My PCs are horrible people!

[Barastrondo]

That's my point. I have never known anybody to care about NPCs unless they were a DM or the NPCs in question were valuable henchmen.

Your experience is of course valid, but also of course far from universal.

Last session I ran, the PCs got their hands on a wishing coin: it was a gamble to wish on it (because the results might be "good wish," "mixed blessing" or "you get your wish but also a lot of trouble with it"), but as it was explained to them, the odds were pretty good on the first wish. They could have kept that thing and wished themselves crazy.

Instead, not only did they return the coin to the NPC who'd lost it, only two of the four PCs made a wish on the coin -- and they let a beloved NPC lackey have a wish of his own. A minion, y'all. Not a "valuable henchman" in any adventuring sense, though he has been known to arrive in timely fashion with a clean pair of pants.

The remainder of the session involved:

1) The warden finding out that his daughter had been sleeping with her fiance, and having a talk with each of them individually

2) The rogue finding out that his family was more prosperous (he had used his wish to alleviate the monetary troubles of his brother), and catching back up with his own fiancee

3) The warlord taking her mercenary company back home to let them carouse, and catching up with her family -- including the prospect of setting matchmakers on her cousin

4) The warlock (yes, we have all the war-classes) receiving letters from her romantic intended, and finally learning that he returned her feelings.

I've known people who don't care about NPCs, but I game with people who would be sorely disappointed if NPCs were presented as "not real," and they were encouraged not to engage with them in any way other than expressing their ids on them. You can vent your frustrations or innermost nasty person in lots of harmless ways, but for my groups, getting together for an RPG is logistically tricky enough that it'd be a waste for us. Well-realized improvisational PC/NPC interaction is something you can only get from an RPG. My players won't settle for less.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have been thinking about all the NPCs we have had in games. So many of them became as important to us as our own characters we would have died for them.

In my game the party just risked everything to save a town from the clutches of a bad dragon. Everyone gets three fate points in the game once you use them up they are gone.

You can use these fate points to not die, confirm a crit for max damage, to make a failed save not be a failure or to do something impossible.

The players hoard these using action points instead which are not as powerful.

I had the bad guys set fire to the house that the townsfolk were being kept prisoner in. There was no way out except the front door which was barricaded.

None of the players could get their in time so one asked me if he could use a fate point to make a leap to house roof and tumble down and try and get the door open. A PC gave up a very limited thing to save a bunch of NPCs.

 

[imurphy943]

You know, I think I have actually seen a bit of PC caring. One cleric I played with actually decided not to rob a group of merchants offering a reward for capturing some highwaymen. And I suppose I regularly pay my henchmen- extravagantly, in terms of how much I actually use them. My point is just that players frequently don't care, and you shouldn't worry about it too much.

I still feel that my point about detailed NPCs holds true. It takes a good writer and a lot of time to make a fictional character that people will care about, and the DM has to be able to know within ten seconds what a given character will do in any situation.

 

[Barastrondo]

I still feel that my point about detailed NPCs holds true. It takes a good writer and a lot of time to make a fictional character that people will care about, and the DM has to be able to know within ten seconds what a given character will do in any situation.

This is not generally that hard. One of the most beloved NPCs in one game is pretty simple: I told the players "He's sort of like Lord Rochester from Plunkett and MacLaine, though not quite as flamboyant." I knew that he was unabashedly open about being gay because he didn't care to be put in an arranged marriage for the good of his House, but also that he was rather more clever and competent than he let on. That was basically it. I'm pretty sure I know what he'd do in any given situation within ten seconds, as long as he'd know what he'd do. Most of my NPCs are archetypes when they first show up, and they wind up getting more depth as the players ask questions about them.

If many players don't care about NPCs, I think it's fair to say that many other players don't care if you put a lot of time into them or if you just did something remarkable when the NPC first appeared. The first impression is way more important than a lot of detail the players won't see at first, or possibly at all. If a bandit surrenders to the PCs with comically exaggerated enthusiasm, they may keep him around as a lackey forever. Ad-libbing can replace a lot of prep work time; it's the same with social interaction just as it is with encounter design or exploration.

 

[imurphy943]

If a bandit surrenders to the PCs with comically exaggerated enthusiasm, they may keep him around as a lackey forever.

As a player I have done similar things, but just wait and see how many of the players care about that bandit when it's him or one of them. I could see someone making the plunge in a game with easily available raise dead, or where new characters come in at the same level. The games I've played in, though, new characters have started at first level (the DM I played with last let me start at 200 XP for an entertaining death).

 

[Barastrondo]

As a player I have done similar things, but just wait and see how many of the players care about that bandit when it's him or one of them. I could see someone making the plunge in a game with easily available raise dead, or where new characters come in at the same level. The games I've played in, though, new characters have started at first level (the DM I played with last let me start at 200 XP for an entertaining death).

The context is different. We're not talking about a dungeon henchman; we're talking about a lackey. Someone to fetch hangover cures, carry his master's luggage, bring word to a terrifying aunt that the PC will not be attending dinner as expected. The PCs would probably have to invent a context in which one of them would have to die in order for the bandit-turned-gentleman's-gentleman to live; they don't exactly naturally occur.

Of course, if you have PCs who don't know what a gentleman's gentleman is, or how it applies to tomb robbing, circumstances like this are less likely to occur. But it doesn't take a swashbuckler game for PCs to take an interest in NPCs. All it takes is a world where it's easier to get some of the things they want with the help of NPCs, and players who are interested in goals attached to the world at large.

