at the NPCs and felt the need to restat them up at all as even the weakest opponents on paper could still surprise you when the dice got rolled.  

Similarly in any modern or SF game that even semi-realistically models the effects of firearms equipment should be more important than an NPCs stats.

In fact many Classic Traveller adventures hardly bother to stat up NPCs at all - it is actually way more important whether the opposition has carbines, gauss rifles or PGMP-13s than if they have a Dex 7 or Brawling-1.

While in Warhammer 1&2 it is quite possible for a sufficiently advanced PC to be stronger and tougher than a Dragon or Giant, the mechanics are still sufficiently robust/broken (take your pick) that any Ratcatcher's Small But Vicious Dog can easily kill an average unarmoured man (in fact given the other factors in any likely combat this is vastly more likely to happen than a lone Dwarf Slayer ever actually managing to kill a Dragon or Giant).

I recently played through the excellent WFRP2 adaptation of the Oldenhaller Contract by Jadrax here and by far the deadliest opponent was not the Beast of Nurgle - neatly disposed of in 2 rounds thanks to a Bounty Catcher's net and the instability rule - or the Chaos Magus, but the bloody Rat Swarms in the sewer tunnels which quickly would have managed a TPK without copious use of fortune and fate points and some serious fudging when it came to estimating how long it takes 5 wounded and encumbered characters to scramble into an old mine cart and find/release the brake.