For day 6 of the Blogging for GMs project, we have a guest post written by Mike Barker (Judas, in the comments). Mike doesn’t have a blog, so I suggested that he email me his post — an offer I’m happy to extend to others in the same situation, for the duration of the project. Thanks for for writing this, Mike!
Here’s Mike’s guest post, “The Horrors of NPC Combat and How to Mitigate Them.”
(Note: this is mostly d20/D&D specific, but can be applied to other systems as well)
While the “final battle” is somewhat of a cliché in RPGs, it is generally accepted as a nice way to put a capstone on a long campaign. Since most games revolve around heroes and their great deeds, it follows that there is a great antagonist at the end that must be dealt with.
Many DMs (or GMs if you prefer) opt for a megalithic foe straight from a source with predetermined strengths and weaknesses, like the archetypical dragon or lich. However, some DMs build a campaign around evil NPCs, such as cultist, a cabal of foul Wizards, or maybe corrupt politicians, and this yields a final battle of “NPCs.” This can pose a mind-bending battle for even an experienced DM.
Herein lies the problem. To be formidable opponents, the NPCs need to be fleshed out just as the player characters are, complete with stats, skills, feats, and equipment. When the battle commences, regardless of how story driven everything was leading up to this point, the DM is faced with a brain-melting amount of game mechanics to deal with.
Beyond the obvious buffs/debuffs, each NPC probably has a unique set of gear and items that can further complicate affairs. While the players have just one full-featured character to deal with, you are essentially trying to manage several characters at the same time. What is the DM to do?
As with most RPG tasks, the DM’s best weapon is preparation, lots of it. Begin developing the evil NPCs well before the final battle. Try to establish their level at what you think the party can handle and if the party lacks enough levels/gear to have a fair shot, you can simply reduce the existing NPCs accordingly before game day. This is much faster then trying to generate the whole NPC between sessions.
Spell casters pose a problem in that they will have a repertoire of spells at their disposal. Pick a spell theme to match the NPC and choose their spells accordingly. Take each spell and try to reduce its total functionality (including damage) to just one line and put all the spells on a sheet of paper. On this line you want the “absolute” number needed to save/resist for the players.
In other words, compute all the bonuses to the spell ahead of time so you can glance at just one number when the players ask what their target number is. When the spell is used, you can simply lineout the spell on your sheet “spell book” grocery-list style.
As for long lasting buffs, it can be usually assumed the caster in question will have foreknowledge of the PCs’ arrival so he would normally have his protective spells up at the onset of battle. Pre-calculate these values and work them into the character sheet. Do note what the base value is because these buffs could wear off or be removed.
Melee provides another set of challenges. Since the NPCs are likely a mix of melee abilities and special weapons, they will have vastly differing attack values. The solution? Normally, the DM has knowledge of what the PCs’ armor values are before the fight. Create a grid of absolute values of what needs to be rolled by each NPC to hit each character. Don’t bother assigning the targets in a fashion of “NPC X needs Y to hit player Z.” The players will always do the unexpected and the melee types will end up fighting targets you didn’t foresee.
Using the grid, you can choose the NPC and simply cross reference to the target PC and know exactly what has to come up on the die face. Additionally, place all the NPC’s absolute damage capacity (figuring in all factors), AC, and HP on the same sheet. If the NPC has an ability that dramatically changes its combat values (like a barbarian’s rage), then have entries on the grid and hot sheet for both “on” and “off.” Obviously, this can’t account for what buffs/debuffs the players will elect to employ, but it’s usually a simply a matter of skewing a value one way or another.
Your ultimate goal here is to be able to run the whole battle without ever looking through the stack of NPC character sheets (but have them handy of course, if needed). Always try to think in terms of absolute values needed on the die and how to get there ahead of time. Re-computing the values each round slows the game dramatically. Any special abilities/items that cannot be summarized quickly should have the book and page listed where the data can be found. Don’t be afraid to use bookmarks here either.
Now the time has come for the battle to commence. You simply must demand that the players (or better yet, one designated player) track the party buffs for short-term buffs because you will be too busy doing the same.
After the initiative roll, form an initiative chain by creating a list of who goes when ordered with “first” at the top, and then work down the list each round. Absolutely avoid the “stock market” effect that many DM’s use for initiative: “25…24…23, on 23 the NPC attacks!” Not only will this speed up the process itself, it prevents the “Oh, wait!, I go back on 16!” when players forget their place or were distracted. Simply go down the list and call of who goes next.
That’s about it. Hopefully with more bandwidth freed up in the DM’s brain, he will have more “room” for using innovative tactics, unusual items, and chilling monologue. 🙂
Most of the delay in a game system results from number crunching or referencing materials. The DM must often do several times the players’ amount in an NPC vs. PC battle, and thus the onus to make it speedy falls on them. While the math is usually just simple addition and subtraction, the sheer volume of it can bog down even a mentally agile DM. Are there any ways you can think of to speed up such a battle? If you’re a non-d20/D&D GM, have you thought about ways to speed up your system? What do you suggest?
