Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6890407" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Of course not! The mother is of no interest as a topic of the fiction except in her capacity as a mother of the PC.</p><p></p><p>If all of the PCs was an orphan, I wouldn't worry about whose parents the goblins might have kidnapped. I'd write goblins with other sorts of motivations do to other sorts of things relevant to the PCs (and hence the players, and hence the game).</p><p></p><p>Well, I'm letting it affect the motivations and actions I author for the goblins. The effect is not on the goblins (they are imaginary, and are only affected by imaginary things). The effect is on me - it makes me author the goblins in a certain way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The goblin doesn't make use of knowledge it doesn't possess (in the fiction).</p><p></p><p>But I, as GM, use information that I possess in real life.</p><p></p><p>Hence, I can easily write into the fiction a goblin who has some reason or other to kidnap the PC's mother. (In my campaign, the goblins had kidnapped a whole lot of villagers and townsfolk, and the mother happened to be one of them.)</p><p></p><p>Sometimes I don't even work out the details of the fiction in advance. Rather, I follow <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361" target="_blank">Paul Czege's practice</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.</p><p></p><p>For instance, if it seems like it might be interesting to have the goblin notice the family resemblance; or, in some other way, to have or use knowledge about the relationship between the NPC and the PC; then I might do that. If not, then not.</p><p></p><p>To the fist question, yes. To the second, dunno. That's not very important in the way I run the game. It's not mostly an investigation game; it's a game in which it has turned out that the main issue confronting the players is how to react to the pending Dusk War, and the different choices as to whom to support (primordials, the Raven Queen, other gods who want to build the Lattice of Heaven, no gods at all, some sort of balance of forces, etc).</p><p></p><p>Given that this choice can't even be posed unless most of the information is on the table, the notion of "asking the right questions" or "performing the right tests" doesn't have much work to do.</p><p></p><p>After <em>what</em> fact? Before <em>what</em>? Gygax - who was a pioneer of the "skilled play" paradigm - didn't write all his dungeons before starting the campaign! (I mean, how could he?)</p><p></p><p>He wrote ToH deliberately to test certain players. He wrote the Fraz-Urb'luu room in Castle Greyhawk because he thought a particular player would find it fun.</p><p></p><p>With the monster example - it depends entirely on what the "unit of play" is. If it's <em>one dungeon expedition</em>, then introducing the new monsters after the PCs withdraw is fair. If plotting changes in the dungeon population is itself a part of the game, then making such changes because they're "fun" would be an issue. This might depend on such things as what sort of detection magic, or conventions around scouting and rumour gathering, are in play - hence it will be highly campaign- or table-specific.</p><p></p><p>As far as the baron example goes - that is so far from how I run my game I can't really comment.</p><p></p><p>I don't understand. Where in Plato's heaven do I look to find the true nature of Dragon Island?</p><p></p><p>In my 4e campaign, I had planned to run the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355600-Session-report-(Apect-of)-Vecna-defeated-demon-bargained-with" target="_blank">Demon of the Red Grove</a> scenario the first time the PCs went to the Feywild, because I thought it was interesting in itself and it would drive home certain aspects of relevant campaign story around Corellon, Lolth and the Raven Queen. I first wrote it up for low-paragon tier PCs (with the demon somewhere around 13th level). By the time I actually got a chance to run it, the PCs were mid-epic, and I reworked the level and capabilities of the demon appropriately.</p><p></p><p>I think that counts as GM meta-gaming.</p><p></p><p>I don't understand why I <em>can't</em> do it: the Red Grove and its Demon have no existence or nature outside of my authorship of them as part of the campaign backstory, and when I introduced them into the shared fiction they were what they were.</p><p></p><p>I also don't understand why I <em>shouldn't</em> do it. It produced interesting and somewhat important play - besides fun colour, like the sorcerer getting to show off his bardic skills by singing a song to defeat the evil cries of the demon, it forced the PCs (and thereby the players) to consider whether and how to bargain with a demon. The meaning of all this is not any less because it occurred when the PCs were 10 levels higher than they might have been.