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

[S'mon]

LOL, yeah - I like how Chris thinks like me, because this is the most important campaign-level advice I could give any GM (if not running PARANOIA) or any adventure writer!! It's something I've had close to my heart for many years, and it's a big focus of my prep for running Curse of the Crimson Throne, an AP which has often been criticised for making the city of Korvosa it's set in seem not worth saving, sometimes resulting in campaign-failure.

It's really the converse of the dreaded Elminster/Marty Stu NPC; the world where every 'friendly' NPC is either wretchedly incompetent, out to backstab you, or both. It's aboslutely vital, if you want the PCs to be heroic, that the friendly NPCs are (a) basically decent and (b) more or less competent, within the limits of their presumed abilities. It's ok if the city guard are outclassed by the rampaging Balrog, or the Rangers on Omaha beach are pinned down by the MG42s and are all going to die if your PCs don't take out the pillbox. But don't do the 'Die Hard 2' thing where the entire SWAT team rides up an elevator all bunched together and gets offed in 2 seconds of gunfire by the bad guys. And don't do the silly Gygax start-of-'Against the Giants' thing where the kingdom will execute your high-level PCs if they don't undertake a lengthy quest to save the land. Treated like that, most players would just teleport away and let the land burn, and feel railroaded if the GM said 'no'.

 

[S'mon]

- 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.

Yes, I agree with your typology. Actually I wouldn't normally ever have NPCs step in to solve a big problem the PCs failed at deus-ex-machina, at least not without major negative consequences. Eg if my Sellswords of Punjar PCs fail to stop the Beggar King in time, I intend that a large section of the city will be merged with the Shadowfell in a planar rift, I'm A-ok with that.

 

[S'mon]

Another thought . . . this article is somewhat in the tradition of debating "High Noon" (lone lawman in a cowardly town that won't help him) versus "Rio Bravo" (lawman helped by several low-level NPC's who do their best, without overshadowing the fact that he's literally John Wayne).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Bravo_(film)#High_Noon_debate

Note that even High Noon has two 'NPCs' who try to join the Sheriff - one is a lone townsman, the Sheriff sends him home so he won't get killed, and the other is his Quaker wife who actually saves his life at the end. The town is definitely not presented as full of backstabbing scumbuckets either - the people are afraid and the low-Cha Sheriff is initially overly reliant on expected norms of behaviour. In D&D terms he fails a lot of Diplomacy checks.

(IMO the High Noon/Rio Bravo debate is somewhat at cross purposes anyway, since the High Noon advocates were often Leftists or Communists burned by or afraid of McCarthy, while the Rio Bravo advocates were right-wing Conservatives who'd see their Leftist fellow filmmakers as more villains than victims. Anyway Hollywood eventually developed plenty of asabiya (social cohesion) and a fairly effective social compromise where the Left version was promoted/sacralised, but libertarians & conservatives are generally permitted).

 

[avin]

The world should always reacts to what the Players do, and npcs should react accordingly to their own agenda, culture and social status.

 

[delericho]

Actually I wouldn't normally ever have NPCs step in to solve a big problem the PCs failed at deus-ex-machina, at least not without major negative consequences.

Ah. When I wrote that, I had in mind more an investigation-type situation where the players had run up against "what do we do now?", rather than that they failed to beat the BBEG and needed bailed out. In that latter case, I agree with you.

 

[Iosue]

I think Beowulf is highly instructive on this point. I mean, if hadn't been written over 1,000 years ago, it'd seem like the lamest D&D cliché.

So this monster is terrorizing a king's town, and the PCs go to there to take care of it, and hopefully to get some gold and glory. They arrive on the coast, where they are met by the coast guard. He's not indifferent, he's not overly friendly, nor is he incompetent. He can't handle Grendel, but he knows what to do when an unknown party of armed adventurers arrives on his coast. He courteously demands their name and business. He is wary, but not rude or paranoid. The party's Caller, Beowulf, tells him who they are, where they are from, and what their business is. The coast guard can see that these are well-mannered and capable adventurers, so he takes them to the main road to the king's hall. He assures them that he'll make sure their boat is taken care of while they are on their errand.

Once at the king's hall, they now meet Wulfgar, the king's chief-of-staff. He, like the coastguard, quickly takes measure of the PCs, and notes that they are proud adventurers, not wandering bums. Again, he treats them courteously (and they him), but at the same time, he doesn't trip over himself accepting their help. Heorot may be terrorized by a rampaging troll-beast, but Wulfgar's going to carry himself with some frickin' dignity. He goes in, and tells the king. The king is happy to hear the PCs have come, and bids them welcomed. Wulfgar goes back out, bids the PCs leave their weapons outside the door, and welcomes them to the hall.

Hrothgar is enthusiastically welcoming, but does not forget his station. He notes that the PCs have come in honor and bravery, and also notes in passing that he helped Beowulf's father out of some sticky business a while back, paying off a blood feud, and notes that he can reward the PCs as well. He doesn't beg for their help, even though none of his thanes can handle the beast. He just courteously notes that he is glad they are come, and will make their fight against the beast worth their while.