Hey,
Going around the tables in my area is a clever little device that looks like (is) a whiteboard with the numbers 1-30 along one side. With an appropriate marker, you can enable the players to keep track of initiative for you.
I love it because it gives them more to do, which is less boring for them. It gives me less to do, which makes me less stressed, and faster. That makes the game more fun for them. I’ll look for a link and post it soon.
Also, I try to steer FAR away from individual NPCs and slow, cumbersome tactics. If the evil wizard has four guards, you better believe those guards are identical quadruplets. It lets me focus on the big guys.
I’ll normally write up tactics in advance, so I’ve got opening moves planned out, and then 2-3 options after I see how those worked out.
Good advice. As a player, I keep track of initative– and often, the cumulative HP inflicted on specific bad guys, also using a whiteboard. It’s a little less for the GM to have to do.
The “custom but no effort” NPCs are still a mirage… one that trips our GM up. He often has incomplete characters + their equipment at battle time, which does slow things down greatly. I appreciate his efforts… but would usually be happier with completely worked out quadruplets.
Hmm, I really need to do spell sheets like you suggest for my game. In the last battle I ran, the spell caster forgot to use his templates (I’m running Arcana Evolved).
The initiative board idea Rudolf suggests is good. I use a magnetic board with little magnets for each PC (I have generic magnets labeled Leader, Group A, Group B, … Group E). The board also has spots for Ready and Hold (though one problem with ready is that it loses the spot in the initiative track the individual was at). It can get confusing if part of an NPC group breaks up (fortunately in our last battle, the troll who readied an action ended up going effectively at the same initiative since the next character to act triggered the readied action – so I just left him there – in the meantime, I marked him with a counter to remind me he had a readied action).
One of my players in a previous campaign introduced this idea. However, after one battle with it, I decided I didn’t like the PCs holding the board. The problem was that I pre-rolled initiatives for NPCs not in view yet (but that would be alerted by the ensuing battle). At one point, the PCs decided to ready/hold for the off board NPCs (though I think they had actually killed everything in sight, the real thing to do at that point would have been to call for new initiatives – still, it reminded me that PCs shouldn’t have the knowledge of when the bad guys are going until they have been through at least once).
I use a stat block form that usually lets me fit 3-6 creatures on a page so I don’t have too many sheets to manage in a complex battle (the last series of battles they were in were pretty complex – fortunately they have dispatched enough of those enemies that the complexity is on it’s way down [they’re actually in the middle of the third battle with these guys]).
Frank
Scott,
Good point about over customizing NPCs. Individuals can be customized, but the squad of guardsmen should be clones (though perhaps having two groups, one for melee and one for missile might be ok). I’ve been running Judge’s Guild’s Dark Tower, and I’ve been reducing the individualism. I also try to be as pre-prepared as possible (though early on, I was not fully prepared, so unfortunately I don’t have a complete prep-sheet for the entire module, then there’s the encounters I just haven’t figured out what to do with yet).
Frank
It’s interesting that initiative in D&D comes up so often — a pretty clear sign that the system could use a little work, IMO.
My fix has been a laminated grid numbered 1-30, oriented vetically so that there’s plenty of space under each number. I write down everyone’s results under their numbers, and in the case of ties the higher Dex character goes above the lower Dex character. It works wuite nicely.
Don (Abulia) usually writes everyone’s results on the whiteboard in his gaming room, so it’s 100% clear who is on deck, etc.
I actually prefer systems without initiative, though it is handy to specify exactly when actions take place. In Cold Iron, combat turns are broken up somewhat into phases, but it’s pretty easy to handle (missiles, melee, grappling, with spells coming in at various points depending on how fast the caster can cast the spell). There are some rules for handling declaration order and how you can react to someone else.
Most of the time you can just go around the table and resolve actions.
I guess one could ditch the initiative roll, and just go round the table in D&D. AOO and such would still work. You’d have to get rid of the flat footed idea and have it that you’re only flat footed if surprised. This will somewhat weaken Rogues. It woulds somewhat weaken monsters that have improved initiative and people with high Dex.
Frank
Of course what was worse for initiative type stuff was Champions. We used to write a grid up on the chalkboard (it’s been a while since I ran Champions…) with rows ordered by Dexterity and columns for all 12 phases. What a pain. Of course Champions sessions often just had one battle…
Frank
I really like Mastering Iron Heroes take on uber-villains- instead of custom building them like PCs, they’re rated by CR and you get a block of basic stats (HP, attack, defense, etc.) and a few abilities to choose from, which work as a simplified version of the gestalt effect of many feats or abilities.
For example, their Dread Sorcerer doesn’t have a spell list, or even use the same magic system as the PC- instead magical spells are simplified into abilities available for constant use such as the ability to shoot energy bolts, or raise the dead.
