Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6094736" data-attributes="member: 336">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.</blockquote>

Verification