The Pemertonian / Perkinsian Pro-conjoinance

[Sunseeker]

I agree with this greatly. NPCs should have motivations, be they simple for Bob the Farmer or complex for the King of Somewhere. Motivations are things players can remember too, a King is greedy, a Knight is selfless, not only can motivations be used to make the game feel more consistent, but they allow players to make judgement calls based on what an NPC would do based on what they have done and why they do it. Finding an ancient relic while on a mission for the Greedy King might make things difficult if he found out, because he'd demand you hand it over. Since the relic is relevant to the overarching plot of the story, it creates good tension between the greed of the King and the needs of the party.

NPCs with actions but without motivations can do anything, and often lead to the unpleasent trope of someone who had been nothing but friendly suddenly betrays you without a single hint of evil, because now he's had a sudden change of character and is EVIL! It's dumb, it's shallow, and it causes reader/player disconnect with the world.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Yup, I do precisely that, all the time, with an additional filters of what the NPC/monster knows, and how smart/skillful it is at achieving its goals.

The priestess of Asmodeus and her colleagues from the secret evil organization share the same strategic goal, for their own reasons, but some are much more direct than she is. She almost has the PC's convinced she's not a threat, because she's been helpful and mysterious with them. The hobgoblin mercenaries working for her organization have a different means (less brainpower, more military experience) at their disposal.

 

[haakon1]

Motivations are things players can remember too, a King is greedy, a Knight is selfless

Of course, some people pretend to be something they are not, or act differently for different audiences/goals. King Ferengi MUST act greedy in front of the Merchantile Federation, as it's expected from him. But he might secretly be generous, donating to the orphans anonymously. That sort of "complexity" can be really fun, if used in moderation.

 

[Guest 85555]

Of course, some people pretend to be something they are not, or act differently for different audiences/goals. King Ferengi MUST act greedy in front of the Merchantile Federation, as it's expected from him. But he might secretly be generous, donating to the orphans anonymously. That sort of "complexity" can be really fun, if used in moderation.

It can also be fun to think about this for each npc: who they think they are, and who they really are.

 

[haakon1]

I also have a d100 chart for these things . . . so I sometimes get really interesting combinations.

Sounds like it. Share to post your d100 chart? Crowd sourcing up a really good version of "500 motivations" or something would be cool. (I think 3 per PC from a chart of 100 would be too few.)

 

[S'mon]

@OP - good post and yep I agree, not surprisingly! I find understanding NPC motivation, and credible NPC motivation, absolutely vital in any game I run. This is one reason most published 4e adventures seem so weak to me - NPCs that exist only as quest-givers and enemy stat blocks, with no guidance on getting inside their heads. A short paragraph on the motivation of each major NPC, whether friendly or hostile, I think is vital in a published scenario.

IOne 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.

Yes, I definitely agree, and this is the major reason why I want to run a Paizo AP in 4e (Curse of the Crimson Throne, plan to start in June). In the linear plot/storypath approach so much of that motivation-background stuff is wasted and can even get in the way of running the adventure. Playing Rise of the Runelords recently, the GM wasn't interested in roleplaying the NPCs, and that made a lot of it seem a bit pointless. But it occurred to me that if you open up the APs and have strong PC-NPC connections then you could get a strong basis for Pemertonian Scene Framing. As well as having strongly motivated and characterised NPCs Unlike the '90s railroads or WotC 'Delve Format' fights and skill challenges, the Paizo APs tend to have only a minority of tightly pre-framed scenes, and most of those can be altered or discarded if they don't fit with a more open approach.
Now it will actually take me a lot more effort to run the AP than it would to create my own stuff - I definitely don't see it as a time-saver at all! The advantage will be in characters I might not have created myself, and more of a sense of exploration for me than I'd get with self-created material - more of a Sense of Wonder, maybe.

 

[pemerton]

The gist of it is that a character can "buy" a Flaw of having an Enemy. The Rating of that enemy determines how many build points the PC gets for taking it, but also represents the in-game power of that NPC Enemy

Interestingly, in Burning Wheel you have to pay points to have an enemy, and the more important/powerful the enemy within the gameworld, the more points required. The logic of this is that an enemy gives you screen time, and the bigger the enemy the more the screen time - so pay for being a screen-hog!

 

[pemerton]

I generally have immediate goals in mind for my NPCs, but I often retcon in motivation and backstory as seems helpful for what is happening in the game, and to keep up the pressure on the players.

So I agree with what D'karr has said (couldn't XP, sorry):

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.

<snip>

In scene framing the NPC goals and motivations need to be <snip> 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.

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.

<snip>

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.

This flexible approach to NPCs was first crystallised for me by Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

I sometimes find it can be a challenge to keep all the revealed backstory of a recurring NPC in mind (so as to avoid inconsistencies) - I try to use various forms of notes on my main campaign outline to help with that.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I agree, but this seems kinda obvious!
Scenes arise at the intersection of PC and NPC interests. If they don't intersect then the NPCs are doing something offstage. Maybe that will create interesting interections later. But certainly the camera needs to follow the PCs, they are always at the centre of their own story.

To avoid wasted effort, NPC motivations should generally be tied in to PC motivations. The PCs should never just be watching the NPCs or doing fetch-quests. Nor (IMO) should NPCs be entirely reactive.
Personally I also don't think NPCs should be created purely in response to PC motivations - this is because I value versimilitude, the feeling of a real-seeming world, and find the Forgey Narrativist approach unsatisfying, certainly unsatisfying for long-term play. My preferred approach is that NPCs have their own motivations, NPCs can be indepenent actors, but there should be PC-NPC connections wherever possible. And if there aren't then the NPCs will either be doing stuff in the background (so the PCs may occasionally hear news related to their activities), or remain unused for now/be saved for later.

 

[pemerton]

I also don't think NPCs should be created purely in response to PC motivations - this is because I value versimilitude, the feeling of a real-seeming world, and find the Forgey Narrativist approach unsatisfying, certainly unsatisfying for long-term play. My preferred approach is that NPCs have their own motivations, NPCs can be indepenent actors, but there should be PC-NPC connections wherever possible. And if there aren't then the NPCs will either be doing stuff in the background (so the PCs may occasionally hear news related to their activities), or remain unused for now/be saved for later.

I think NPC-independence can be a matter of degree, and also that how a group or a game responds to that can vary quite a bit.

I value verisimilitude too (except perhaps for the PCs, whose verisimilitude is at best a surface sheen!), but find that a flexible NPC/no-myth (or, being a matter of degree, "not much myth") approach can deliver that provided I (as GM) keep track of my notes!

An example from my last session - the PCs invaded the home of Jhaelent, the drow wizard in P2 Demon Queen's Enclave. I had the basic notes on his personality from the module (hates drow society, doesn't mind undead, etc). But on their own they didn't tell me how he would respond to home invaders who are devotees of the Raven Queen, or Moradin and (in the case of the drow PC) of Corellon, all wearing blatant religous jewellery to that effect. So I made some stuff up that seemed to fit with what was already there, developing his hatred of Lolth and the priestesses, and his affinity for chaos, and as the encounter unfolded I made up a bit more as seemed warranted, and he and the PCs struck a reasonable deal. (Unfortunately I can't now remember all of it - and I suspect my note-taking may have been a bit weak on that occasion - but I'll trust my players to get us back into the general groove next session.).

How verisimilitudinous was he? Probably not my greatest GMing creation ever, but he certainly did the job! The PCs didn't kill him, they are trying to work out how to fix his door that they broke down, and the players are intrigued by his apparent affinities for chaos and for the undead in combination with his evident hatred of Lolth and the Abyss.