"A World Worth Saving": Chris Perkins on NPCs and GMing style

[pemerton]

If there was a thread on this already, apologies - I missed it!

In a recent DM Experience column, Perkins advised GMs:

to make the majority of the non-hostile NPCs in your world good at what they do and well disposed toward the adventurers. . .

Have an NPC show some initiative. . .

Have an NPC throw the party a bone. . .

Have an NPC solve a problem.​

And he gives various examples of friendly, helpful NPCs.

Opinions?

I generally agree except with respct to having an NPC solve a problem - I think that has to be handled sparingly so as to avoid stealing the players' thunder or making them feel like goofs.

But the stuff about having the priest, the king, the guards etc treat PCs with respect rather than like dirt I think is spot on. Especially for D&D, where the standard trajectory of the game has the PCs, in reasonably short order, becoming some of the most capable, divinely and magically blessed people around.

And I also agree with Perkins that the opposite approach - in which the GM uses every NPC as an opportunity to force adversity upon the players - is a good recipe for a troubled game.

And with that said, I'm always surprised at the number of published modules which rely on the "allied NPC turns out to betray the party" trope. I seem to come across that in every second module, yet both as a GM and having experienced it as a player, it seems such a sure way to destabilise the player-GM relationship.

Which is not to say I'm against treachery per se, but I think it works best when the players are in on the joke. At the moment, I'm running a version of P2 Demon Queen's Enclave, and the players are making their plans on the basis that the drow are unreliable, deceitful and treacherous. That's fun, and gives the dealings with drow a distinctive flavour. But I think it would be pretty toxic if it generalised to the whole campaign world.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Gee, I've always had a pretty high percentage of NPCs who dislike the PCs, and a separate but significant group of inept, even comical ones. It works for me. I'm not big on allied NPCs betraying the PCs, because it seems like a dick move and because the PCs usually prefer to be independent and/or don't trust the NPCs anyway.

But I don't see why I would have all NPCs be nice. Drama comes from conflict. The bottom line to me is that one needs to establish a three-dimensional, living world. Most NPCs don't care about the PCs' goals because they have lives of their own. Most consider the PCs an oddity, a risk, or a threat. A few understand them and try to be helpful. Most are indifferent at best. A few are truely hostile. Most of the time, it's not immediately clear which is which, forcing the players to make decisions on how to proceed. Decisions are good.

 

[pemerton]

But I don't see why I would have all NPCs be nice.

I'm not sure if you read the column or not. This is not what Perkins is suggesting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

WotC is down (at least for me), so no. I responded to the original post in this thread, which may or may not have captured the original intent.

to make the majority of the non-hostile NPCs in your world good at what they do and well disposed toward the adventurers. . .

This seems pretty clear. And I don't really agree with it. Whoever said it.

 

[Dragoslav]

But I don't see why I would have all NPCs be nice. .... Decisions are good.

Nowhere does it say that all NPCs have to be nice. There just have to be enough NPCs that the PCs like that, if they ever have to make a choice like, "Do we retreat and let the orc army raze the village, or do we go in and try to save some of them?" then it's a decision that will actually mean something, and the indifferent/callous choice won't be the most obvious one.

Aside from just having some NPCs who are well disposed towards the PCs, you have to make sure that most NPCs aren't pants-on-head stupid. This column's target audience is probably less experienced DMs who tend to make every NPC that the PCs run across be someone with a problem that he can't handle on his own.

Most consider the PCs an oddity, a risk, or a threat.

That's a good way to make the PCs feel estranged and detached from the world around them. Insofar as your players have their PCs do heroic things, having NPCs treat them with respect or admiration is a good way to go.

 

[Nagol]

You're assuming the PCs do enough heroic things in ways that garner attention compared to their more pathological expressions.

My last campaign, almost all the PCs ended up acting with almost pathological secrecy. Many of their deeds were good and would have been heavily praised -- if anyone ever knew they did them. Any time there was a 'risk' that they'd become known, they moved to a different area.

They only became more widely known when a scheming high-level NPC used them as stalking horses without their consent but with rich compensation once his plan came to fruition.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You're assuming the PCs do enough heroic things in ways that garner attention compared to their more pathological expressions.

Indeed. I mean, if the PCs have accomplished important, and good, and widely-known feats, they deserve respect. But IME that rarely happens, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This column's target audience is probably less experienced DMs who tend to make every NPC that the PCs run across be someone with a problem that he can't handle on his own.

That may be. It's certainly possible to have your NPCs be unreasonably hostile.

That's a good way to make the PCs feel estranged and detached from the world around them.

Indeed. And isn't it a tope of heroic fantasy that the characters are estranged and detached from the world around them? I don't see this as a bad thing.

 

[delericho]

to make the majority of the non-hostile NPCs in your world good at what they do and well disposed toward the adventurers. . .

Have an NPC show some initiative. . .

Have an NPC throw the party a bone. . .

Have an NPC solve a problem.​

And he gives various examples of friendly, helpful NPCs.

Opinions?

I basically agree with all of this. Although most PCs will decide to go save the world, simply by virtue of the fact that that's where the adventure lies, it really helps if they have good in-character reasons to do so.

I generally agree except with respct to having an NPC solve a problem - I think that has to be handled sparingly so as to avoid stealing the players' thunder or making them feel like goofs.

Indeed. Although here, I'm inclined to take his meaning in one of three ways...

- Have an NPC solve a small problem. That way, there's no danger of the PCs having their thunder stolen.

- Have an NPC solve an occasional problem. Again, if it happens once in a while, the PCs should be fine with it - after all, they're also more than pulling their weight!

- Have an NPC solve a problem as a fallback. This is the one that I wouldn't want to use, precisely for the reason you give. However, if I find that the players are stuck and getting frustrated, sometimes it's best just to cut your losses, have the NPC step in, and let the PCs get on with being awesome.

And with that said, I'm always surprised at the number of published modules which rely on the "allied NPC turns out to betray the party" trope. I seem to come across that in every second module, yet both as a GM and having experienced it as a player, it seems such a sure way to destabilise the player-GM relationship.

That's true.

But then, one of my very best gaming stories came out of exactly that: The group were playing through the "Shackled City" AP, and were being accompanied by a wizard who was set to betray them. When the time inevitably came, the wizard got his surprise round, and then we rolled initiative. The first action fell to the PC paladin, who charged the wizard, attacked with a two-handed axe using Power Attack, scored a crit, and did 120+ points of damage, killing the wizard outright!

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

- Have an NPC solve a problem as a fallback. This is the one that I wouldn't want to use, precisely for the reason you give. However, if I find that the players are stuck and getting frustrated, sometimes it's best just to cut your losses, have the NPC step in, and let the PCs get on with being awesome.

As well, I've had NPCs solve a problem the PCs couldn't get around to fixing. As an example from Ars Magica: the PCs had discovered a very strong source for Dominion aura inside a faerie forest. They worked out it was a grave site and hoped to explore it, but events and requests kept getting in the way and piling up. After a couple of years, the local clergy contact the PCs to inform them of a strange request -- to bury with honours religous fighters who had fallen honourable combat about a century earlier. A friendly Faerie wizard decided the dominion aura was ruining "his" forest and decided to get rid of it -- by moving the grave site to a more appropriate and accessible location.