Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 TrueManiek May 05, 2015 0:25:13	I talked with my friend, a former player of mine about relationships with NPCes. She say, that this activity in RPG game is what brings her the most fun. Meeting new people, getting to know them better, talking a lot with them, uncovering their secrets, or helping them, and; generally spending a lot of time befriending and getting close to Npces. Ideally, she wants it to be spread over time, like in real life. Therefore, she wants NPCes to have a very well refined and deep character, motivations, bonds and flaws etc. just like the player characters, or even more.   Now, I myself am not a big fan of that. For once I think that so detailed NPCes can take away the spotlight from the players, even so when the NPC goals and motivations are more important than that of the players character. Second, the game can become a talking fest – when one player is hogging the attention cause she wants to know more about certain Npc and is talking with him/her constantly, and the story can’t move one. Was in a game once when Dm was so proud of his none-player characters he made, that they were always popping up everywhere we went showing how awesome they are – made me wonder why we are even there?   So I wonder, what do you guys think about it? What approach do you like best for relationship with NPCes? And if you got a player like the one I mentioned, how do you cater to her needs as DM?
#2 BoldItalic May 05, 2015 3:00:06	She needs a henchman or two. Let her make up her own as if they were PCs and let them join the party as NPCs. Let her narrate their actions and dialogue out of combat, but you control them in combat (to keep the pace going). Adjust the encounter difficulty accordingly. During rests, she can invent dialogue between her PC and her henchman friends. Between play sessions, she can develop relationships with them.
#3 CCS May 05, 2015 7:19:41	Here's what I do concerning balancing time spent per individual/session planning. Think of this as a spread sheet: 1st I look at the length of time I expect the session to run. Then I subtract about 40 minutes. This is the time that we'll waste BSing, discussing GoT, The Avengers, etc. 2nd I divide the remaining time in 1/2. One 1/2 is dedicated to the group acting as a whole - fighting, exploring, etc. The remaining 1/2? Gets further divided by the # of players. This is the amount of time I'll spend on anyone doing "solo stuff". Content wise though? I always plan enough to cover the "group" portion of the session using about 3/4 of the time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In reality the above breakdown NEVER plays out in such a linear fashion. Especially not the time-wasting. Instead it's marbled throughout the session -kinda like fat in meat.... Back to "solo stuff" though. I almost never complete one persons solo stuff all at one time. For exactly what the OP is concerned about - one persons actions dominating large chunks of time. Instead I'll invest a few minutes/paragraphs in one players efforts, then shift to another, and another. The only reason I'll skip a player in this rotation is if they specifically tell me they don't want anything to happen. Otherwise when my attention shifts to them they're either acting or reacting, because I believe that if your at my table you've come to play. And there's a distinct difference between merely waiting a few minutes for your turn & essentially not playing.
#4 iserith May 05, 2015 7:51:02	I think a good game has equal opportunities for engaging with the combat, exploration, and social interaction pillars. A good group has players that choose to engage with those pillars in a way that recognizes each of the players' respective tastes in a shared fashion. So while I may really love combat, I would faithfully engage in exploration or social interaction because I know that Steve really likes one of those things. "Faithfully engage" doesn't mean clam up and don't participate either. It means I do my very best to help make that pillar as awesome as I would a combat scene. Similarly, Steve would do the same when we're engaged in a combat scene. He wouldn't want to dominate the game either by chatting up every NPC he sees, no more than I would want to dominate the game by hacking up every NPC that I see.   On the DM's end, we have to think about what purpose an NPC serves in the context of the game. Are they providing adventure hooks (quest givers)? Do they help emphasize the flavor of a region, town, adventure location, etc.? Are they plot devices (Princess Lilac or Prince Lotus needing rescue)? Are they an asset the players can call upon? Once you have a good idea of the NPC's purpose, you'll know exactly how much you need to prepare ahead of time for them. After that, you can improvise any deeper elements of the NPC on the spot as needed when a player engages them in more detail.   Wherever possible, whenever the player in question is engaging with an NPC, try to understand the player's goal in that scene up front.   Player: I want to go talk to Hilda the Fishwife. DM: Sure. What do you hope to accomplish when you meet with her? Player: I want to know more about the death of her son.   Now we know exactly what the player wants out of the scene. This is helpful because it allows us to make the interaction more focused and it also tells us when the scene is over. When the character arrives at Hilda's hovel near the docks, she finds that Hilda is crying, having just recalled something about her deceased child. That gets to the point straight away. When the player finds out what she wanted to know, you can just say the scene is over and ask what someone else wants to do. Don't rush the scene, mind you. As above, make sure that all the players are getting to engage about equally with the things they really enjoy. Just make sure that the scene doesn't meander aimlessly and, if possible, have the interaction point back to adventures that need doing in some way.
