Why are some NPCs so amazingly irritating? (e.g. Khelben Blackstaff)

[Glyfair]

Overused DMPC syndrome. Plus the whole "arrogant guy who can kick the snot out of your party singlehandedly no matter how powerful you THINK you are, neener neener" complex.

Of course, these types of NPCs evolved over time (admittedly, over a short period of time). The recurring NPC that exists to be an adventure impetus (the "patron") or to save the PCs during certain game moments (the "deus ex machina"), or just to add continuity to the game (the "running character"). They add important and entertaining elements to many games when used properly.

The problem was (and probably still is to some extent) that there is a gaming type that DMs had to protect the game from. The "I kill it" player. Put an NPC into the game that he decides he dislikes for any reason (and even dislike isn't always necessary), and he has to kill it. In order to protect the characters in the above role DMs and game designers from the early days made sure those NPCs were far out-of-the-league of the PCs. Sure there were other solutions (kicking the player out of the game), but they weren't always good options.

That attitude has been around since the early days. Look at all the stories of people bragging about killing Thor and bragging they now carry Mjolnir (the stories were pretty common in the old days). Look at all the people who comment about Elminster with comments like "I wish I could kill him" and clearly mean it. These are the people that caused much of the problem in the first place.

Are there better solutions? Sometimes. However, there isn't a single "silver bullet" solution that works in all cases. When designers put such a character in the products, the way to protect their role is took make them much more powerful than the PCs. All this wouldn't be a problem if they were used judiciously.

The problem is that many of these characters become very strong in personality and attractiveness. The fact that they are close to "invulnerable" in a story sense means that DMs and designers can afford the time and effort to flesh out their background and personalities. Many of them become fan favorites and the fans call for more material with them. If there is one thing that a company learns is that when the fans want something, you try to give it to them.

If Khelben only appeared once or twice, who would care how "annoying" he was? However, the fact that he is popular means that he is seen more and more often in games. He is a strong character for DMs to use, and many players like him as well. These characters really don't keep appearing because they are unpopular. These characters are popular.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

The problem was (and probably still is to some extent) that there is a gaming type that DMs had to protect the game from. The "I kill it" player. Put an NPC into the game that he decides he dislikes for any reason (and even dislike isn't always necessary), and he has to kill it.

That is why when I decide I need a deus ex machina type NPC, I cut out the middle man and use a God. Further more, the players are aware that they are dealing with a deity. It turns out that even Lesser Deities are pretty resilient. If you use a classed NPC, the players may try to use various skills, like sense motive or intimidate. But by definition, Deities are not playing by the same rules as the players.

Also, it was pretty damn funny when the following happened.

Hiddukel, God of Lies, Greed, and Betrayal: If you do this task for me, you will fufill your obligation.

Cleric: This is a god of lies. I do not trust him. I roll sense motive.

DM: You want to sense motive against a God of Lies? Ok. < rolls dice > The person standing before you appears to be completely trustworthy. All in all, he seems pretty legit.

Cleric: Oh, ok, that makes me feel better.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[BlackMoria]

I can understand the hatred of uber NPCs if the DM in your campaign is using Elminster to berate or browbeat the party or if Khelben Blackstaff or the Symbul teleport in to 'kill steal' the party's glory. If a DM did this, I would hate the NPCs also.

What I don't get is the hatred of NPCs that don't show up in YOUR campaign. Fine, you may not like how NPCs are protrayed in novels or supplements but unless those NPCs you loath make an appearance in your campaign, why does it matter?

Hating NPCs that never show up in the campaign is like me getting a 'hate-on' for Bill Gates because I read that he is the owner of Microsoft and one of the richest people of the world. I've never met Bill Gates, Bill Gates doesn't call my home to tell me how wonderful Microsoft products are, he didn't force me to buy my computer and operating system, and he doesn't spam my email account. Bill Gates is unlikely to show up on my doorstep and undermind my accomplishments or berate me or beat me up for not accepting that Microsoft is the one true way to enlightment and power. I've no real reason to hate Bill Gates because he has done nothing personally to me or my dog. Nor am I likely to run into him, even if I live several lifetimes. Hating Bill Gates because he owns Microsoft and is rich is not a valid reason to loath the man. Hating a symbol or icon doesn't make sense if whatever is represented by the symbol or icon never makes a meanful impact in my life...or my game.

