The Gaming Den

In games which allow quite strong character class/type/role optimization, do you assume that the opposition is optimized to the same degree? For example, do you make NPC Street Samurais as optimized as you would do your personal PC Street Samurai in Shadowrun? Or NPC Spetnaz opponents as optimized as your PC Rangers in in Twilight 2000? And so on.

I made them as strong as they need to be to present the level of challenge I desire. But balance this against how long I want to spend on making an NPC who may potentially last 18 only seconds of in game time.

I always optimize my NPCs for the purpose they're going to serve, but that purpose isn't going to be the same kind of purpose that a PC serves, and not just in the "going to live for a campaign vs. one or two combats" sense.

Let's say I'm building a 3e NPC as a battlefield control caster to guard a high-security prison complex at which the PCs are going to stage a prison break (something I'm actually doing at the moment). My main goal with him is not to make him capable of locking down entire rooms of enemies at once, because (A) my players already know what an optimized BFC wizard looks like and have seen or played several before and (B) all the PCs being locked down and whaled on for a few rounds is no fun for anyone.

Instead, it's to convey the themes, attitudes, and similar of the group running this prison in as short a time as possible. They're themed around the Eastern elements, so he's gonna want to pack mostly wood/fire/earth/metal/water spells; yes to blockade/stony grasp/wall of fire, no to silent image/black tentacles/wind wall. They're big on sacrifice and throwing minions at problems, so his metamagic oomph is gonna come from life-draining minions via Eldritch Corruption instead of metamagic stacking via Arcane Thesis.

He's going to be as optimal as he can, but only within those constraints, and so won't end up quite as optimal as the PCs who don't have the same kinds of constraints. It lets you convey "these enemies are capable and serious" without getting into an optimization arms race. And I don't mind putting in the effort to optimize NPCs like that, because I save all the stats for all my NPCs, so I can use this guy again whenever I have a need for another elemental- or sacrifice-themed NPC with a bit of tweaking and I can pull most of the other NPCs in this scenario from previous NPCs in the same way instead of building a bunch all at once.

I do usually have a stable of ready-mades that I can adapt tho...

For Shadowrun I used to use quick dice pool estimations.
I generally kept the NPC below the level of PC, except for exceptional NPCs.

Interesting. I remember in the original Shadowrun, the sample scenario used the archetypes as the NPCs so I guess the designers had thought of the opposition as generally on a level with the PCs (or tougher, since the designers didn't seem to realize how important Wired Reflexer were if players picked other "fighter" types). Of course, players could create stronger characters quite easily...but I guess that is my point really.

My dice pool estimations are often aligned with the archetypes. It's my PC's optimized characters who are often far above them.
I don't expect corporate strike teams to all have the optimized combination of qualities/cyberware/adept powers/sustained spells that gave the PC their stratospheric dice pools.

Also when a players wants to make "the best marksman of the Sprawl", which the rules more or less let you do at chargen, I don't want to ruin his fun by having him be actually no better than a generic elite guard.

Blade wrote:For Shadowrun I used to use quick dice pool estimations.
I generally kept the NPC below the level of PC, except for exceptional NPCs.

I've used "PC dice pool -1" for NPCs if they've got equal numbers in Shadowrun. Larger numbers of trash tier enemies, or one good enemy also works out well enough.

I also usually make my own NPCs if I'm expecting combat, or use generic gangers/security from the book if I'm not.

For ordinary NPCs, I tend to make them relatively unoptimized and low level.

I'm not a fan of settings where every other NPC is a high level Wizard, it's immersion breaking.

For actual adversaries, I always optimize them a bit, if they're a custom statblock, but my group mostly consists of noobs so I rarely take that very far.

Many thanks all. It feels like a broad consensus that an efficiently-optimized PC should be somewhat stronger than a similar weight-class NPC and that NPCs shouldn't generally use the same optimization methods as PCs/

I just started writing an encounter, so I'm in the mood to talk about this.

While I generally prefer to throw multiple enemies at my party that are of a lower level than them, I try to make them as I would a PC - competent. Not trying to kick ass or anything, but I'll give them stats conducive to their role and pick classes that at least mildly synergize. If I want a brute that's intended to dish out scary damage, then I make that and they have weaknesses elsewhere as a result of character generation. As a result, my party usually gets thrashed around a bit and pulls through without coming too close to actually losing... unless they're totally bypassing or owning the encounter in a way I didn't foresee, as PCs are wont to do.

I also admit to doing semi-optimal things in the name of flavor.

I meant to write up some generic goons for my party to fight and somehow wound up with Dark Souls-esque backflipping giant dudes in heavy armor flawlessly smacking you with a greatsword from behind.

Whirlwind wrote:In games which allow quite strong character class/type/role optimization, do you assume that the opposition is optimized to the same degree? For example, do you make NPC Street Samurais as optimized as you would do your personal PC Street Samurai in Shadowrun? Or NPC Spetnaz opponents as optimized as your PC Rangers in in Twilight 2000? And so on.

