How often do you include NPCs primarily for roleplaying reasons?

[A flannel shirt]

It mostly depends on the situation. I try and be prepared for anything but I do use a few tricks.

For a RPing stand point I love making NPCs for the group to interact with. I like to have my NPCs feel like they are important, but not to over shadow any player. It gives me a sense of accomplishment when the players have a connection to their NPCs friends and enemies. Josh Fredrich (whom we've been adventuring with for three sessions, we drank with him, we fought along side him, we crushed our enemies, saw them driven before us, and heard the lamentation of their women. ) was just found murdered in his home. He left a mysterious note that mentions and evil group out to kill him. etc etc. To me that adds excitement. It sure beats Josh a townsman just got killed, you need to investigate. Who is Josh and why do we care?

As for stating them up, I tend to. But I also have a HUGE stack of already created characters. I never throw any of them away. So if we are in a situation where we run into a Paladin then I will find Paladin #21 from a few games back and do some quick mods and run with it.

 

[Jack7]

Very, very often.

Monsters in my setting and unique and uncommon. The parties may encounter a monster once every three or four adventures. Monsters are extremely rare, are extremely dangerous and unique (so unless rumors exist, which may or may not be accurate, no one has any real idea of how to fight or kill them).

The parties (we have more than one playing Team - but one main team) also encounter normal people, as well as government officials, the military, etc. every day at their base (of operations) or in the cities where they operate.

On missions and adventures though the NPC is the main source of interaction with others, and is the main instrument of interactive role play and of moving the story along.

NPCs are fundamental in our campaigns, and that includes NPCs who are allies (such as in the military or Church), NPCs who have their own agenda (politicians or bureaucrats, or maybe other adventurers, or those who have interests that temporarily overlap those of the parties), NPCs who are enemies or opponents (such as the Dragoons or maybe Goths or Persians or Huns), and NPCs who want to use the party or parties for their own purposes.

Many NPCs do not fight the party directly, but fight their interests, through maneuver or political or other influence. Some NPCs support the party or parties (defending on which party). Some NPCs hire others (such as pirates or Goths or Bulgarians) to oppose or fight the party. Some attempt to trick, deceive and ambush the party. But some outright fight and attack the player party or parties.

And a few, like the Dragoons, even attempt to use monsters against the party, when they can.

NPCs could be considered everyone in the world except the parties, although that's not really how I classify an NPC. I divide the world, as a DM, into the following basic categories:

Ordinary or Common People - people you encounter in everyday life, but often only once

Associates - people who never adventure with the parties but whom they often interact with as friends or allies

Important Officials - I keep lists of these people by name and profession and position and consider them NPCs. Some of these will have character sheets if they need to go on missions with the Team (party) as allies, or for other reasons.

Comrades/Contracted/Hired - NPCs with their own character sheets who are sometimes hired by the party for contract work, or are assigned to the party, such as Byzantine spies, military teams, or foreign ambassadors

Important Opponents and Enemies - if high enough level or important enough then all of these NPCs have character sheets of their own, and well developed networks of contacts

Monsters - since most every monster is a unique and usually powerful and dangerous creature each monster has its own "Monster Character sheet" and if intelligent at all, is played like an NPC, not as an animal. Although some monsters are primitive and have no higher intelligence, they have character sheets because they each have unique abilities or capabilities. So in a way I guess they could be considered NPCs as well.

There are so many NPCs and Monsters of the "well developed type" because so few important NPCs or Monsters got to be where they are without being very, very good at survival. So if possible they don't fight to fight, or fight to the death. They often fight to kill others, but aren't real enthused about fighting to their own deaths.

How I run and operate NPCs though all depends on how you actually define NPC. Does one mean NPC as in non-player character, a character that is never played in combat or in opposition to the party, or does one mean NPC as in a character never played by the players, but only by the DM? I tend to use the latter definition.


By the way, this is basically how I classify general categories of people in real life too. Except for the Monster category. There are no trolls or goblins of course, but there are criminals and evil men often take the place in my mind of "monsters" so I use that general category as well.

But for real life I also have Networks and Partners and Family and Friends/Comrades as separate categories.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Anyone or anything that is not a PC is a monster. Not every monster will be fought by the PCs. Some will become enemies, others allies, and some just acquaintances.

As for stats, everything gets stats. The vast majority of npcs will use a common statblock for thier type. For example most rural common folk will use the typical farmer stats of whatever system it happens to be.

Individuals are personalized when needed with notes about appearance, behavioral traits, and most importantly, goals and objectives. What makes an npc truly a part of the campaign world rather than window dressing is the pursuit of thier goals & desires.

 

[Barastrondo]

My first reaction was "what, per session?"

