The Pemertonian / Perkinsian Pro-conjoinance

[innerdude]

I've been interested following the Pemertonian / Perkins threads recently, because I think one of the key elements of "scene framing" is, in fact, determining appropriate NPC actions, reactions, and attitudes. What happened with the party prior, what the party is doing right now, and the result of PC actions should affect what any given NPC would conceivably do in the future.

And it's interesting, because this isn't often discussed at length in GM-ing guides, at the least the ones I'm familiar with. The core rules for my "actively used" systems at the moment (Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, and Savage Worlds) really only have cursory mentions of setting up NPC motivations. The Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide goes a little further, encouraging players to write down or create basic maps of NPC motivations, but in a lot of cases this comes up as setting up the plot, rather than actually getting inside the NPC's psychology.

And I think GMs could find value in doing even basic "psyche mapping" to build more interesting NPCs and interactions.

Having done acting in both college and semi-professionally, and having taken a number of acting classes, I was regularly told to consider motivation and tacticswhen analyzing character interactions. This generally required going through the script scene-by-scene and creating potential ways that the character was pursuing their goals.

For example, a major villain's goal is to take over the world, or defeat a rival king, or release the "evil spirits" upon the world, but that doesn't explain his or her motivation. One of the things I've generally found praiseworthy of Paizo's Adventure Paths (regardless of other strengths and weaknesses) is that the main NPCs all have very clearly-defined motivations for their actions. Sometimes those motivations feel appropriately complex and nuanced, and sometimes they feel somewhat superficial, but in either case, as a GM, you're given clear insight into the why an NPC is pursuing a particular course of action.

This is also a potential shortcut when players do something unexpected. If you understand your NPCs' basic "response mechanisms," coming up with a good "encounter" on the fly becomes easier, while also maintaining consistency in story and narrative.

Anyway, if there's one thing I've found particularly helpful in building good campaigns and encounters, it's using Perkins' concept of "NPCs and a world you care about" to directly influence "scene framing."

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure I follow the jargon, and I think it may be independent of scene-framing, but NPC motives and goals are something I've always had in my little NPC interaction stat-blocks. Perhaps, like you, I've been influenced by my acting background. I do think this can be easy to overlook if you're not told specifically to go for it, but it adds a realism to the character that is very valuable to me when playing.

 

[Nagol]

For NPCs I use character motivation, risk appetite/stake level, and strategy/tactic choice review continuously. This feeds into faction action and NPC interaction as well as posture towards the PCs .

Oh and I have absolutely no acting background.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In my current campaign using my RPG system, I mark down the following information on any NPC I think they might really speak to more than once: "Name (Gender, Race, [sometimes level]): Minor note of who they are (year they were born in) (Personality Trait, Personality Trait, [Something that drives them to act], [Something that inhibits them], [Something they don't know or question])."

I've found this to go very, very far when helping me determine how NPCs act. I also have a d100 chart for these things (not name, gender, race, or level, but the rest), so I sometimes get really interesting combinations. Right now, in my campaign, the nation the players are in is at war (in a sense; undead invasion + dealing with newly organized orcs + skirmishes with a neighboring nation). They've interacted a few times with a man named Yidon Terane, who is organizing the army's movements out of the nation's capital city. Here's what I rolled for him:

Yidon Terane (Male Human, Level 10): A knight that coordinates the war effort from the capital of Nymous (born at -45). (Cowardly, Funny, DF: Generosity, CH: Gentle, MY: How do I serve my family?)

So, here's the guy responsible for directing troop movements, and he's cowardly. That was surprising to me, but I could totally see it; he's sitting safely in the capital city, in the castle, where he's maneuvered himself over years to get off the front lines. But, he's also funny, so he's not as formal or intimidating as people might think, which might disarm them socially a bit. His sense of generosity is what drives him to act, so that's been worked into all of his interactions with the PCs. He's a gentle guy, to the point where it sometimes gets in the way of doing his job. And, lastly, he wonders the best way to serve his family (the major noble Terane family), so he may be involved in court politics to some degree, or doing favors to those members who are, or even questioning if doing what he's doing really meets that end.

When I rolled those five things up, it completely solidified his personality in my mind. And it only takes a minute to note, and I know his motivations, his personality, even a flaw. I think determining motivations in NPCs is incredibly important, and while I don't advocate rolling for every NPC (or most, necessarily), I love the working in motivations with what I roll. I placed a knight named Yidon Terane in that position before I rolled for that stuff, and I had already decided what he was doing. The extra stuff just interacts with that, and it gives me tons of ideas for why he's doing what he's doing. And I've found that to be immensely helpful when determining NPC actions.

