How do you play your NPCs? Options

[Talia Invierno]

How do you normally play your NPCs?

It's a broad question, I know: but broad patterns can sometimes be identified, along with which variables are relevant to determine how one NPC acts differently from another.

Mine are potentially capable of action, reaction, and preemptive action: depending entirely on their level of knowledge, their ability to act on that knowledge, and their personality/motivation. I don't think I've ever introduced an NPC that had less. Even so-called "cannon fodder" have had these three aspects ... although obviously to much less effect.

However, I have run NPCs where one of these three variables completely dominates the other two: ie. no knowledge of what is going on, no ability to act (or only one or two actions realistically possible), no will to act unless absolutely forced (or, alternately, compulsive meddler; or maybe where their life depends on their acting or reacting).

Huh. Come to think of it, that's the same approach as the SR3 attributes for Enemies. I never noticed that before.

What's been your experience?

[l33tpenguin]

As long as they have more than a single personality, you are good. Spent too many games where every NPC was exactly the same, from mannerisms to speech. All arrogant, wannabe elite snobs that drank wine. Even the orcs. ugh.

[Prae]

Knowing that this came from the Dragon Challenge Thread gives me a bit of insight into exactly what you're asking.

In answer, I play everyone of my NPCs as a possible PC. Essentialy, they are all character concepts with no hard stats set down until needed. Once those stats are established they are concrete.

Every NPC I run has motivations, long term goals, family, morals, values, and beliefs. The players and other NPCs effect these. This includes the nameless goons that get gunned down/sliced up/torched by PCs who just grunt and move on.

Most of my regular players know that killing or just pissing off an NPC might have major repercussions in their careers, even in Combat heavy games like D&D. I even had a player in a D&D 3.5 game stop the party to ask everyone if their planned ambush/raid on an orc camp was ok. Only after it was decided that there was no other choice did they actually jump into the fray.

My players also usually enjoy this as it allows them maximum RPing while letting me develop a fully functional world.

I hope this helps, Talia. If not, I can give more rockin' examples :D

[Talia Invierno]

Oh dear.

Just to clarify, spin-offs for me are tangents where a concept that arose in discussion strikes me as having interest outside the context of that discussion.

By me, at least, they aren't intended as means to an end.

[Kyoto Kid]

...I tend to have very distinct personalities for the major NPCs. I actually have a Cast of Shadows folder for a given campaign which has NPC files with the full attributes/skills plus a one page description. I also have the PCs give me a brief one paragraph description of their contacts as well which I then flesh out.

For Grunts of course the detail is fairly basic, although I usually spend a bit of time giving a little more dimension to the leader/key personnel. For one time casual encounters (like a bartender or squatter), I pretty much wing it but still try to put a little colour into the character.

Elabourating what Prae mentioned, PC interactions most definitely affect NPC reactions. You can either make a helpful acquaintance, friend, or even a contact, or on the other side of the coin, a sworn enemy.

[l33tpenguin]

I'm a player. I can GM just fine, but prefer not to. As a player, I can say, well fleshed out main NPCs are so nice to see. Voices are the icing on the cake. Played a game where the GM had well done voices for most of the NPCs we came across, each distinctive, giving another dimension to them other than what was said.

I've also played with GMs that had wonderfully built and fleshed out NPCs that he loved far to much. So much so that the NPCs were out shining the players. The guy we were sent to 'escort' was more lethal than the whole party and getting all the cool points for style. It was like we were a group of wannabies following along some great combat master that could accomplish anything he willed. Not so much fun :(

[toturi]

I play my NPCs as per their stats. If they are statted as smart and knowledgeable, then they are so. If by RAW, they will fight to the end, then they do so. What I do not do is play them as if they were my PCs. I make rules calls whether they are favorable or unfavorable to the PCs. The laws of the game world function in the same manner for the PCs as the NPCs. They are NPCs, they are not the GM's PCs. I have no interest whether they survive or die, as long as they survive or die according to the rules.

[Prae]

[mfb]

i get into my NPCs, even (maybe especially) the bit parts. i treat them like i do my own PCs, basically.

[Ravor]

Eh, I'm not sure that I entirely agree Prae, DMs have ultimate power in their universes so in my opinion it is dangerous if the DM has an emotional investment in the NPCs wellfair (Which if I'm not mistaken was the point being made in the dragon thread.) similair to how a player feels about their character.

Now with that said, sure, I run my NPCs as having their own goals and dreams, and they won't fight to the death without a damned good reason no matter what RAW might say, but I try to be very, very careful not to confuse what I know OOC vs what the NPC knows and I never introduce a NPC that it would bother me if the PCs decided to rape and torture him/her to death.

[knasser]

I play the NPCs as intelligent and independent as they should be. When GM fine tuning of events is required, i.e. to keep a game moving or prevent terrible consequences arising from minor mistakes, I try to do that through manipulating events rather than altering an NPC's intelligence, judgement or desires.

[Kyoto Kid]

[knasser]

[Talia Invierno]

Emotional attachment is a fair point. I've also played under GMs who have had dazzling NPCs at the expense of the PCs: ick. Which is not to say that NPCs should automatically be less potent than the players either. Generally the more powerful or dazzling the NPC, the more that NPC is in the background. *laugh* in the LitS thread, the single most *major* NPC I've introduced has only been mentioned in a single short post out of a couple of thousand: and that one didn't even involve a PC meeting.

Under no circumstances should the rules be different for NPCs as for PCs -- one reason why some canon NPCs were never given stats.

One strategises to the limit of what the NPC can know, can act, and is willing to act. (That last is a major reason why almost all of my PCs have the KN skill Psychology.) After that, let the chips fall where they may. Players can sometimes be exceptionally brutal: and if they want to do it, can do it, and are willing to take the consequences, so be it.

Sometimes I've found that players interpret this depth of strategy to be emotional attachment. There's been times I've run into players who felt I biased in favour of the NPC simply because I didn't do with it what they thought I should do. Sometimes this attitude has been so extreme that I've almost felt I was expected to build some kind of crippling limitation into every NPC.

But I do love it when players outthink me strategically!

[knasser]

[Talia Invierno]

I haven't ever run non-statted NPCs. I've also never run the Harlequin scenario.

[toturi]

[Prae]