Just doing some thinking based on Acrimone idea of having evil gods trapped on earth (2nd page (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?52779)). Many settings have really powerful NPCs. In others the PCs are some of, if not the most powerful. What are the general power levels of your NPCs and how does this affect your game?
I've found that many times, in settings with high level good aligned NPCs you run into situations where epic "save the world" stories just don't make sense. Why are we trying to save the world when Elminster, or any of his buddies, could handle this situation without breaking a sweat?
If there's no powerful good guys to do the PCs job, then what about the bad guys? Why haven't they already taken over the world with nobody to oppose them (or maybe they have)? Conflicts with other potent bad guys? Recently risen in power and haven't had the time to take over yet?
If players are the most powerful, why is that? What makes them so special?
This is a very important topic, and I'm glad you raised it. I'd be very interested in knowing what different people did with different systems.
The Rolemaster system that I use has one feature that makes it markedly different than D&D in how it approaches levels: a 2d level fighter can and sometimes does take down a 30th level fighter. In D&D that just doesn't happen. So level matters a little less in most of my games -- because every human is a dangerous human.
That said, I think what makes characters exceptional is not their level per se, but their rate of advancement. They are out adventuring or saving the world or the village or whatnot. They gain levels (read world-weariness, wisdom, experience, skills) at an enormously higher rate than the rest of the world. THis means, of course, that they can get to higher levels before the die. Usually.
Most NPCs in my world are between levels 1 and 9. As a farmer, your life generally is not going to be interesting enough to get you past that before natural ailments catch up to you and that hard-laboring hard-drinking lifestyle. If you're a really energetic, innovative, successful farmer, maybe you get to be level 16. But there's not really THAT much difference between a level 16 farmer and, say, a level 5 warrior. Indeed, the fighter is going to be almost certainly superior in terms of weapons skill, maneuvering in armor, etc. That's because the farmer is going to spend his development points on different things that warriors will.
I'll bet the 16th level farmer can tell when a storm is coming three days in advance. Blindfolded. In a box.
Anyway, this is another area where I think the game system will have a remarkable impact on how play is implemented. In my D&D campaigns, I've found that something useful to do is to have the major antagonists start out a little higher than the PCs, and advance along with them. After all, they are working as hard on their nefarious plots as the players are working on stopping them! They should get some XP! As they advance in level, their nefarious schemes get more and more intricate, with more and more important and world-changing results, and the stakes get bigger.
Here is an excerpt on levels and society from my campaign's main sourcebook -- read at your own risk. :)
[spoiler=CAMPAIGN DEMOGRAPHICS] Population Level Analysis
The population of the Empire (and the rest of the world) is not entirely composed of adventurers '" indeed, less than 2% of the population ever really engages in adventures of any sort. The majority are farmers, artisans, craftsmen, and children. That is not to say that the vast swaths of humanity are all first level peons '" even a blacksmith who has never adventured may have had a great amount of experience, and even a bureaucrat may be trained and skilled far beyond what one might expect. The population of the world is broken down, level-wise, roughly along the following lines:
Children (zero develop) 16%
Adolescent (one develop) 9%
Levels 1-2 22%
Levels 3-5 24%
Levels 6-9 16%
Levels 10-12 7%
Levels 13-15 4%
Levels 16-20 1%
Levels 21-25 .7%
Levels 26-29 .25%
Levels 30-39 .03%
Levels 40-49 around .015%
Levels 50-59 around .05%
Level 60+ less than .001%
While a 12th level warrior should be able to easily best a 30th level blacksmith, the blacksmith is certainly more likely to put up a good fight than his 5th level apprentice. Also note that levels 30 and higher generally require that the person in question have some supernatural way to ward off age and death. The majority of the five or six level 60 human entities in the world are likely to in fact be liches of some sort.
Earning Experience:
Adventurers earn experience the old fashioned way: killing things and fulfilling quests, looting treasure and exploring new lands. The regular people of the world earn it in a slightly more lengthy process, but they earn it nonetheless.
Farmers earn their experience by raising a successful crop, by providing for their family, by making shrewd decisions. If the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, the crafty farmer gets richer than his neighbors and gains more experience. While a farmer might earn 400 xp for planting a crop (15 acres), earn another 300 for bringing it to harvest, and earn another 500 for the harvest itself, a clever farmer who picks the right crop for the market, moves his goods quickly, and uses skill and knowledge to make a superior harvest could treble those numbers. A farmer who supervises 300 acres of production may earn even more if his role is active enough.
