Off Screen NPCs Purely Detrimental?

[Mallus]

I am 100% opposed to punishing players via friendly NPCs.

The question is: are plot hooks rightly seen as punishments, given a more metagame-y perspective?

 

[roguerouge]

If the NPCs are just sitting there, not advancing the story or the world, of course the DM is eventually going to mess with some of them to advance the story and complicate the world. The key is to get all of your NPCs doing something, even though you know that some of them are going to be targets. In my campaign, the NPCs sail the ship, improve the PC's weapons, foster trade connections, give birthday gifts, bail the PC out of jail, and are an important source of emotional support. Of course, one got the plague, a few got arrested, one ruined some spell books, and so on.

Incidentally, this "all friends and family are potential targets issue" may explain why there are so few adventurers in some settings. There's got to be some social pressure put on by loved ones to prevent people who are thinking of becoming heroes. Ditto for the lack of time with loved ones due to the travel.

Makes you wonder why more paladins don't wear masks....

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

I simply don't buy into the idea that NPCs should become targets or plot hooks outside of what's logical and would have occured in any case. It is as if DMs believe that the moment a character has a close, personal relationship with any NPC, be it in their character history or one developed along the roads of adventure, that NPC is now an immediate and overwhelming target of multiple plots, villains, or simple tragedy.

The annoying part about this, for me, is that if said NPC had never gained the affections of the PC, none of this would have happened. How precisely do the BBEGs have this immediate and all seeing knowledge of who PCs care the most for, anyway? Do they have spies constantly observing the PC ready to strike at anyone who becomes close to them for the merest of instants?

This gets even worse when you consider NPCs that are introduced in the midst of an adventure, who becomes liked or close to a PC. Said NPC suddenly and inexplicably becomes embroiled in numerous plot threads, re occuring appearances, and all manner of other tomfoolery that forces the PCs to take action to help them. This is, to me, just as bad and forced as DMNPCs who solve all the parties problems are.

Is it any wonder with this strange cosmic force irrevokably causing chaos and pain for anyone who gets close to a PC, that so many PCs become the distant loner, the solitary warrior, the vigilant guardian standing by himself against the hordes of evil, the hardass merc who doesn't give a damn, and ad nauseum throughout the stereotypes of people who just don't get close to anybody.

Create an interesting, different character that has close family, good friends, and is out adventuring in part to make the world a better place for those people, or only for a while as he works to win through so he can return to his loved ones, would be a great change of pace. But at the same time, I understand why just about nobody ever does this, because every time they even hint at it, the fates, for no good reason and with no apparent logic, wreak havoc on everything they care about.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm running a low-lvl city game right now, and while the city is huge, the PCs are all from a small neighborhood. As such, lots of people know them in the neighborhood and people will do favors for them. I want the place to feel relatively safe and homey, while the unfamiliar neighborhoods feel more foreign and hostile.

But dang, I surely do want to kidnap one PC's mom.

 

[Mallus]

I simply don't buy into the idea that NPCs should become targets or plot hooks outside of what's logical and would have occured in any case.

D&D characters exist inside adventure stories. That dictates what's "logical". And in this case "what would have occurred" is more or less meaningless, unless you consider the game environment some sort of free-running simulation.

The annoying part about this, for me, is that if said NPC had never gained the affections of the PC, none of this would have happened.

Hitting someone where they're vulnerable is a time-honored bad-guy technique.

Said NPC suddenly and inexplicably becomes embroiled in numerous plot threads, re occuring appearances, and all manner of other tomfoolery that forces the PCs to take action to help them. This is, to me, just as bad and forced as DMNPCs who solve all the parties problems are.

I see this as the game being as contrived as it's source materials. If you want more realistic character interaction, there's always Jane Austen d20.

Create an interesting, different character that has close family, good friends, and is out adventuring in part to make the world a better place for those people, or only for a while as he works to win through so he can return to his loved ones, would be a great change of pace.

Sure. But it's unrealistic not to expect a little kidnapping. Look at actual court politics (or actual comic books). Threatening the powerful via their weakest links is par for the course.

 

[Jackelope King]

The annoying part about this, for me, is that if said NPC had never gained the affections of the PC, none of this would have happened. How precisely do the BBEGs have this immediate and all seeing knowledge of who PCs care the most for, anyway? Do they have spies constantly observing the PC ready to strike at anyone who becomes close to them for the merest of instants?

A gather information check.

And in all fairness, you present a gross exaggeration. Again, going back to my M&M game, one of the players introduced a new character whose wife was a prosecutor. In one of his earlier adventures, the character's wife was caught in a hostage situation at the court house when a metahuman decided he didn't like his sentence. It added extra tension and interest to a mission which otherwise might have been humdrum. And this wasn't any sort of attempt to "punish" the player for having a character with interpersonal relationships: it was a means by which to explore those relationships and give the character who's loved one was in danger a chance to be in the spotlight. My own character had to go on a mission her first week on the job to rescue her mother from a demon cult. A few days after that, the other PCs' old archnemesis showed up.

I've done this in games that I've run too. The key is not to punish the player, but rather to give the player the spotlight for awhile, since it's their character's relation who's in danger, and they're the ones who are going to have to really step up to save the day. It's an opportunity, not a punishment. (I also like being able to reward characters for this with a mechanic like hero points). In short, it's a good way to give the player with the complication some time in the spotlight and help forge more links for the character to the world they live in.

 

[Drowbane]

For a long time I avoided NPC relations. I often had the steriotypical "family killed by orcs" (or whatever) backstory.

My current PC is probably the weakest member of the party by himself... but he has quite the network of NPCs. Including an entire (small) thieves guild... as well as a (small) Army of Darkness (various types of undead and a small cabal of priests dedicated to Orcus).

This constantly gives me something to stat out at work and a way to offer up plot-hooks for the DM toss back to the party as a whole.

My NPCs are mainly good for fluff... as anything in the spotlight can be handled in-party... but I've got a man for just about any situation.

 

[jdrakeh]

There are some games (e.g., Burning Wheel, Shadowrun, HERO, etc) that have very specific rules for setting up and acting out very specific NPC/PC relationships in the form of contacts, allies, dependents, enemies, and so forth. In games that have such rules, off-screen NPCs are typically more than basic GM plothook fodder or if they are simple plot fodder, the player has some say in the specifics of the relationship and how it can be used in actual play. In games that lack such rules, off-screen NPCs are wildly open to abuse by bad GMs.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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.

It is the same reason that every person who seems to be related to Jack Bauer ends up in dire peril at some point during the day.

D&D is a role playing game that is highly dependant on fantasy combat. That means most of the story and plot tropes are going to come from action movies. This in turn means that there is no reason for anyone to get any screen time unless something is going to happen to them.

There are two ways to avoid this. One is to allow PC relatives to show up for completely mundane scenes, which tend to be boring. The other way is for some of those relatives to be a member of the party.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[jdrakeh]

If you want more realistic character interaction, there's always Jane Austen d20.

I'd play that.