
It is funny and illustrative of why we disagree so often. To me that is utterly terrible advice. Like literally the exact opposite what one should do! I would say the GM should know the personalities, convictions and weaknesses of NPCs, and play those NPCs with honesty and integrity based on those.
Well, I did describe it as a
technique, not as
advice. It is a technique that is applicable in some RPGs and some contexts, but not all RPGs all the time.
A very early application of the technique (or a variant of it) goes back to classic D&D and the reaction roll: the GM rolls the reaction dice, thereby works out how the NPC/creature is going to respond to the PCs, and then imputes an appropriate mood/personality to the NPC/creature to fit that reaction.
Most recently I have used the technique in my Torchbearer game both for Fori the Beardless and for Lareth the Beautiful. By keeping their aspirations and personalities somewhat unfixed until I need to present them in play, I can have their behaviours and responses play the role I want them to play, which is to put pressure on PC beliefs about Elves and Dwarves and their fates an destinies (and in a context where Lareth - who is a Half-Elf in this game - is the half-brother of one of the Elven PCs, and Fori is connected to the mysterious background of the Dwarven PC).
Have to agree with this. Changing NPCs' personalities to support a narrative is blatant cheating in my book. NPC personalities should be established before the players meet them, then they react to the players' actions in accordance with their established personalities. It needs to be that way to be fair.
If the game is a
challenge-based game
and one where overcoming the challenge requires acquiring particular information from the GM, this might be true.
If the game is a
challenge-based one, but doesn't rely in the same way on acquiring information from the GM - eg it is not mystery-based or "breadcrumb"-based - then it's not true that fairness requires pre-established personalities. The classic reaction dice provide an illustration of the point.
If the game is not exploration-based, or significantly subordinates exploration - and this is the case for my Torchbearer 2e game - then there is nothing unfair about using the technique that Czege describes. The point of play is
to prompt the players to make emotionally/thematically laden decisions. The manifestation of appropriate NPC personalities, moods and behaviours is one way of doing that - as Czege explains in the passage that I quoted.