#5 Alphastream May 05, 2015 12:03:47	Different players like different aspects of the game. There isn't a right or wrong from an "up high" perspective. It really just varies by person. Back in 1984 Glen Blacow wrote about player types. He also included DM types. His writing is particularly on point for organized play, because he describes how a DM running at a convention for different kinds of players can end up experiencing a completely different outcome:   Storytellers: focus deeply on the setting, wanting to explore it deeper than is actually covered. They don't move on with the story, wanting to find more from what is around them and develop their own narrative rather than follow the obvious NPC's lead.    Tacticians/wargamers: Super-efficient, discarding time with the NPCs or setting to zero in on the challenge. Spend time planning before combat, resulting in a quick victory. Pleased to overwhelm the combat.   Power Gamers: Never go on the adventure. Kill the NPCs when they see the powerful magic she wields. Destroy every challenge the DM improvises, beating the DM soundly. They have a great time and can't understand why the DM took everything so seriously.    Overdone, of course, but there is some truth in there. Robin D. Laws took the above and expanded it in 2001 in his book, Robin;s Laws of Good Game Mastering, took the types and expanded them. Robin then wrote them into aspects for the 3rd edition Dungeon Master's Guide II. This later was refined into the Dungeon Master's Guide for 4E and expanded upon in the 4E Dungeon Master's Guide 2. All of these are good reads. Common topics are how a DM can work to engage the different types, plus pitfalls (letting a storyteller delve too deeply while others are bored).    I think it is helpful for players to read this as well, because it provides an understanding of the balance a DM has to strike between the different preferences.    If this is of interest, Baldman Games will be running a seminar at Origins and Gen Con on this topic as part of the Herald's program.
#6 bawylie May 05, 2015 12:24:38	NPCs are fantastic little tools, and they don't steal the spotlight from players provided you know what they're for and how to use them.    For your player, they're gonna be neat people to meet and connect with. For you, though, they're little information nodes through which you frame challenges, illustrate themes, and build your world.    NPCs spice up your setting. They various people on the street personify the character of the world.    They are expository. They can answer questions and insert information into your players minds. By acting or talking or simply emoting.    NPCs set stakes. They determine values and highlight the consequences of failure.    NPCs are the emotional connection between a player and your world. Particularly for people who may not care about Saving the World tm, but will lay down their life for Bryan, little James, and Ole Auntie.    Theyre game pieces, delivery vehicles, tools, Maguffins, cornerstones.    Use your players love for them to establish what your game, adventure, session, & campaign are about.
#7 iserith May 05, 2015 12:31:06	Alphastream wrote:
#8 Imaculata May 05, 2015 13:07:47	I have plenty of sessions where no combat takes place, and it is nothing but talking to npc's. As long as the plot moves forward, I don't see anything wrong with well fleshed out npc's.   Then again, how much backstory do they really need? I usually establish a pretty basic backstory, along with a family, personality, and motivations. But it is never enough to fill even half a page. That's because the players often talk towards a purpose. So, no romantic date situation where the player and the npc talk for hours on end, about everything in their lives except the plot.   An example of how I write my npc's:   The Marquis The Marquis Nihel Marceau is a calm and reasonable man, who is caught in a constant dispute with a local ruler to the north. He’s in his 50’s, and has a thin black beard and mustache. He employs various pirates to raid the seas between the two realms, while protecting his own trade routes. The Marquis has a long maritime history himself (he is an ex-pirate), before earning himself his current boring position. His main conference room is marked by a giant model of the Emerald Coast, with models of ships and islands on it. The job of the Marquis is simply: To disrupt the trade along the eastern coast, and to ensure the safety of his King’s trade routes. While the Marquis has a deep love for the high seas, his knowledge of current pirate culture is very limited. The Marquis has no interest in southern politics or super natural threats.   Robert Travers, captain of the Cutlass The Marquis’ right-hand man is Robert Travers, who captains the ship The Cutlass. This ship is usually docked in Vertesaux. Robert Travers has little respect for pirates, even though the man he serves is a former privateer. He does respect fellow sailors however, but he doesn’t agree with the career path that some of them seem to have chosen. Travers’ main job is to guard Vertesaux against any naval threats. His ship occasionally patrols the Strait of Kirbawa, but usually it remains docked in the harbor. He knows a lot about Kturgian activity.   Ser Bastien Roch,  Captain of the guard Ser Bastien Roch is captain of the guards in Vertesaux. He is a stern man, in his 50’s, with a severe dislike for pirates. He is clean shaven, and always wears heavy armor. He cares for the people of Vertesaux, and for the trade that the city provides. But he looks like the type of guy who hanged a lot of pirates in the past, and enjoyed it. Bastien keeps order in Vertesaux, and pirates have to be careful not to draw his attention. While the Marquis is favorable to privateers, sir Bastien is not. He serves the King first and for most, and he believes the current situation with the pirates is a bad deal. Sir Bastien keeps order in Vertesaux with an iron fist.
#9 Alphastream May 05, 2015 15:24:32	iserith wrote:
#10 BRJN May 05, 2015 17:37:55	Your player might do really well in a Court Intrigue campaign.  It sounds like Investigate (via Gossip) is right up her alley.  Is there a way to work that into your current plot - or your near-future plot arcs?   I can see her playing a member of Marquess Highborn's personal staff, at the equivalent of the Palace of Versailles.  Officially she's a handmaiden, actually her job is to look out for the Marquess' reputation ... no matter what scandal-generating activity Her Ladyship indulges herself in.  Sometimes she has to get involved with important politics, via the 3 Musketeers (the rest of the party).