Anyways, like KM, I think this may be largely independent of "scene framing" since I rarely specifically set up scenes for players to resolve. Maybe you can shed more light on it? As always, play what you like

 

[D'karr]

I've been interested following the Pemertonian / Perkins threads recently, because I think one of the key elements of "scene framing" is, in fact, determining appropriate NPC actions, reactions, and attitudes. What happened with the party prior, what the party is doing right now, and the result of PC actions should affect what any given NPC would conceivably do in the future.

From the standpoint of scene-framing the NPC "motivations" are important insofar as they intersect with the goals the PCs have decided to pursue. Scene-framing, IMO, needs to be done mostly from the perspective and with the goals of the PCs, not the NPCs. If scene-framing is consistently done from the perspective of the NPCs then it can usually, not always but usually, lead to railroading. I'll explain.

In the military there is a term given to a mission's objective called commander's intent. It is part of the briefing given to small unit leaders so that they understand the purpose of their mission, not only the objective. The small unit leader then gives a similar but condensed briefing to his unit. The idea is that if every member of the unit is aware of the commander's intent the objective can be achieved, even by alternate means as the situation on the ground changes.

The objective might be to take Hill 492 to deny it to the enemy artillery unit that is moving towards it. Your unit might be assigned the mission of taking an occupying that hill in order to deny it to the artillery unit. However, the commander's intent might be to prevent the enemy artillery unit from crossing the fording area 2 Km north of hill 492. So with that information if the situation on the ground changes you can adjust. If the artillery unit is occupying hill 489 there is absolutely no reason for you to even attempt to take hill 492. If the artillery unit is bogged down at the fording area and you can destroy it that now becomes your objective. Hill 492 is simply a goal based on the best information at the time. As that information changes then your objective might change. But what happens if neither hill 489 is occupied, or the artillery unit is bogged down. They you continue to your objective of taking 492.

In scene framing the NPC goals and motivations need to be like that in a sense. They need to be adaptable and flexible. So that when the PCs move slightly the DM can adjust. But what happens when the PCs have clearly moved off the page completely and are no longer following the DM/NPC script? If the DM keeps injecting the NPC goals without regard to the what the PCs are actually pursuing then he's railroading.

In the game the scenes where the PCs are involved are the "significant" scenes. If the PCs are not involved it's not even necessary to have a scene. The game is not like a movie where scenes without the protagonists are put in place for other purposes, exposition, secondary character (NPC) development, etc. So the goals/motivations of the NPCs follow within the framework. When the goals of the PCs and the goals of the NPCs intersect then you have conflict. When the goals of the PCs and the goals of the NPCs are not even in the same continent, then injecting the NPC goals is a railroad.

In the hill 492 example the NPC goals are the goals for the unit assigned to take hill 492. The PCs are the artillery unit. If the artillery unit (the PCs) has decided to not even go to the fording area and they are not even taking hill 489 they have passed away of the purview of the NPC unit. They are not even operating in the same area. Injecting the goals of the NPC unit at this time in a scene is not helpful. The PCs have moved on, the scenes need to move with them. Not with the NPCs.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that NPC that have goals and motivations independent of the PCs are interesting to scene-framing. NPCs that react and adjust to the "work" done by the PCs are great. But if those NPC goals do not intersect, and are relevant to the goals that the PCs are working for, then those NPCs are not relevant either.

 

[Libramarian]

The 1e DMG has extensive rules for randomly determining NPC personalities and reactions to the PCs, unfortunately they are too complex to actually be usable. I use a simplified version of reaction rolls for a lot of NPCs. It produces weird results sometimes but I enjoy working out post hoc why this shopkeeper despises the PCs and won't even talk to them and this random guard admires them greatly etc.

 

[Guest 85555]

I am not seeing how npcs with motives that are not directly relevant to what the pcs are currently doing is railroading. Maybe I am misunderstanding your position though. To me if the pcs decide to go for a joy ride in fat Tony's car and then take his wife to the movies, Fat Tony (if he finds out) is going to come after them for sweet revenge even if they decide to redirect all their attention on a lemonade stand in the mall. To me that isn't railroading, it is just the logical outcome of what the PCs did prior to becoming lemonade moguls.

 

[D'karr]

You're trying to pin specifics to what is a general comment.

Since we are using specifics when they don't fit lets start looking at more specifics. Fat Tony, who is he? From his NPC name I'd argue that he lives in downtown BFE, and the extent of his influence is hot Suzy, and his pimped out ride. He is obviously not the NPC for this task. When the PCs have moved halfway across the world to start up that lemonade stand, any appearance in the scene, by Fat Tony, starts becoming contrived.

He might still hold that grudge, and the PCs should expect him to. But if they've already gone beyond his sphere of influence/purview then his appearance in a scene at that time is a railroad. The only reason he exists in that scene is because the DM can't fathom that the PCs have moved beyond his precious little encounter. This is the same issue with a world populated by singly antagonistic NPCs. Which is what Perkins was referring to in his article.