 

[imurphy943]

The context is different. We're not talking about a dungeon henchman; we're talking about a lackey. Someone to fetch hangover cures, carry his master's luggage, bring word to a terrifying aunt that the PC will not be attending dinner as expected.

So am I. I never took the two of them into a dungeon.

Of course, if you have PCs who don't know what a gentleman's gentleman is, or how it applies to tomb robbing, circumstances like this are less likely to occur. But it doesn't take a swashbuckler game for PCs to take an interest in NPCs. All it takes is a world where it's easier to get some of the things they want with the help of NPCs, and players who are interested in goals attached to the world at large.

I know what a gentleman's gentleman is, having read plenty of Dumas, Munchausen, and Heinlein. I still don't care about NPCs nearly as much as my character or any of the other characters in the party. Many of the other players also have favored lackeys, usually gained through diplomacy, but it hasn't kept us from many acts that should be condemned by any ethical or moral code in the course of the game.

My character has not only killed captured prisoners, but attempted to torture them using giant centipedes (the attempt failed only because the goblin in question was accidentally killed rather than knocked out). I and my companions have checked for enemies and traps by sending a hireling's dog down the hallway first. And if I was playing in a game with socially acceptable slavery, I could easily see myself buying some slaves.

My point to the OP was not to worry too much if his players don't have goals attached to the world at large. At the end of the day, you should be happy with the way the game session went based on the challenges the PCs overcame, the instances of brilliant roleplaying, the well-executed plans, and the general quality of the social experience. If you tie satisfaction to the way the players treat the game world, you're leaving yourself open to disappointment.

 

[fireinthedust]

I have to agree: it is way harder for me to get into character as GM than it is as a player. It's not even that NPCs aren't as detailed. mine are likely better detailed than my players, but I teach the game a lot, and get to know my NPCs.

I just find coming up with answers to flash questions hard. I just want the PCs to go in and say "I want this item" and pay the coins.

The trick is making up a good voice. I have this ridiculous alchemist I did today, voice like the Frogurt guy in the halloween Simpsons (booyah!) and they loved it. Maybe I should pick family guy/simpsons characters and give them jobs in the setting (omg, creepy old guy! I do an insanely good creepy old guy voice).

I do get attached to my NPCs as people in a story. They also have a role, I don't tend to add throwaway NPCs. If the heroes slay them haphazardly, they don't get the benefit of their help, or else I have to do backflips to get them back on track if I've prepared a whole big thing around this.


Anyway, quick update: totally different game today, but the offending players were mostly not in, the last was occupied by a project, and the experienced player who doesn't have time for NPC killing/troublemaking did show up. How do I know he's awesome? When the rest of the party was avoiding the plague victim they ran into, he stopped and checked up on the guy and got an NPC to take him to the hospitaler's temple. Nice guy.

We're breaking for Easter, then we'll see. I'm hopeful, though. They latched onto a runaway slave girl they met in the city. Rescued her, took her home, fed her, all that jazz. Now we'll see them deal with getting more xp for good deeds.



Maybe it's my expectations: am I running a three stooges game? If I am, sure I'll let it go, even encourage it. But if I'm running a game with some character-driven points, I don't want the heroes playing a game of "toss the monk-ey" with the high cleric. Not every game, but this game isn't one that it works for.

 

[Barastrondo]

I know what a gentleman's gentleman is, having read plenty of Dumas, Munchausen, and Heinlein.

I said "PCs," not players. I want to be pretty clear about the distinction, particularly when we're talking about PCs that are abominable people.

My point to the OP was not to worry too much if his players don't have goals attached to the world at large. At the end of the day, you should be happy with the way the game session went based on the challenges the PCs overcame, the instances of brilliant roleplaying, the well-executed plans, and the general quality of the social experience. If you tie satisfaction to the way the players treat the game world, you're leaving yourself open to disappointment.

Eh, if you tie satisfaction to anything in an RPG, you're leaving yourself open to disappointment. The dice can be bad, someone can show up to the table in a foul mood, someone might decide to go flagrantly out of character because they're working through frustrations. Anything can turn out disappointing. I don't think it's wrong for a GM to hope for a game that suits your personal tastes; if you find yourself disliking your players' characters to the point that seeing them succeed is no fun for you, then no matter what happens in the game, someone's not going to be enjoying themselves.

 

[Barastrondo]

I just find coming up with answers to flash questions hard. I just want the PCs to go in and say "I want this item" and pay the coins.

The trick I learned here is stalling. If I don't have an immediate answer, then maybe an NPC is kind of defensive (particularly if they don't know the PCs real well) and starts off with a "Why do you want to know?" or "Can you be more precise?" or "I'm sorry, I thought one of my leeches had gotten away, I didn't hear that the first time, can you repeat the question?" It lets the NPC's voice get established, it gives the players a chance to react, and it gives me a few extra precious seconds to find an answer.

Maybe it's my expectations: am I running a three stooges game? If I am, sure I'll let it go, even encourage it. But if I'm running a game with some character-driven points, I don't want the heroes playing a game of "toss the monk-ey" with the high cleric. Not every game, but this game isn't one that it works for.

Yeah, I think it's important to figure out what continuity means for a given group. If players don't want to engage seriously with a world, it's not important that the world changes meaningfully as a result of their decisions. As much work as it is to change a world meaningfully as a response to player activity, you don't want to have to put that work in if it's gonna be wasted o them, for sure.