Likewise, a blacksmith might earn 100 xp for creating a good, solid tool. But if the blacksmith created a work of art, say a beautiful spear made of the finest materials with a rock-hard edge and a fine sheen, that might be worth 1-2,000 xp. Bureaucrats earn experience by ascending to positions of power, by navigating the halls of intrigue, and by being recognized as favorites. Scholars earn experience through discovery. Traders earn experience by making excellent trades, and by discovering new routes.
If he's lucky, the skilled peasant or the crafty bureaucrat may earn a level every 3-4 years. This pales in comparison to the adventurers average, which is nearly a level per month during peak activity, and a level every sixth months to a year during slower times. Of course, every now and then the farmer gets lucky and saves the village from attack, earning 6,000 xp at a jump'¦
[/spoiler]
It depends, I have low, medium and high level NPCs. Some of the higher-level ones most PCs will never meet or interact with (kings, etc.), the mid-to-low levels are where the majority of the interaction tends to occur.
In D&D I just about always have the PCs start at first level, if the adventures I've got planned look dangerous to the PCs beyond what they should be able to handle on their own they might have one or more slightly higher level NPC buddies.
I try to construct my world with the notion that there are other heroes out there, and sometimes the PCs are those guys dealing with the bandit fort, while someone bigger and more important takes care of the demons and dragons.
In one of the DC Heroes games I tried to run the central premise is that the big guns have disappeared and you're either an established second stringer, like Nightwing or Huntress, or a newly created hero who hasn't made his reputation yet. This created a nice open playing field where you don't have to justify Superman not swooping in to save the day every five minutes.
In the WW original World of Darkness games, like Vampire: the Masquerade, I felt a need to have an established hierarchy with the PCs not on the top.
Most notable NPCs in my settings, in D&D terms, range between 9-34 in level. Notable means legendary - there are certainly many nobles here and there, and peasant heroes that are lower in level. In my upcoming homebrew system, most notables range from 2-8 (the maximum being 10).
I usually have a range of NPCs of all levels--whether the PCs are currently level 1, 10, or 20, you can find NPCs of vastly higher and vastly lower level. However, the higher-level ones are already occupied with the Ultimate Threat du jour and can't come swooping in to the rescue; the PCs join in that fight, but they aren't the world's only level X heroes. They might be the best among the level Xs, or the ones who got there fastest, or something else (and usually are), but they aren't unique, because having unique PCs raises the issues of "Why hasn't anyone else done this," "Why hasn't evil won yet," etc.
I don't assign levels to any NPCs, unless there is some reason to do so (such as potential combat or social interaction on a grand scale). When that occurs, I never make the NPCs higher level than the players.
Basically, my NPCs are always the same level as the PCs. This is an important distinction I embrace in my game, more so in that the players always have a "fighting chance" to try and take down Duke of Such and Such if the situation warranted it. Naturally, he'll have more people at his disposal but nonetheless, it reinforces the verisimilitude of the game. Levels are entirely relative to the situation, I don't constrain myself by focusing on level development of potential allies and foes. I focus mostly on worldbuilding and storytelling.
Interesting ideas by all. I especially like kyron's DC Heroes idea.
"Some of the higher-level ones most PCs will never meet or interact with (kings, etc.)["
I find it interesting that the example of a high level NPC is a King. Why is it that Kings are always high level? Throughout history there were many incompetent Kings who gained their position hereditaly. Why don't they show up in most games?
Moniker, I find it really interesting that your NPCs tend to be the same level as the PCs. That seems to take away from the feel of mechanical advancement. After all, if you can already take on any NPC at level one, what's the point in leveling up?
It also gives me the feel that in your setting people are really just people. Nobody has special powers, and all must rely on the power structure they have built around themselves, along with allies, in order to have great strength and protection. Personal strength seems very much unimportant.
I'm interested in finding out if any of you have games with "gods on earth" or other really epic level stuff in your game, and how you handle that.
On similar note, what is your power scale like? Are there characters who can take on entire armies single handedly? If so, why are there still armies?
By the way, here's what I've been planning for my setting. There are two major power categories, those who are "chosen" and those who are not, aka "normals". At low levels the chosen aren't that much more powerful than the rest, and are certainly weaker than mid to high level normals. However as the chosen level up, which they do faster, they quickly begin to outstrip the normals. All of the chosen have the potential to change the world, if they aren't stopped by others.