It can help to have different cards/templates and then mix them for the desired NPC

like a combat street samurai or summoner cleric card for the combat encounter, then some skill stuff like "diplomancer" "artisan" if they do things outside of getting killed

Whirlwind wrote:Many thanks all. It feels like a broad consensus that an efficiently-optimized PC should be somewhat stronger than a similar weight-class NPC and that NPCs shouldn't generally use the same optimization methods as PCs/

Or they should be a solo opponent.

I completely forgot, when I'm feeling lazy, I reuse an old character sheet I have lying around.

Iduno wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:Many thanks all. It feels like a broad consensus that an efficiently-optimized PC should be somewhat stronger than a similar weight-class NPC and that NPCs shouldn't generally use the same optimization methods as PCs/

Or they should be a solo opponent.

Just to check that I have understood what you mean, a single NPC optimized the way a PC is should be an opponent for a whole group, rather than the average of whatever that "character class" is?

Whirlwind wrote:

Iduno wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:Many thanks all. It feels like a broad consensus that an efficiently-optimized PC should be somewhat stronger than a similar weight-class NPC and that NPCs shouldn't generally use the same optimization methods as PCs/

Or they should be a solo opponent.

Just to check that I have understood what you mean, a single NPC optimized the way a PC is should be an opponent for a whole group, rather than the average of whatever that "character class" is?

Mostly yes. They should actually probably be optimized slightly better than the PCs, depending on how bad things are in that system for a single character who is attacked multiple times.

Iduno wrote: They should actually probably be optimized slightly better than the PCs, depending on how bad things are in that system for a single character who is attacked multiple times.

Ah, I was more thinking that no character was going to be more-optimized than a PC at a given level. Of course, you can alway chuck a harder monster/villain whatever against the PCs but that isn't what I meant exactly. It is more that if the PCs work out that in a given game system the best "Fighter" build is for maximum points in axe skill, dodge and ignore armour, then the NPCs in the game should tend towards being nimble axemen too, as an emergent property.

Or to take a Shadowrun example (1st Edition!): if PCs want to play Mercenaries but realize they need Wired Reflexes to fight in the same league as the Street Sams and modify the archetype accordingly, should most of the Mercenaries they meet also have Wired Reflexes?

I think the real lesson here is just say "No" to solo opponents in Shadowrun. If the PCs can manage a 5 on 1 hit versus someone who can't scrape up a rando and 2 drones to hang out with then I am fine with letting nature take its course.


Anyway, my approach with Shadowrun is that I stat most characters as if they were optimized for jobs other than rumbling with PC level Shadowrunners because that's what most jobs actually are. I also favor heavy use of drones by corporate opposition since while riggers can make a mess of things by "jumping in" it's otherwise pretty reasonable for players to look at a given drone and have a rough idea of how worried they should be when 4 of them roll into a room. Whereas the guy in the suit could be a sales manager or a fucking ninja for all they know.

Whipstitch wrote:I think the real lesson here is just say "No" to solo opponents in Shadowrun. If the PCs can manage a 5 on 1 hit versus someone who can't scrape up a rando and 2 drones to hang out with then I am fine with letting nature take its course.

Solo opponents are also a subtle way to show sams how to optimize even a bit so the mage isn't carrying the team always. Sadly, subtle doesn't work well.

Mostly, I agree with your unoptimized security in golf carts with some watcher spirits and drones floating around keeping look-out for anything obvious, unless something serious enough to attract attention happens.

Whipstitch wrote:...it's otherwise pretty reasonable for players to look at a given drone and have a rough idea of how worried they should be when 4 of them roll into a room. Whereas the guy in the suit could be a sales manager or a fucking ninja for all they know.

I've been shot in the back by enough harmless-looking corporate secretaries in Shadowrun that they became kill-on-sight at one point. Never know when one is a grade-5 initiate in a pants-suit.

When we were still playing SR3 on a very regular basis, one of my GMs complained about my character being way too strong.
And he told me to make NPCs that could take down my character.
And i did. I genuinely basically minmaxed them into one trick ponies to take down my character.
And then i made it a point to completely evade them all session and have them taken out by the rest of the group.


edit:
@erik
That image speaks to me . . before my old HDD died, i must have had about 100 to 200 characters on it . . any stage from just a concept to completely fleshed out living being.
And i played . . 1 or 2 . .

I was running rifts long long ago. Had a huge combat against 4 horsemen in Africa involving many NPCs fighting alongside pcs. I just used a stack of characters I had made for future use that would knew would never see play and started x-ing em out a handful per round. Lost more than a handful when one player kamikaze crashed a jet into a horseman that was mobbed in melee.

K wrote:
I've been shot in the back by enough harmless-looking corporate secretaries in Shadowrun that they became kill-on-sight at one point. Never know when one is a grade-5 initiate in a pants-suit.

This is peak Shadowrun.

Yeah, we were really surprised when the accountant we were supposed to shadow turned out to be a fucking ninja multiple level adept . .