Same with NPCs. If the DM is having uber NPCs undermine the party or overshadow the party, the real issue is the DM misusing the NPCs or using them in the first place, not that the NPCs are protrayed a certain way in books in supplements.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I've never given it much thought. When I was running a Forgotten Realms campaign I simply ommited any NPCs that might steal the spotlight from the PCs. It's not that they didn't exist anymore, it's that they were out doing their thing and letting the PCs do theirs. There are what, like 5 or 6 hugely powerful NPCs in the FR campaign? They can't be everywhere all the time, not even Elminster. Even if they could, why would they care about most of the mundane things that even relatively high level adventurers are out doing? But hey, I never read most of the FR novels, so perhaps my sensibilities are less scarred than some that have.

 

[R_kajdi]

I think it's entirely reasonable for players to viscerally hate NPCs that break the rules in the ways that PCs would never be allowed to do. As a matter of fact, I think it's to be expected. The entire practice reeks of DM cheating. The DM gets to use all the toys the players get, but he also gets these other toys that the players can never have. And by the way, his job is to provide your antagonists. It breaks the social contract of the game.

My firm position is that if the DM is going to break the rules, and is going to say that the players can never break the rules that way, then he'd best an incredibly good reason. I don't think, generally speaking, designers should ever do it. Not in core rules and not in campaign settings.

This is actually one of the things that's turning me off on 4e. Mearls et al have decided to break the social contract with the entire text of a core rulebook.

While I understand the hatred for the DMPC, (they usually end up suffering from really bad/creepy/annoying cases of wish fulfillment) I'm a bit confused about this whole "break the rules" thing. If you're bringing this up from the angle of quality between NPCs and PCs, it's never existed. There are piles of monsters that aren't allowed as PCs-- why would it be dirty pool for a DM to use these guys since the PCs can't? And equally, what would be wrong with making a feat or two that the PCs can't qualify for, but various villians could? As long as the DM's being somewhat fair, this shouldn't cause a problem.

 

[Samnell]

I'm a bit confused about this whole "break the rules" thing. If you're bringing this up from the angle of quality between NPCs and PCs, it's never existed. There are piles of monsters that aren't allowed as PCs

Not in my games. If we can agree on a sensible LA and the game can handle it without being unfair to other PCs, you can play pretty much anything. This does tend to limit things like dragon PCs in most games, but if I were running a 20+ game I would be more open to the idea.

why would it be dirty pool for a DM to use these guys since the PCs can't? And equally, what would be wrong with making a feat or two that the PCs can't qualify for, but various villians could? As long as the DM's being somewhat fair, this shouldn't cause a problem.

A feat that the PCs could potentially qualify for is fine. A feat the PCs can't ever qualify for breaks the social contract.

I'm not saying that a DM should never, ever break the rules. But it should happen very rarely and it should only happen at the level of an individual DM, not a designer, and it should happen with a very good reason behind it.

 

[Rabelais]

IMO, what it really boils down to, especially in the case of FR, is that the NPC's are SO POWERFUL, that there's no reason for PC's to do anything except go tell Daddy that the mean guys are trying to kill the good guys again.

"Oh crap! [insert random evil organization] is trying to take over/destroy/turn into a turnip our favorite Kingdom/Major City State/world ruler! We better go tell Elminster/Khelben/The Harpers/Seven Sisters that something bad is about to happen!"

"Ok, well done! let's wrap it up for the night, see you all next week for more of the same?"


To be fair, I've been running FR for a LONG TIME, I've only used a major NPC once. I dropped the hammer on Elminster, to show that the threat the party was about to face over the campaign was pretty darned serious. I don't expect Ed Greenwood to use my bard Rabelais in his home campaign, so don't expect me to use his PC in mine!

If I wanted to have the major NPC's in any campaign have a significant part in my campaigns, I'd just go home, watch Thundercats and pretend I was Lionell or something. I'm not a hater, but there's no point to having the NPC's be anything other than set dressing.

 

[Rabelais]

I know a VP for Microsoft's pet PR company... I might be able to hook you up with a home visit from Bill Gates if you're nice Moria...

 

[Tewligan]

...and pretend I was Lionell or something.

You're playing in an rpg of "The Jeffersons"?! SWEET!

 

[Rabelais]

You're playing in an rpg of "The Jeffersons"?! SWEET!

I was thinking more along the lines of Lionel Hollins