Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8007623" data-attributes="member: 16814">Firstly, I again disagree with your observations about allies being different from other NPCs.  Just because an NPC is currently friendly doesn't mean they aren't a source of social interaction challenges.  Nor does an NPC being friendly imply that the PC's have all the handles necessary.  In fact, the second NPC I described in my post doesn't match this at all -- it is an ally, in that it's a source of succor for the PC, but always tries to extract a price for it's aid, which is always a social conflict.  Anytime that PC interacts with this ally, there's a social challenge involved, and, trust me, the PC does not have all of the handles necessary.  If that's the case, that NPC is "solved" and, as you note, only again becomes interesting if the GM changes the NPC into behaving in non-"solved" ways.  There are many points in-between.Secondly, my disagreement was with the blanket statement that all NPCs must be manipulable or become such as play is followed.  This has little to do with status as ally or opponent.  I still disagree with this.  Some NPCs can exist solely as foils, not offering any changes but there to offset a PC only.  Some might just be the fictional representation of a routine game mechanic interaction -- such as the reliably bombastic but non-challenging NPC promoter of the Sigil pit-fighting championship that's part of the expanded downtime rules for my campaign.  As such, he's only flavor to enhance the mechanics of the downtime pit-fighting option (yeah, I have pit-fighting as a downtime activity, it's been a blast).  There is interaction, but it's not confrontational in any way.Perhaps we're sailing past each other on this, but I think you're trying to make a narrow point and I'm seeing a broad one.  To that end, I disagree with you if you're making a broad point, but do not necessarily disagree on the narrow one.  Perhaps that helps?</blockquote>

Verification