The Blade Runner rule and the disposable NPCs

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Emprint at 2004-03-25 21:25:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree with most of your advice. I can't really see myself using the lifespan rule, though, and I don't really agree with your thesis that NPCs are expendable. The game is _about_ the PCs, yes, but having consistent background characters can be useful. That leads me to a fundamental problem I see with your thesis: you're approaching NPCs as resources, and I don't really use them that way.

You're generally correct that no resource should be infinite. But NPCs are useful as more than just resources. As you note, background characters in a game are going to develop their own personalities. That doesn't mean they're necessarily going to steal screen time from the PCs, and it doesn't necessarily make them into unbalanced resources.

Reasons background characters are good:

1) They give the PCs ties to the world- that is to say, they're foils and plot hooks. That "nerdy computer hacker" contact isn't just a resource. He might be an old college friend of one of the PCs, and the distance between them these days is a good gauge of just how much the PCs have changed. Oh, and he makes a great hostage, if you only do it once in a while.

2) They do things that are important for versimilitude, but outside the scope of the campaign. They're the garbage men of the setting, doing a job no one else really wants to. The PC thieves, for instance, have a fence, or the PC taxi drivers have a dispatcher. And this goes double for the guy who runs the corner pub. These characters are practically useful to the PCs, but don't steal their thunder.

In neither of these cases is there a need to give the characters a short lifespan. Most NPCs move on different levels from the player characters, anyway- there's no reason for the PCs to operate an ER, so the ER nurse isn't doing any harm being recognizable.

This probably comes down to different dynamics in our respective groups, but I thought it was worth bringing up.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by walt c at 2004-03-26 10:03:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Emprint,

It's definitely worth bringing up. It was never my intent to use this column to preach "the one, true way of gaming," (I don't believe in such a thing) and I value all opinions and feedback. I'm just happy you responded!

Our dynamics are probably more similar than you'd think. My games usually include a lot of "background" NPCs, as my players enjoy interacting and building relationships with them. The danger comes when they want to start dragging the PCs along on adventures with them as sidekicks (which is the focus of my article). The Blade Runner rule was designed as a tool to help keep that from happening.

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Karro at 2004-03-26 12:23:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

I generally agree with Emprint on principals of uses for NPCs beyond the "resources" rule. But I'm a story-focused GM, and I think of things in a slightly different way. When I look at characters in a story, either reading a book or watching a movie, I intuitively sense which kind of characters are NPCs and which are PCs. For instance, in Lord of the Rings, I would classify Gandalf as an NPC. Even though he travels with the group and posseses great power in excess of any other character in the group, ultimately the story is not about him. He's necessary to get the ball rolling and to answer the important questions when the PCs don't otherwise know what's going on. If LotR were based on a game session, I would say he was an NPC run right.

That's my goal when using NPCs. They have most of the plot hooks. They may have tough, hard-to-beat skills. But there are always good, in-game-world reasons why they don't do all the heroic stuff themselves, instead leaving it to the Frodos and Aragorns of the world (who fall under the PC roll in my book). Not to say NPCs can't kick their fair share of orc-butt, but their only real time in the limelight is spent kicking, dragging, or pulling some ill-fated PC into the light instead.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Emprint at 2004-03-26 12:26:39
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks for responding. Don't worry, I realize you're not advocating One True Way.

<<The danger comes when they want to start dragging the PCs along on adventures with them as sidekicks (which is the focus of my article).>>

After re-reading your article, I think you're discussing two different (albeit related) problems with NPCs.

Problem #1: The NPC acts in the role of a PC, thus stealing thunder. They do PC-like things without the direction of the PCs, leading to the feeling that the players have been cheated out of victory. This is the actual "GM playing" problem. This comes up in Open all the time. (I start to think it's one of the classic roleplaying blunders, only slightly less well-known than starting a land war in Asia.)

Problem #2: The NPC is used by the players in lieu of solving their own problems. This may make the game less fun, but it's the players doing it- they aren't generally going to feel cheated, but they may not feel threatened enough. From reading your column, I gather that it's important for your PCs to feel threatened.

#2 cropped up for me a year or so ago. The PCs were thieves, and they had a rival. Part of the relationship was that she was an utter mercenary- so when they fronted a big wad of cash, I couldn't really have her refuse. My handling of it wasn't really very clever. I just added extra mooks for her to deal with, and didn't tell the players. She conveniently left the real work to them, and they were nice enough not to notice.

Your lifespan rule handles the first neatly- you can't be tempted to use somebody who isn't there.

The second one has a lot more to do with campaign tone- some players will try to score extra manpower in any situation, in which case it's a balance problem of sorts. In other cases, they sometimes want an NPC mascot. Lifespan isn't as helpful in these situations, because there will always be somebody they either like or think is useful.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Emprint at 2004-03-26 12:33:20
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well said- I agree with you pretty much completely.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Walt C at 2004-03-26 13:12:46
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree with you there. I may write a second article exclusively devoted to what you classify as #2.

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Walt C at 2004-03-26 13:19:59
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree with you completely, Karro.

