A DM's best friend - a Guiding NPC

[Oryan77]

Sounds like cheating to me even if it isn't exactly.
Charisma should be a key to how you act. Guys with no Charisma shouldn't be Don Juan.

Charisma is a combination of many things; as are all of the ability scores. Having a low charisma does not necessarily mean you don't know how to talk to people. If you want to roleplay it that way, that is your decision, but a player is not cheating by roleplaying a low Cha guy that knows how to talk to another human being

People find Paris Hilton attractive (charismatic), but as soon as she opens her mouth, her charisma goes way down. Howard Stern likes to comment about how he hates his looks, but millions of people love to listen to him talk, and he's married to a model. He's pretty charismatic to me.

I don't bound my players roleplaying abilities to their skill checks. If they just aren't roleplaying (like in my previous examples), then I'll resort to a skill check so I can figure out what an NPC will do next. But that's me just using the skills as a tool to keep the game moving.

We may be going into a different area now. I don't know if we should be derailing the thread

 

[Rechan]

This is topical, but also a tangent.

In the "Dresden Files" series, the author, Jim Butcher, was having trouble coming up with a way to dispense info. His instructor warned against having a talking head.

Which gave the author the idea of a character who was a talking head (literally, a talking skull) who gave lots of info-dumps. However, he did so in such a funny, engaging way (a sex-obsessed, corny, snarky little joker who doesn't understand the mortal notion of good, evil, and morals), that the reader doesn't mind the info-dumping because they're so amusing by the character.

In the book, the character (Bob) is a Spirit of Knowledge. An entity that is a sentient collection of knowledge. The spirit is bound to the skull (and has to ask permission to come out). Bob's purpose is an adviser, tutor, and serves the purpose of a computer.

Another character that we learn about is called the Archive, which is a person who has the full knowledge of everything ever written; this knowledge is passed down mother to daughter, and the daughter 'inherits' the knowledge when the mother dies.

Both are generally oblivious to the plots at hand, but they are sources of info.

Going off of this, these could make great NPC Guides:

• Use the Archive. Seriously, it's a sound idea.
• An Angel of Knowledge, a celestial librarian, is a character's "Guardian Angel". Or in this case, the character's mentor/custodian.
• The ghost of an elven bard. Given how long elves live, and how much lore bards pick up, this would be a source of countless info.
• A creature that cannot "die", but is physically bound to something. A genie in its lamp is an example (one game I used a kobold bound to a gem; when he died, he went back into the gem and couldn't be summoned for another day).

 

[Rechan]

I have a problem where any guide type NPC I introduce feels too artificial. Or, he feels artificial to me, at least. I have another problem with it where the guide NPC is the only one the players ever want to talk to. Why talk to anyone else when you have the guide to give you good advice?

1) The Guide's advice isn't what you want. He might have the INFO, but he might be a pacifist or a coward. "Don't do that! You'll put yourself in DANGER!" "If you get yourselves killed, I'll be lost forever, or fall into the hands of an owlbear!"

2) Talking to NPCs doesn't just mean info. It means resources. If you need an invitation to get into the Gala of the Fancy Pants Nobles, you need to talk to someone who can give you an invitation. If you need to go somewhere that walking won't cut it (boat, airship, whatever), you have to ask someone.

3) Your guide isn't omnipitent. He can't tell you where the nearest entrance into the Underdark is. He doesn't know who the cultists in the City Council are.

 

[Nifft]

"A guide outgrown immediately becomes a fun-destroying demon." -- Not Joseph Campbell

So plan for the day your PCs will outgrow their guide NPC. Does he die? Does he betray them? Did he actually guide them and nurture their power specifically to make trouble for the world, figuring the trouble would kill them? Or does he pass the torch on to them, give them his last, best magic items, and quietly retire?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Woas]

Why can't you just tell the players the important info when it's important for them to know?

 

[Nifft]

Why can't you just tell the players the important info when it's important for them to know?

Because that's the DM telling the players. Oft times, a DM wants someone in the world to tell the PCs stuff, which allows the DM to lie.

Here's the difference:

Lying to players: "But wait, you said red dragons were vulnerable to cold..."
DM: "Ha ha!"
Players: "Dude, you suck. Let's go play Wii."

Lying to PCs: "But wait, I thought Rodrick hired us to steal that statue, why is he standing next to the constable and pointing at us?"
DM: "Ha ha!"
Players: "You magnificent bastard!"

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Why can't you just tell the players the important info when it's important for them to know?

That's like reading the walkthrough instead of finding out in the game.

 

[Scribe Ineti]

In every game I've run, and in most of the games my fellow GMs have run, there has always been an NPC, maybe almost a GMPC in the group that grew as the other PCs grew level-wise or capability-wise, and roleplayed with the other PCs as scenes came up.

As a GM, I use this character to help fill in gaps in the group's capabilities (in my current 4e game, the PCs consist of 3 strikers and one defender, so the NPC is a warlord to help balance things out). Sometimes this NPC offers gentle prods when the PCs are clearly off-track or stalled, and is there for the PCs to bounce ideas off of without necessarily making it feel like GM dictation or a plot train.

It's worked out well in all the years I've Gmed and played, and I can't imagine running a game without a key NPC in the party.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'm not keen on the idea of one big Guide. It strikes me as too artificial, too 'font of plots.'

Much prefer many smaller guides: local folk; interested parties; experts in particular fields. None of whom necessarily volunteer their knowledge. Some will (interested parties) but others will have to be tracked down by the PCs. And if the PCs can use some NPC they've met before during the course of play even better. For this last the GM has to provide the PCs with interesting people to meet along the way, not all of whom are necessarily involved in the current plot but who can be used later. (I guess you could call it building a sand box as you play.)

I also like the idea of incomplete information and conflicting stories from different NPCs. After all, there's no reason why an NPC should have perfect knowledge of a situation. A good way to chuck in red herrings, cause tension, that sort of thing.

My method requires pro-active players who are into roleplaying for the sake of it. If you've got Oryan's group then maybe not such a good idea; in that case I'd just go with the Plot-of-the-Week Dispensing NPC, a la Basil Exposition. Sorry mate, couldn't resist.

cheers.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think a good archetype for "guide" characters was set forth in old pulp adventure novels and such. Guides in such fiction are basically native dwellers in a given area who are paid to lead a party of skilled adventurers/hunters/etc into territory that said heroes are unfamiliar with.

The guide's job pretty much stops there most of the time, although they've occassionally been hired by somebody else to sabotage the expedition or their own people need saving from some great menace, so they take an opportunity to hi-jack the protagonists. Stuff like that.