The Pemertonian / Perkinsian Pro-conjoinance

[S'mon]

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...
...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.

I think this is a big danger with Schrodingers-cat NPCs, and I really want to avoid versimilitude-crushing inconsistencies, so I would generally avoid your approach of "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..."

I typically do it more like:

1. What is NPC motivation.
2. Based on #1, what are NPC goals.
3. What are PC motivations (refer to backstory) and current goals (refer to events in game and stated intent).
4. How might NPC goals interact with the PCs and their goals to create an interesting scene-frame (not 'scene' - since I only determine the start of the scene, not how it will resolve).

Sometimes I will start with #3 and create NPCs based off PC backstory & motivations, this gives the strong NPC-PC connections that are good for dramatic play. These NPCs intially may be a bit 2-dimensional, with goals but no strongly delimited underlying motivations (eg Vale, the black-hat villain who wanted to hunt down a renegade PC who'd fled her order of evil wizards). But once created the NPCs quickly assume an independent life, acquiring motivations.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yeah, that's how I do it, with these bare-bones NPCs - extrapolate as seems reasonable & interesting. I'm going to run P2 fairly soon; I'm looking at having Orontor be a Red Wizard, half brother of Arya the Renegade Red Wizard PC, while the drow Matriarch of Phaervorul is a former lover of my Elminster-parody NPC Hallomak Stromm, mentor of another PC.
An example of NPC motivation - I'm not certain that the drow will actually betray the PCs, as the adventure says they do; it will depend on what's in it for them. Eg weak-looking PCs with loads of magic items might be betrayed at the end, whereas if attacking them seems stupid, the drow would let them go, most likely.

 

[Balesir]

First off, thanks to the OP and others for another interesting and useful thread! To add a bit of my own:

I think this is a big danger with Schrodingers-cat NPCs, and I really want to avoid versimilitude-crushing inconsistencies, so I would generally avoid your approach of "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..."

I think it's important to remember the resources of the shared imagined space that are at your disposal. NPCs exist only to put pressure on the PC's motives and aims, but that doesn't relieve them of the necessity to be "coherent", in the sense of being believable as characters. But, in a game world with (presumably) millions of 'people' - of whatever species - you can always draft in another "recruit" if you need a motivation that doesn't fit your current 'cast'.

If NPC's motivations don't intersect with the PCs', then they are - for the time being - irrelevant. Rather than looking at it as "choose the NPC to use then try to make a motivation fit", I think it might be more helpful to "choose a motivation you need, then look for an NPC to fit that motivation - making one up if necessary".

 

[pemerton]

I'm not certain that the drow will actually betray the PCs, as the adventure says they do; it will depend on what's in it for them. Eg weak-looking PCs with loads of magic items might be betrayed at the end, whereas if attacking them seems stupid, the drow would let them go, most likely.

OK, whereas I had the drider and drow betray the PCs in the first encounter - the invoker-wizard was standing on a pillar of stone, in the arc of fire for 12 (I think) drow armed with crossbows, and it was just too tempting!

Also, given that one of the PCs is the Corellon-worshipping drow who hates his home society and wants to undo the sundering of the elves, I wanted to give him a bit of confirmation for his PC backstory.

 

[Balesir]

OK, whereas I had the drider and drow betray the PCs in the first encounter - the invoker-wizard was standing on a pillar of stone, in the arc of fire for 12 (I think) drow armed with crossbows, and it was just too tempting!

Heh - the PCs in our game treated with the drider and came to an "understanding". Then they did the Matriarch's dirty work for a bit (although negotiating and allying with the Mages of Saruun - ritual use was abundant, here) before another drow faction offered them a deal as they returned from the "central quest" from a position of strength (i.e. the PCs were surrounded). The players had a brief huddle and decided "screw this - we do not want to be mired in drow politics!" and battled their way out! The nice thing was that any decision they made would have ramifications - and they were free to choose any one

 

[haakon1]

I often retcon in motivation and backstory as seems helpful for what is happening in the game

Sometimes an NPC becomes more important than you thought. In "Sunless Citadel", this one hobgoblin survived 3 fights with the PC's. Once they killed the Chief, I decided he took over. And I decided he was a noble warrior type (LE) who mostly wanted to protect his fellow tribesman, so he agreed to parlay with the PC's and made a deal for a ceasefire and the goblins being allowed to leave the Sunless Citadel with their arms and their honor intact. The deal was struck.

He got named "Purbod", because he was originally represented by a purple die on the game mat, among several other hobgoblins whose lives proved more nasty, brutish, and short.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I would say that IN GENERAL, what happens that can be railroady is that the DM creates this character, Fat Tony, and then wants to use the character to take on the PCs. Thus he may contrive the situation with the wife, or otherwise 'engineer' the situation so that his NPC ends up in a scene having a conflict with the PCs. Its railroading anytime whatever the PCs do they end up at the end of the choo choo line (having that conflict scene). I have often seen this. Maybe the PCs pick up some girl, and then the GM says "ah, its Fat Tony's wife, I can get him into the story" and then he acquires the attributes of having minions and etc that push the story in that direction, even growing in significance as the PCs push in a different direction. This isn't a hardcore sandbox, but it is a pretty decent description of a lot of campaigns. For this DM it would be better to pay more attention to the PC's story.

My rule is to only initiate action with NPCs either regardless of the players (IE they are just a part of the changing scenery, the PCs might or might not engage with), or in reaction to the PCs (they WANT to confront Fat Tony, bring it on), or as a plot hook (the NPC brings something into the narrative in order to provide a plot element, why did the PCs know about the bad guy, etc). Otherwise really its a sort of medieval world, life is pretty slow paced and sure there are consequences for things, if you ride off into the sunset then there's not a heck of a lot anyone can do about it.

 

[Quickleaf]

I thought the heart of Perkins article was less about NPC motivation or railroading and more about introducing competent friendly NPCs without stealing the PCs' spotlight.

For example, my PCs will run into a Prince & Princess returning from their own adventure (Ghost Tower of Inverness) and they'll share information they learned there and perhaps even some minor magic items or a caged monster. That sort of thing.