</p><p></p><p>If the point of play was to explore some imaginary world pre-authored by the GM, then there might be an issue (given that I have not pre-authored any such world). But that's not why my group plays RPGs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6890407, member: 42582"] Of course not! The mother is of no interest as a topic of the fiction except in her capacity as a mother of the PC. If all of the PCs was an orphan, I wouldn't worry about whose parents the goblins might have kidnapped. I'd write goblins with other sorts of motivations do to other sorts of things relevant to the PCs (and hence the players, and hence the game). Well, I'm letting it affect the motivations and actions I author for the goblins. The effect is not on the goblins (they are imaginary, and are only affected by imaginary things). The effect is on me - it makes me author the goblins in a certain way. The goblin doesn't make use of knowledge it doesn't possess (in the fiction). But I, as GM, use information that I possess in real life. Hence, I can easily write into the fiction a goblin who has some reason or other to kidnap the PC's mother. (In my campaign, the goblins had kidnapped a whole lot of villagers and townsfolk, and the mother happened to be one of them.) Sometimes I don't even work out the details of the fiction in advance. Rather, I follow [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361]Paul Czege's practice[/url]: [indent]I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.[/indent] For instance, if it seems like it might be interesting to have the goblin notice the family resemblance; or, in some other way, to have or use knowledge about the relationship between the NPC and the PC; then I might do that. If not, then not. To the fist question, yes. To the second, dunno. That's not very important in the way I run the game. It's not mostly an investigation game; it's a game in which it has turned out that the main issue confronting the players is how to react to the pending Dusk War, and the different choices as to whom to support (primordials, the Raven Queen, other gods who want to build the Lattice of Heaven, no gods at all, some sort of balance of forces, etc). Given that this choice can't even be posed unless most of the information is on the table, the notion of "asking the right questions" or "performing the right tests" doesn't have much work to do. After [I]what[/I] fact? Before [I]what[/I]? Gygax - who was a pioneer of the "skilled play" paradigm - didn't write all his dungeons before starting the campaign! (I mean, how could he?) He wrote ToH deliberately to test certain players. He wrote the Fraz-Urb'luu room in Castle Greyhawk because he thought a particular player would find it fun. With the monster example - it depends entirely on what the "unit of play" is. If it's [I]one dungeon expedition[/I], then introducing the new monsters after the PCs withdraw is fair. If plotting changes in the dungeon population is itself a part of the game, then making such changes because they're "fun" would be an issue. This might depend on such things as what sort of detection magic, or conventions around scouting and rumour gathering, are in play - hence it will be highly campaign- or table-specific. As far as the baron example goes - that is so far from how I run my game I can't really comment. I don't understand. Where in Plato's heaven do I look to find the true nature of Dragon Island? In my 4e campaign, I had planned to run the [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355600-Session-report-(Apect-of)-Vecna-defeated-demon-bargained-with]Demon of the Red Grove[/url] scenario the first time the PCs went to the Feywild, because I thought it was interesting in itself and it would drive home certain aspects of relevant campaign story around Corellon, Lolth and the Raven Queen. I first wrote it up for low-paragon tier PCs (with the demon somewhere around 13th level). By the time I actually got a chance to run it, the PCs were mid-epic, and I reworked the level and capabilities of the demon appropriately. I think that counts as GM meta-gaming. I don't understand why I [I]can't[/I] do it: the Red Grove and its Demon have no existence or nature outside of my authorship of them as part of the campaign backstory, and when I introduced them into the shared fiction they were what they were. I also don't understand why I [I]shouldn't[/I] do it. It produced interesting and somewhat important play - besides fun colour, like the sorcerer getting to show off his bardic skills by singing a song to defeat the evil cries of the demon, it forced the PCs (and thereby the players) to consider whether and how to bargain with a demon. The meaning of all this is not any less because it occurred when the PCs were 10 levels higher than they might have been. If the point of play was to explore some imaginary world pre-authored by the GM, then there might be an issue (given that I have not pre-authored any such world). But that's not why my group plays RPGs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?
Top