I'm planning on having a bunch of city states each ruled by high level chosen, either individuals or a group. All of them have a close enough general level of power that they are unable to take other cities without a high chance of losing their own. They all tend to keep an eye on any growing powers, to ensure that younger chosen are either used as a tool or destroyed so that they don't become a threat.
All PCs will be chosen, usually starting at low levels. As they advanced they'll need to find ways to either stay under the radar of those in control, or to become useful enough that they are kept around.
What I'm working on now, is trying to decide how these high level NPC will affect the world. They all should be quite secure in their power, and will likely avoid taking too many risks, or at least the risks they take should have a very big potential reward, and a low chance of ending in complete disaster. They'll likely end up doing the majority of their work through pawns, other up and coming chosen for dangerous tasks, normals for the mundane (policing, tax collecting, etc...). Their main goals will probably centre around increasing their base of power, and weakening their foes. Lots of indirect attacks, attempts to hamper tax collecting, stealing the services of other skilled chosen, etc...
I can also imagine that for the common folk they'll be quite afraid. It's hard to organize a group to accomplish any thing when there are so many individuals that are so powerful. When a single, relatively low ranking chosen can single handily wipe out bandit camps and what not, strength in numbers won't be a common occurrence. Any organization of any size could only exist with the blessing of their "lord", unless they stay small enough to not attract attention. Anybody who wants to change the status quo would really need to stick to the shadows, and use very behind the scenes methods for everything.
Anyway, I'm still looking forward to see how the rest of you handle this kinda stuff.
I am still not yet 100% sure how I will handle this. I do know that the "big single high-levels" are all going to be creatures. Yet some of the most deadly enemies will be at a far lower scale. In that case their real threat will likely come not from their strength but from their skill and ability to use the resources at their disposal.
After all while a drake the size of a bus is a frightening thing, he can't chase you into the depths of a city. Nor can he organize watchers and hunt you down from city to city giving you no safe haven to hide.
Quote from: PellanorMoniker, I find it really interesting that your NPCs tend to be the same level as the PCs. That seems to take away from the feel of mechanical advancement. After all, if you can already take on any NPC at level one, what's the point in leveling up?
It also gives me the feel that in your setting people are really just people. Nobody has special powers, and all must rely on the power structure they have built around themselves, along with allies, in order to have great strength and protection. Personal strength seems very much unimportant.
Leveling is entirely secondary to storybuilding and character development. Levels are nothing more than a reward for a "job well done" in my game. The mechanics do not define the game, although my group and I certainly enjoy the tactical nature of combat and rolling dice.
As far as personal strength, it has very little relevence politically. However, it does have an impact on what the players can accomplish geographically. Let me explain -
A lot of games I've played in simply scale the encounters upwards in relation to the player's levels. Meaning, at 1st level if the players walk thru the King's Forest, they'll fight foes equal to their level. When they're 12th level, they fight foes equal to their level (and wolves, goblins and other troublesome beasts simply "disappear" or multiply in equal number to challenge players). I simply do not handle beasts as such. If you walk into the Myrkwood, there are things there that a 1st level character could never conquer. Therefore, don't go into those woods!
NPCs, on the other hand, are always equal to the PCs levels. Simply put, beasts are meant to be conquered (and if you want to wander through the northern country of Guarhoth, you better be high level), whereas NPCs have a lot more going for them than a suite of game stats in the Monster Manual. And considering that the majority of the foes the players fight against are "human", there are repercussions they must be willing to accept or prepare for if they choose the path of least resistance (violence).
To clarify my position from another thread - my players have felled NPCs through extortion, blackmail, sacked their castles without spilling a drop of blood, waged financial wars, held hostages and even bought the loyalty of their foe's allies. However, they have also used the blade for a quick resolution. What they generally find though is that killing someone isn't always the best solution, and face the repercussions if they're caught. The same goes for walking around with weapons in a civilized city. They incur not only the fear of locals, but also heat from the law and find that their level of social influence can potentially go down the toilet.
Basically, violence rarely resolves the issues that they face in the game. It is not always the best means to an end of a problem.