All the time. Admittedly, many provide functions other than pure roleplaying -- sources of information, providers of services, potential questgivers, political allies or enemies, etc. -- and that muddles things. A mercenary quartermaster that enters the game as a source of information may hang around for pure roleplay purposes. A young maiden who's been a source of temptation for the party scoundrel may prove adventure-relevant if a villainous NPC takes an interest in her. Mostly, I just place NPCs in the world because they'd be there, logically, and the players would interact with them. And given the sort of players I have, they do.

I don't stat them up. If it proves necessary I can append a fairly generic stat block to them (like "human scum, L4 minion"), since I build most encounters out of such stat blocks anyway. Or I can choose "bad/average/good/great at Skill X" and set the mechanical tests accordingly.

I find this question interesting, largely because a game where the answer is "no" is so alien to me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Most NPCs I create are not viable combat challenges for the PCs (I have a lot of powerful ones, and many that are noncombatant). Even those that are I generally have noncombat uses for these days.

 

[Umbran]

I suppose I mean as opposed to when you build something into the game primarily as a combat challenge.

If we set aside "mooks" (nameless and mostly faceless guards, for example), then I expect I have more NPCs around for social/RP purposes than for combat purposes.

 

[steeldragons]

By that definition, 99% of NPCs I create are for non-combat purposes and I merely write down their level, alignment, distinguishing features, and motivations in my session prep notes. I'll only do a full write-up for NPCs that are likely to be encountered in combat.

Pretty much this.

Almost all "NPCs" are for interactive purposes ("interactive" meaning rather than "combat" purposes.)

Also, just in my own head, things (people, creatures, even places sometimes) that are intended for combat I tend to think of as "Monsters" vs. "NPCs". So, I guess, for me I just think of any NPC as more for roleplaying (i.e. interaction) than for combat.

If something goes awry (which, as we all know, the PCs will almost certainly cause) and the PCs for whatever reason either choose to or must fight an NPC then the stats get built up on the fly. I might not have combat stats for say "town guardsman #4" written down, but if I DON'T have a breakdown of class leveled or particularly skilled NPC, I have the concept in my head of "how competent" the general population is. So can easily come up with an individual's hit points, what kind of armor they're wearing, weapon carried (and/or combat relevant abilities) on the fly if I have to.

--Steel Dragons

 

[Pentius]

My first reaction was "what, per session?"

All the time. Admittedly, many provide functions other than pure roleplaying -- sources of information, providers of services, potential questgivers, political allies or enemies, etc. -- and that muddles things.

If we're counting it like that, then I veer toward "none". I always have some purpose to any NPC I pre-define(as opposed to the fairly common occurrence of my players finding ones I hadn't thought to place, and me improvising). Even if it's only to provide an example of local color, or reinforce some aspect of the setting(ex: a half-elf barmaid getting treated rudely for her race in a town threatened by elven bandits, or an innkeeper who keeps a small shrine to the goddess of hospitality behind the counter).

I find this question interesting, largely because a game where the answer is "no" is so alien to me.

Yeah. Even in the most combat driven, hack-n-slash fest I've ever seen, the shopkeeps at least had names.

 

[Azgulor]

In my campaigns, there are many NPCs that are there primarily for RP interaction rather than combat. If it's a throw-away NPC (random beggar, random citizen asked for directions), they don't get stats.

If they get a name they at least get race/sex/class/level/alignment. Generally, I try to at least follow the "7-Sentence NPC" model (from old Dragon issue).

However, whenever possible, if a NPC has made more than 1 appearance I try to stat them up. The primary reasons are for doing so are:

Arranged in order of increasing importance--

1. Consistency. If Fred the Innkeeper revealed he was a former soldier, seeing Profession: Soldier on his character write-up makes it less likely I'll forget it in-game.

2. The unexpected combat. If a combat encounter breaks out, I like having stats available. If the PC decides to punch someone, maybe they're a wuss. Mayber they can hold their own in a brawl. Similarly, if the PC's nemesis launches a surprise attack, I like knowing if the NPC is a redshirt or has a chance of surviving.

3. Supporting the Unexpected. I learned long ago that some of the best elements of campaigns evolve out of things happening differently than I anticipated. GM Fiat serves its purpose, especially when pressed for time but I've seen so many "throw-away NPCs" develop into memorable supporting cast, major characters, or villains that the benefits of having the stat block far outweighs the time spent creating the stat block.

And now that I can churn out NPCs in Hero Lab, including PF Gamemastery Guide stock characters than I can tweak, the number of NPCs I can stat has increased significantly.

 

[Agamon]

How odd. If there was an "Always" choice, I would have taken that.

Even in the most hack'n'slashy, kill-em-and-take-their-stuff games, there's always some sort of home base with at the very least one dude that isn't there for the PCs to kill...right? Or am I way off base here? I'd like to see the post that inspired this thread.