For the most part, we can look at older editions of D&D and see how many of the monsters special abilties functioned in exactly the same way. A lot easier than trying to track each skill point and spell.
Chris, the IH approach sounds like an excellent way to handle things. If they’re balanced out well, those simplified villains should be fair for the PCs and easy to run for the GM — very neat!
(As an aside: Chris, are you interested in writing a post or two for the Blogging for GMs project?)
I wonder about the IH method though. If it’s really so good for the NPCs, wouldn’t such a scheme be good for the PCs also? In other words, isn’t this an admission that the system is too complex and that complexity doesn’t necessarily add anything? If we take options away from the NPCs, does that reduce their tactical choices, and thus the challenge?
I was always frustrated by games where the PCs and the NPCs used very different rules.
I particularly would find it boring to GM a game where the NPCs were very robotic. One of the biggest parts of D&D I enjoy is the tactical aspect. Take that away from me, and I’m not really interested in the game. Of course I also enjoy the advancement process (both of these are also part of why I always end up having an NPC on the PCs side).
Frank
Don (Abulia) usually writes everyone’s results on the whiteboard in his gaming room, so it’s 100% clear who is on deck, etc.
My normal method are laminated “initative cards” that I just go from top to bottom and then recyle for the next round. I felt obligated to use the whiteboard because it was there. 😉
Hi Frank,
Player characters can be more complex because that is all the logistical overhead a player is going to be dealing with, while a GM might be juggling dozens or more of such characters. (assuming the classic GM/player roles, etc.). For a reasonable comparison, look at Tunnels & Trolls, in which the players have full-on character stats, while the GM need only concern with raw Monster Ratings, and establishing some Saving Rolls for special abilities.
If we’re talking raw tactics, between me and the players (without me loading the environment in my favor), the players always come out ahead. And it’s not because I’m a bad tactician- it’s because they have several sessions to experiment and master the abilities of their characters as individuals, and as a gestalt, as a group. For me, I come up with generally a new 2 or 3 encounters every week- I don’t get time to master the abilities of each beastie, or how they work together.
In this regard, functionally simpler NPCs work better- it’s easier to put them together AND easier to apply their abilities to play. The thing is- these aren’t “handwaved” NPCs, there’s rules there, and as the GM, I have to figure out how to maximize what’s there for the best challenge for the players. It’s just that I don’t have to go through the full Chargen process for what is arguably going to be a “throw-away” character at some point.
Chris
Good posts all! I just want to make a few clarifications. Certainly, I dont fully develope each NPC. Even at the conclusion of my last major campaign (10 months long) of the 6 enemy combatants, 4 were fleshed out and 2 were “Guard A” and “Guard B” NPCs.
What was left:
An Assasin that have tried to kill the party 3 times and failed (but escaped), so he was largely fleshed out already.
A Evil Wizardress that nearly slaughtered the party about halfway through. I basically recycled her because while the party took her on “Many Vs One” before, they had advanced enough where she was far less dominating now. (Unrelated: This battle led to one of the most enjoyable side-quests ever when one player failed to save and was banished to Acheron).
The Main Guy. Of course he was crafted for this very purpose.
The surprise guest: The Main Guys “Paladin” (Blackguard).
So, the short form was: I had to tweak two npcs that were already crafted, and create two. The guards were just stock monsters with a new paint job (some undead that I cant recall right now). My point is that it might be possible to build up your NPCs before the showdown (and if properly used, the Players will hate them all the more at that time 🙂 )
Thanks for reading!
Chris, everything in your last comment (#12) made me want to go “Amen to that!” Very well put — and it makes me wish straight-up D&D including something along the lines of IH’s simplified baddies.
I simply can’t live without initiative cards (simply index cards in my case) when running d20. It is so handy to take the card off the top and say who goes, foes mixed in with party members. We even record multiple round spell effects on the guard, then tick off the rounds every time the card goes by. Card gets too worn or lost? Throw it away! 10 seconds to make a new one. 🙂
Heh, funny Frank should mention Champions. I ran a Fantasy Hero campaign in the 1st/2nd ed. Forgotten Realms and used an alternate Hero rule for “initiative” to get some of that D&D feel. Roll your SPD (Speed) or less on a d12, you get to go this round. Miss, add 1 to your try next time. When multiple people get to go, use Dex order as standard Hero rules.
This is *very* exciting, especially when someone is dying. You’ve never seen so much excitement from not getting to act. It’s the germ of an idea that I’ve been exploring in a homebrew system.
(CJ) We even record multiple round spell effects on the guard, then tick off the rounds every time the card goes by. Card gets too worn or lost? Throw it away! 10 seconds to make a new one.
What a good idea! I’ve never been wild about initiative cards, but I’ve never seen anyone use them that way, either. I like it.