Off Screen NPCs Purely Detrimental?

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I've noticed a trend that off screen NPCs are, in one way or another, virtually always detrimental to the party and I was wondering why that is. To elaborate, it seems that every time a PC has a friend, a family member, or develops a connection with an NPC introduced during the campaign arc, they become a liability to the party. At one point or another, it always seems this NPC that is cared for becomes endangered, hurt, or even killed due to the machinations of the PCs foes, and the worst part is, it seems like aside from 24/7 watch by the party themselves, they can never stop it.

That brings me to my next point, why is it that NPC allies of the party are virtually always 90-100% ineffective in any actions you task them to? Ask a trusted friend in the guard to watch over a young child you recently placed in an orphanage after rescuing her from an orc camp, and odds are you when you come back to the area, something happened to the child, and your good friend was drunk on duty/busy with other affairs/purely incompetent, and he's shocked that you ever thought he could be relied on in the first place.

Even when off screen NPCs are not a pure liability, how often are they actually of real and honest benefit to the party? For once I would like to see a PC with a contact in the Thieves Guild or a father that's a leading nobleman in the city, get the benefits he should logically get from having such connections.

It's as if all DMs decide that allowing PCs benefits for having real and honest connections with the NPCs of the world would be giving them something for free, and thereby refuse to ever do it, only using the NPCs to hurt, challenge, or cause some detriment to the PC. I think PCs should be rewarded for allowing and encouraging close connections with the NPCs that exist in the world, aside from their current enemies list.

Unfortunately, it seems few others agree, which is probably why 90-95% of characters created never list good, caring relations with friends or family, only creating a back history for plot hooks and further challenges, or simply going with the orphan/estranged route, since god knows they'll never get anything of actual tangible benefit from their relationships in the world.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This is an issue of bad DM'ing vs. good DM'ing. I played in a game in college, that while very good on many fronts, exhibited exactly these issues. THe corollary to that is the "perfect NPC" or "DM's Pet NPC", who can do no wrong and freuently outshines the PC's.

For myself, one of the key things that I took away from that campaign was that I never wanted to let that be a trap that I fell into. Some NPC's are quite capable of handling themselves, and I let the NPC friends survive just fine.

On the other hand, however, keep in mind: The PC's are going to have adventures. I think its best when those adventures arise from things the PC's do or care about, rather than being completely compartmentalized and seperate. So putting the PC's friends and family at risk is a valid DM tool, so long as it is not overdone.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Excellent point. I remember in session one of a superhero rpg establishing that my character was married. Session two - wife kidnapped by shadow demons.

This is why fear of commitment is so rife among PCs.

 

[DragonLancer]

I think the problem is that such ties are perfect plot hooks, even for a good experienced DM.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the problem is that such ties are perfect plot hooks, even for a good experienced DM.

Maybe the key to avoid abusing them is this:
You are allowed to use such NPCs as a "victim" the PCs have to use.

You are also required to use such NPCs in situations where the PCs could use some help. Use them as information source or for acquring other resources, or to make connections with other NPCs. (Sometimes you can use them to get new PCs into the group)

Use NPCs surprisingly - if the PCs have rescued a "damsel in distress", they might meet her again later, where she could be helpful - or is just "window dressing", there to give a feeling of coherence in the world.

 

[LostSoul]

I like Circles from Burning Wheel.

You get to roll to bring NPCs in play. If you want the NPC to do something for you - and you succeed at your Circles roll - the NPC will do that thing for you (or try). If you fail the Circles roll, either you haven't found that NPC, or the GM invokes the enmity clause. This means that the NPC is an enemy.

That makes NPCs helpful.

 

[Jackelope King]

Mutants & Masterminds handles this nicely. If the GM makes life tough for you by having a friend or loved one put in danger, you get a hero point (similar to action points, or drama points, or whatever other flavor you're most familiar with) for the complication. It allows you a little extra edge in a somewhat more dangerous situation. Since M&M encourages players to come up with suggested complications for the character before the game, it's basically going to make players want to come up with plot hooks for the GM when they come to the table.

 

[Mallus]

Mutants & Masterminds handles this nicely.

Agreed. It's got a simple and elegant system for giving an immediately useful mechanical reward for dramatic complications.

And to the general point: while I agree that "single-purpose liability NPC" are uninteresting, and indicative of unimaginative DM'ing... I never quite understood the impetus to create "lone wolf" characters. NPC's are more often than not plot-hooks, not assets. Entry points into a series of challenges.

You want a character that doesn't come with plot hooks? Fine. Nothing happens to you. Have fun hunting rats in the sewers...

 

[Gilladian]

I was just running through a mental list of NPC help/harm ratio in my head for this campaign. The PCs are currently 8th lvl:

For Glade: her parents have given her housing and info about what's happening in her home town. Her uncle (a bard) helped publicize her career. He escorted another pair of NPCs to safety for her. He has since wandered off and gotten driven crazy by a ghost. The party is rescuing him now.

For Eric: his mother (a merchant) has helped him many times dispose of loot. She helped him buy property and build a house, sent a relative to open a business there and manage the property. Took the PCs out to dinner and almost got killed in a fire started by an enemy of theirs.

For Shadow: nothing yet (been present for 3 sessions).

For the whole party: The baron's daughter begged their aid and they sent her and her boyfriend to safety. The party killed the baron, but he was a borderline villain. They hired a cook/housekeeper and stableman. Nothing bad has happened to them. They have just notified the baron's daughter it is safe to come home and I plan that she shall do that safely. The NPC fighter who runs around with all of them has nearly died numerous times, but they've so far kept him alive.

So I'd say they're slightly ahead on NPCs at this time.

Future plans:
They've pissed off an evil wizard. Glade's cousin is gonna get kidnapped. Eric's mother's business is gonna get burned down. The PCs will find evidence of criminal activity planted on their property/persons. All will lead to the ultimate showdown between them and the BBEG.

 

[S'mon]

I give PCs NPC contacts equal to 1 + CHA bonus (eg CHA 13 gives you 2 contacts) and I work to make sure they, and other contacts developed in play, are useful and competent within their area of expertise, or if not, that there's a darn good reason for it. I am 100% opposed to punishing players via friendly NPCs.