Do you let players determine what some NPCs are like?

[Pielorinho]

Oh, to be sure, I'm totally harsh about it . One player detailed her rich, absent-minded husband and their infant daughter; before fourth level, she found out her husband was the moneybags behind a band of demon-worshipping cultists, and she chose to abandon her daughter in order to escape with her life. The band of fellow half-orc emissaries another PC came up with (admittedly, they had no more characterization than that) were all slaughtered off-screen before the end of the first session. Another character's uncle repeatedly chewed him out for neglecting his cattle-herding duties.

Of course, it's not always harshness and evil. The guy who ran the local sushi bar really was a great source of information for the PCs. The apprentice magic-shop owner was always courteous and willing to please, and did a great job running the shop in the PC's absence.

The point is that the NPCs the players come up with are best when they're doing something interesting, and "interesting" does not always translate to "in the PCs' best interests." They should be starting points for the DM, I think, not ending points.

There are two exceptions to this. First, if a player tells me out-of-game that they don't want me to screw around with a specific NPC -- they don't want me killing off their mom, for example, or turning their husband into an evil cultist -- I'm happy to honor that request. Secondly, any NPC that the player "pays" for in game terms, such as through the leadership feat, is pretty safe from turning traitor, unless I ambiguously clear it with the player first AND give the PC ample compensation (e.g., give them another feat or a better replacement cohort).

Daniel

 

[Kastil]

I don't smack my players back with a splintered ruler for creating their own PCs, especially family members, friends, etc. I've left my gaming world pretty much open so if they have a creative idea, I can fit it in as long as it's not outlandish.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Only those related to a character's background (although my players tend to give me outlines with general terms, leaving me to add details). This includes Cohorts and Followers if the PC is starting 6th Level or higher and has Leadership.

Otherwise, no.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

This is a great thing for players to do and any GM who discourages it is really robbing himself of an opportunity.

My players are always encouraged to do this as it creates a situation where they are instantly more involved with the plot. Its one thing for the GM to mention 'an ex lover in your past' but the player - with his character's profile in mind - can create an ex lover that means so much more and if she is in peril, or turns evil or becomes mayor.

I do everything I can to encourage my players to take active roles. Its not even a matter of 'making my job easier' so much as it is making things more enjoyable.

 

[frankthedm]

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?

My players don't ever ask to detail NPCs, but i assume that is because my style of running leads them to use all character ideas for replacement PCs.

Either that or they fear i would use the NPCs against them.

On a similar note however, A PC recently retired a whoremongering Dwarf barbarian into my care to be used as a future villian. He got to keep his XP total for his next character. His elf rogue also got some of the barbarians equipment through the 'normal method'.

 

[Ottergame]

Either that or they fear i would use the NPCs against them.

I could see that happening. If a player takes the time to detail out a few people, some he really trusts, I could see a naasty DM using that as a way to backstab a player.

"Yes, the person you've been best friends with since you were 4 suddenly knocks you out and takes all your stuff. Again." While that might make a decent, if unoriginal and trite, side story to figure out why it happened, I would perfer my friends to remain my friends.

 

[Haradim]

I could see that happening. If a player takes the time to detail out a few people, some he really trusts, I could see a naasty DM using that as a way to backstab a player.

It's my #2 theory for why many (if not most) PCs had their entire family/village/whatever conveniently destroyed before the game starts.

Then again, many don't realise how useful such people can be, since the emphasis is always upon the PCs doing everything themselves, with NPCs being a) inferior in all ways, b) too vulnerable/cowardly/weak, or c) too powerful and uncaring. They never seek help, and many aren't interesting in RPing friendships with them (or even other PCs, often enough), so unless you 'foist' these NPCs upon them (say, by kidnapping/killing/turning Evil said NPC), they may not ever actually appear in the game, and are thus rather pointless to detail in the first place.

In essence, detailing these characters creates a situation where players believe they will be used, and since the players are often trained to think NPCs are useless targets/quest sources/innocents that must be protected, the only logical option seems to be that they will be used as a plot hook or BBEG at some point. Which players find annoying, for some reason.

 

[Ottergame]

I get to attatched to the NPCs I make up for my character. Family, friends, lovers... that's one reason I never make any up in a game where I don't know the GM. I don't someone my character trusts fully to be truend against him.

 

[reiella]

I personally let the players decide the back history for their family/friends/acquaintances/etc.

To a degree.

If the result is a NPC type whose 'high level' (for instance, in my world, all the wizard teachers from a given school are at least 20th/21st), then I have more control over their back history, but typically not so much as it relates to the player character. One other instance of a situation where a PCs perception of a NPC was a bit shaded from the truth (due in part due to how the PC described their relationship).

Also, once the "game starts", they're fair game for different behavior/actions.

 

[Ottergame]

Would you let a player take over an NPC he created for his character if that character dies?