When the PCs return back to BFE, if they encounter Fat Tony then there's a reason for him to be in the scene. The PCs have returned to an area where his goals, sphere of influence, and purview intersect with the PCS.

This is obviously not the case with all NPCs. If the PCs deflowered the daughter of King Oswald the Conqueror, his sphere of influence is much bigger. He is much more "powerful", and has more resources. In that case the PCs might be intersecting that NPC sphere of influence for a lot longer, but not every NPC has that time and resources. Even King Oswald might take a hint after he's sent 17 squads of assassins to handle the PCs and none have returned.

The problem is the extremes. That is what Perkins is discussing. If every NPC we encounter from now until 6 levels from now is a friend of Fat Tony, or is somehow related to him, or simply doesn't like the PCs because he heard of what they did to Fat Tony - that is the extreme. Unfortunately it is far too often the case. Fat Tony doesn't have the resources so why in the world is he still in the scene? King Oswald has the resources but at some point even he should take a hint.

In scene-framing the DM should definitely take a hint. If the players keep not accepting his "offers" to engage with Fat Tony then maybe there is something that needs to be discussed.

 

[Guest 85555]

You're trying to pin specifics to what is a general comment.

Since we are using specifics when they don't fit lets start looking at more specifics. Fat Tony, who is he? From his NPC name I'd argue that he lives in downtown BFE, and the extent of his influence is hot Suzy, and his pimped out ride. He is obviously not the NPC for this task. When the PCs have moved halfway across the world to start up that lemonade stand, any appearance in the scene, by Fat Tony, starts becoming contrived.

He might still hold that grudge, and the PCs should expect him to. But if they've already gone beyond his sphere of influence/purview then his appearance in a scene at that time is a railroad. The only reason he exists in that scene is because the DM can't fathom that the PCs have moved beyond his precious little encounter. This is the same issue with a world populated by singly antagonistic NPCs. Which is what Perkins was referring to in his article.

When the PCs return back to BFE, if they encounter Fat Tony then there's a reason for him to be in the scene. The PCs have returned to an area where his goals, sphere of influence, and purview intersect with the PCS.

Certainly if the pcs take measures to keep fat tony away, like moving so far it justisnt worth it to him to go after them, i would agree itcs contived for him to show up (unless he is somekind of crazy guy willing to go to extreme lengths when omeone "borrows" his car and wife. If Fat tony is a mobster with lots of soldiers and associates under him (which is what I was picturing here) i could certainly see him sending a hit squad if he felt there was any funny business with the wife. As long as the actions of fat tony are true to the character, appropriate to what the pcs did, and feasible, i am just not seeing it as a railroad. I am not saying every npc should go after pcs for things. But some should. This isnt about forcing a planned encounter, it is about having npcs that react in a believable way. Obviously that may not be for everyone. Some groups will focus more on what is dramatically appropriate, and in those instances, i would obviously expect fat tony to be involved in the pcs activities if it fits. But i just dont see the decision to play fat tony as fat tony, as a railroad.

 

[Guest 85555]

This is obviously not the case with all NPCs. If the PCs deflowered the daughter of King Oswald the Conqueror, his sphere of influence is much bigger. He is much more "powerful", and has more resources. In that case the PCs might be intersecting that NPC sphere of influence for a lot longer, but not every NPC has that time and resources. Even King Oswald might take a hint after he's sent 17 squads of assassins to handle the PCs and none have returned.

The problem is the extremes. That is what Perkins is discussing. If every NPC we encounter from now until 6 levels from now is a friend of Fat Tony, or is somehow related to him, or simply doesn't like the PCs because he heard of what they did to Fat Tony - that is the extreme. Unfortunately it is far too often the case. Fat Tony doesn't have the resources so why in the world is he still in the scene? King Oswald has the resources but at some point even he should take a hint.

In scene-framing the DM should definitely take a hint. If the players keep not accepting his "offers" to engage with Fat Tony then maybe there is something that needs to be discussed.

Sure, I agree you shouldnt have every npc be this consequential. But in my example Fat Tony is supposed to be a mobster, not just some chump they decided to take advantage of. I am not knocking sceneframing or anything like that. All I am saying here is a free form adventure centered on characters (both pcs and npcs) isnt a railroad just becau the gm takes a "how would this npc logically react to this" approach. This is how I run most of my mafia campaigns, and those are all about letting the pcs do what they wnt (i have no encounters, scnes, adventures planned, it is all about dropping the pcs in a setting with vibrant and interesting characters, and letting the pcs choose their path). Clearly if he is using the npc to advance ome kind of hook, and s handing the npc resources he ought not to have, thatcis a different story.