After the feast has started, though, he tests Beowulf's mettle and resolve through his thyle Unferth. Unferth launches a verbal attack on Beowulf, presenting a true account in a bad light -- telling no lies -- and indicating he doesn't think the PCs are up to the job. Beowulf eloquently responds in kind, ending with an arch-ironic put-down of the Danes. But this a test, and Beowulf's response passes with flying colors. The Danes don't get angry; they simply laugh and start downing their mead.

So the PCs fight the monster, and it is defeated. The king is overjoyed, and honors them in words and in treasure. Another monster attacks, and the PCs go into action again. Before Beowulf jumps into the mere after Grendel's mother, Unferth, the man who belittled him just the other night, now gives him a mighty sword to use in the battle, which Beowulf graciously accepts. When Beowulf returns victorious, he is again well-rewarded, and he and his men leave Denmark on friendly terms with the king and his people.

So here you have a bunch of NPCs who are fairly positive about the PCs, but not unreservedly so, and certainly not without conflict. When the PCs prove their worth, the NPCs acknowledge that.

 

[D'karr]

I think Beowulf is highly instructive on this point.

Very good example.

 

[Nagol]

I think Beowulf is highly instructive on this point. I mean, if hadn't been written over 1,000 years ago, it'd seem like the lamest D&D cliché.

<snip>

So here you have a bunch of NPCs who are fairly positive about the PCs, but not unreservedly so, and certainly not without conflict. When the PCs prove their worth, the NPCs acknowledge that.

And that works great when the players are being cooperative and appropriate themselves.

I can see a lot of points in that narrative where the relationships could become... less friendly if the PCs respond with arrogance, duplicity, entitlement, and/or aggression. That doesn't even touch how the interactions would go if the PCs do not present as established competent adventurers, but rather as shifty boors who are as likely to engage in petty crime as acting as saviours.

In short, DMs should practise care that NPC attitudes run a gamut, but the NPC attitudes can and should be affected by the party's presentation and attitude towards the world.

 

[Iosue]

And that works great when the players are being cooperative and appropriate themselves.

I can see a lot of points in that narrative where the relationships could become... less friendly if the PCs respond with arrogance, duplicity, entitlement, and/or aggression. That doesn't even touch how the interactions would go if the PCs do not present as established competent adventurers, but rather as shifty boors who are as likely to engage in petty crime as acting as saviours.

In short, DMs should practise care that NPC attitudes run a gamut, but the NPC attitudes can and should be affected by the party's presentation and attitude towards the world.

Sure. The example is not to say, "If you do this, you'll have perfect PC-NPC relations." It merely demonstrates how a DM can present his world without being overly nice or overly antagonistic to the PCs. How you can have conflict and tension inside of a situation where PCs and NPCs are essentially on the same side.

There's the saying, "An armed society is a polite society." And just looking at it historically you can see this in Beowulf, you can see it in samurai culture, where everyone is carrying a weapon and interactions are highly ritualized, you can even see it in, say, Deadwood. Perhaps I wasn't able to get it across in my example, but one of the interesting things about Beowulf is that the widespread image of the poem is real earthy -- blood, guts, and Dark Ages. One can see that image play out in Gerard Butler's "Beowulf & Grendel", in the Zemeckis Beowulf film, even "the 13th Warrior". But in the actual poem a great deal is spent on highly mannered, semantically loaded speeches. It's glory-seeking Vikings downing mead in a dark hall, but the interactions are pure Shakespeare.

So the idea here is that you give that option to your players. You let the inhabitants of the world react honestly to their actions. If you are friendly to the innkeep, he is friendly to you. You may even have a conflict with someone, but that doesn't mean they are your lifelong enemy. You can meet town guards who are wary and on guard, yet courteous and helpful, if the PCs present themselves that way. In doing so, you give the PCs a place to go. If they want to get boorish, it has a relatively predictable effect on their environment. Likewise, if they treat NPCs with respect, they got positive benefits from that.

 

[D'karr]

So the idea here is that you give that option to your players. You let the inhabitants of the world react honestly to their actions. If you are friendly to the innkeep, he is friendly to you. You may even have a conflict with someone, but that doesn't mean they are your lifelong enemy. You can meet town guards who are wary and on guard, yet courteous and helpful, if the PCs present themselves that way. In doing so, you give the PCs a place to go. If they want to get boorish, it has a relatively predictable effect on their environment. Likewise, if they treat NPCs with respect, they got positive benefits from that.

Absolutely. NPCs should react reasonably under the presented circumstances.

Just like in Fellowship of the Ring (the movie) the gate guard in Bree asks some general questions about the hobbits' business. The hobbits answer where they are going, but say that their business is their own. The gate guard doesn't suddenly turn asshat and refuse them entrance. He says, "no reason to get testy. I must ask. Lots of strange things going on these days."

I've been in games where the gate guard would have called in the entire militia, and sounded the alarm, if the players had answered like that. This is where reasonableness should come in. It makes the game more interesting if every NPC is not out to screw the players over.