Do you let players determine what some NPCs are like?

[Haradim]

While I wouldn't allow players to do actual statting, I encourage them to provide details on the people important in their character's lives.

Not only because they probably have a better idea of what these people are like, but because they won't have to worry about what *I* write up regarding these notable NPCs...

 

[Pielorinho]

I've had DMs require that each player detail 3-5 important NPCs for the game. I love it--it forces me to think about who I know and how I know them, and it puts characters in the game that I'm immediately familiar with.

When Jason Blackteeth shows up as an NPC, if the DM created him, I'll initially have no idea how I should respond to him -- the DM's gotta say, "Oh, you know Jason from way back, he's an ex-member of the guard who you used to bribe to get important information," and only then can I roleplay my interaction with him. But if I created him, when he shows up I can immediately shout, "Jason! Long time no see -- you still runnin' from the feds?" Much more fun that way .

However, I very rarely let (or have played in a game where) players describe how the NPC acts during a session. The NPCs are all under the GM's control when the game is actually running. This allows for surprises. Maybe Frank, the guy I've set up to be my insufferably arrogant archnemesis, suddenly is acting all friendly toward me, and I don't know why. My nephew's urgent request for financial assistance, no questions asked, becomes a plot point. My ancient dad calls me to announce that he's getting married to his nurse. If the NPCs I created as a player were under my control, believe me, they wouldn't be acting like this .

Daniel

 

[James Heard]

I've played in games where I've ended up statting every monster in the dungeon, thrown together a bunch of traps, blue-booked out entire towns without thinking about it in my character background story, and then had to deal with what a big lot of malicious #$$%& they were.

Of course I've done all that before because normally I'm the GM, rather immersive and compulsive, and because sometimes other GMs are so much better at actually handling the concepts I come up with that I like to take advantage of it. With my own players though, I think I actually prefer it when they give me somewhat broader strokes of creativity. That's mostly because it bothers me when someone hands me a kernel of a character concept and, when I go someplace they're not liking while running the game, they pitch a fit because 'so and so isn't like that'.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Heck, I'll let them *run* some NPCs. I've had great luck with that; in my D20Modern game I had an all-flashback session where the players who weren't in a given scene got to play supporting cast.

If you're interested in that sort of thing (basically, the distinction between Actor and Author stance) you might want to wander by The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com) and check out some of the essays there. It's heavy reading, but there's been a lot of thought put into how player authorship can be used effectively.

 

[francisca]

Do you let players decide the history, attitude, and general behaviors of those NPCs that would be close to them (family, friends, lovers) or do you stand firm and only let yourself determine what NPCs are like?

Hell yes. For a couple of reasons. #1 is time. #2 is that it gives the players a sense of ownership in the game world.

I let it go beyond family and friends. If one of my players heavily involved with some osrt of organization, say a thieve's guild, we cooperatively flesh the organization out. Of course I always slip in a few unknown wrinkles, but I find I am a better DM and more creative when I am given a hint of something to work with, rather than just starting from scratch.

 

[diaglo]

yes. for many of the reasons above.

1) time
2) player involvement with the campaign world
3) i suck at generating names
4) gives plot hooks for later sessions/adventures
5) some times the NPCs are retired PCs

 

[Ottergame]

Ok, here's an expansion a bit on the question. What's the limits you would place on allowing your players to create NPCs. Do you let them stat and equip them, fully detail their backstories, allow them to play an important role in the story, allow them to show up in game, join the party, be important people in the world, help out the party with favors and information?

 

[Arnwyn]

Ok, here's an expansion a bit on the question. What's the limits you would place on allowing your players to create NPCs. Do you let them stat and equip them.

No - that's pretty much the one thing I don't allow. The player can give me guidelines, but not the full details.

fully detail their backstories,

Not fully (everyone has secrets, after all), but I have no problem with them detailing backstories to a great degree.

allow them to play an important role in the story, allow them to show up in game, join the party, be important people in the world, help out the party with favors and information?

Sure, no problem, to all of those, assuming that it fits in with the campaign circumstances.

 

[Flyspeck23]

As a DM I'm glad when my players show that much interest.

I've seen it both: the player who couldn't care less about his character's friends and families, and the player who's got it all so clear to him, it's like he's building his own sub-campaign.

While both extremes aren't quite the way I like it, I prefer the latter.
Sure, tell me about all the persons in your characters live - after that, I'll tell you what's alright and what isn't (and chances are, most of it is).

 

[Ottergame]

I've not seen any decenting oppinions yet... This strikes me odd, like some of the other threads I read here where GMs post they nearly always 100% positive towards the desires of the players. In all my years of playing, I've seen so few GMs do all the stuff they claim. Have I just been in some phenomially bad games, or do GMs not realize they are harsher then they claim they are here?