I don't assign concrete levels to my NPCs, either. I tend to shift an NPC's strength relative to the PCs with the desired difficulty of an encounter. If I want my players to be hard-pressed to win I'll give the NPCs a +1/2 level advantage and vice versa.
I also don't equate social position with level. I do generally give people like generals, captains, heads of mage schools, etc. a large buffer over PCs in the beginning to middle of a campaign.
Quote from: Pellanor"Some of the higher-level ones most PCs will never meet or interact with (kings, etc.)["
I find it interesting that the example of a high level NPC is a King. Why is it that Kings are always high level? Throughout history there were many incompetent Kings who gained their position hereditaly. Why don't they show up in most games?
I have both, high-level "Hero" kings, as well as lower-level "buffoon" kings/nobles/etc.
I will say though that the majority of the NPCs I have actually "written up" are higher level rulers of countries, etc. Is it a bit stereotypical? Sure probably, but its what pops into my head.
I find this thread far more amusing than I should.
See, I use level-less systems, as the very concept of "levels" is more than a tad ridiculous. Which of course changes the question to "how powerful are your NPCs" but even this is a bit moot, because in a level-less system, there is typically far more power in numbers than in personal strength. Power, thus, is typically a product of political strength. PCs can enjoy being strong, but must always be wary of being overwhelmed by even a small armed force.
To answer the question more fully, my worlds typically are filled with NPCs of higher skill than the PCs, monsters of vastly higher strength, and politicians with great power. The PCs are typically special because they are "destined" to have unique opportunity to change the world around them.
I am actually in a similar boat to Raelifin. I didn't clarify it but the whole higher leveled thing was in quotes for a reason. I don't actually have levels (other than skill levels). I think what the elf beater said also meshes nicely with my system. The truly powerful things are that way because their species is naturally stronger than a human.
Quote from: MonikerQuote from: PellanorMoniker, I find it really interesting that your NPCs tend to be the same level as the PCs. That seems to take away from the feel of mechanical advancement. After all, if you can already take on any NPC at level one, what's the point in leveling up?
It also gives me the feel that in your setting people are really just people. Nobody has special powers, and all must rely on the power structure they have built around themselves, along with allies, in order to have great strength and protection. Personal strength seems very much unimportant.
Leveling is entirely secondary to storybuilding and character development. Levels are nothing more than a reward for a "job well done" in my game. The mechanics do not define the game, although my group and I certainly enjoy the tactical nature of combat and rolling dice.
As far as personal strength, it has very little relevence politically. However, it does have an impact on what the players can accomplish geographically. Let me explain -
A lot of games I've played in simply scale the encounters upwards in relation to the player's levels. Meaning, at 1st level if the players walk thru the King's Forest, they'll fight foes equal to their level. When they're 12th level, they fight foes equal to their level (and wolves, goblins and other troublesome beasts simply "disappear" or multiply in equal number to challenge players). I simply do not handle beasts as such. If you walk into the Myrkwood, there are things there that a 1st level character could never conquer. Therefore, don't go into those woods!
NPCs, on the other hand, are always equal to the PCs levels. Simply put, beasts are meant to be conquered (and if you want to wander through the northern country of Guarhoth, you better be high level), whereas NPCs have a lot more going for them than a suite of game stats in the Monster Manual. And considering that the majority of the foes the players fight against are "human", there are repercussions they must be willing to accept or prepare for if they choose the path of least resistance (violence).
This is really interesting, as it is the complete opposite of what I do. Not that I am saying it is bad, it is just that I have always taken the mindset that the world is as the world is, and the adventurers end up somewhere they should know to avoid, well, that is their own fault.
When the Igbarians released the Antroo Vampyre, they lost 5/7 of their party.
It's not just a little difference in play, I have always wanted the PC's to feel that they are part of a moving, existing world, and that the world does not change for them unless they change it.
Similarly, NPC's are as I set them out to be, and if they are active NPC's, than they are supposed to gain experience, as well. ANd the uncertainty of not knowing how powerful the KNight of the Red Circle taunting them from across the bar is critical for that feeling of being part of the world.
And since we play in a system where there are as many social skills as combat ones, and where the Social Circ Check is used more than the Reflex Circ Check, this becomes critical. Does he know more people than you? Can he read your attempts to figure him out? IS he lying to you and you can't even detect it? Is he bonding with your friends and henchmen? Does he recognize the sigil on your torc you took from the boneyard (I knew I shouldn't wear this in public!)...