I'm a story-focused GM as well, and I often try to use in-game reasons why the uber-NPCs don't get involved. However, after 40+ adventures (most of my adventures last 2-3 sessions of roughly 4-5 hours each), you end up with a lot of NPCs hanging around. This particular campaign was set in contemporary times in a localized area, and in an era of cell phones and fast travel (not to mention metaphysics), it was easy to call on them for help.

One of my biggest problems was that it was so easy to slip into GMC mode that I didn't even realize I was doing it most of the time.

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Karro at 2004-03-26 19:12:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

I can see the point about having too many.

I don't seem to have that problem myself, but then, to you'd really have to ask my players. In the game I run, I have about a dozen or more NPCs running around. Each one existed primarily for an initial plot hook, though several have a few others hanging around. Since the entire campaign is plotted around a central story and theme, I've pretty much figured out ahead of time what each NPCs role is, which I stray from only occassionally as the players' oft-times erratic actions force me to compensate.

One thing I do to keep the PCs central actually has nothing to do with how I use the NPCs... I'd refer back to the article on prophecies. Fate, destiny, and what-have-you dictate, for some strange reason the PCs do not yet know, that the PCs are central to everything going on. Most of the time, such prophecies would dictate or at least strongly suggest that the PCs handle the big problems. Could they ~not~ do it? Sure... but from a player perspective, where would be the fun in that? Besides, when a big, important NPC tells you "You must defeat Enemy X... only YOU can do it!" PCs tend to listen... I think.

Of course... I'm playing in a pseudo-medieval fantasy environment where instant communication and cell phones are not a problem. If the PCs want to meet up with a particular NPC who is not available, they have a ~long~ walk ahead of them ;)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by The Old Geezer at 2004-03-29 08:10:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

Yeah, that would ber a useful article (about #2).

When you write that article, mention the 'out of your league' rule. For instance, when I was a player in a Champions campaign years ago, we kept trying #2 because we felt like our own resources were insufficient. And it was *logical*, objectively. We kept asking SHIELD and the Avengers and Reed Richards and the Doom Patrol and the Legion of Substitute Heroes and the Inferior Five for help because we felt like we were beating our heads against the wall.

(Usually we were looking for brainpower, not brawn).

ANYWAY, when you write about #2, think about players' feeling like "If the world is being threatened, wouldn't you call Superman rather than Mister Spamhead?"

-- Old Geezer

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Lisa Padol at 2004-03-29 13:26:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'd like to see an article on #2. It's not always a matter of the player or PC wanting to fob off the job on someone else. As Old Geezer said, it feels like the logical thing to do. This is especially true of settings where it is just a matter of making a phone call or sending an email.

It came up a lot in a game with a modern + supernatural setting. Think Buffyesque, for convenience sake. All the PCs were in college. They knew a lot of people. My PC did a lot of networking. This was partly because PC and player are naturally gregarious. It was partly because the GM made it clear that, often, the PCs weren't up to tackling certain things directly. So, it became part of my SOP to have the PC contact friends whenever he thought they might be able to help. And, he was more than willing to return the favor or to take no for an answer. But it still made the GM's life tricky.

You get a setting like that, or a superhero setting, and over time, the PCs will make a lot of contacts. And, unlike silly Star Trek episodes, neither players nor PCs will conveniently forget something or someone that was useful in the past.

Just as it feels like cheating to have the NPC become a limelight hog, to a certain degree, it feels like cheating to have the certain NPCs not be there to deal with certain kinds of messes. What, Superman isn't going to want to save the world?

-Lisa Padol

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Walt C at 2004-03-30 05:32:41
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'll work on it!

Thanks for the input, everybody. It's very appreciated, especially given that this is my first ever column.

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Justin Bacon at 2004-03-31 19:09:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

Lisa Padol wrote:
-------------------------------
Just as it feels like cheating to have the NPC become a limelight hog, to a certain degree, it feels like cheating to have the certain NPCs not be there to deal with certain kinds of messes. What, Superman isn't going to want to save the world?
-------------------------------

I think Lisa's nailed this one right on the head.

And I think this goes back to a very simple principle: Don't nerf the PCs' abilities.

And having contacts *is* an ability. Rather than designing your games to nerf the PCs' contacts (by killing them or removing them or whatever), design your games so that the PCs have to use their contacts.

Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Scottenkainen at 2004-05-03 09:24:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

Let me add some insights, from the perspective of a hack n' slash DM still converting to a storyteller DM.

The principle role of the DM has always been to offer an engaging challenge to the PCs. Typically, given the visceral nature of most rpg's, this challenge is meant to climax in physical conflict with the main adversary (not unlike most escapist fiction or video games).

However, when players recruit enough manpower (NPCs) to meet or exceed the challenge presented to them by a given scenario, they have essentially already met the challenge (by recruiting more/better than the main villain(s) did). The villain(s) is bested in a social arena instead of a physical arena and any playing out of a physical conflict to follow is anti-climactic.

DMs are likely to feel that players are cheating, in that they aren't respecting the rules of the genre. Even a storyteller DM may feel the PCs are ruining the story because of an anticipated need to resolve the conflict in battle.

I believe that spontaneous inflation of the villain's forces to meet the combined abilites of the PCs and NPCs is unfair and unwarranted. Better solutions are to either accept the new story paradigm the players have introduced until they decide on their own to play differently, or to talk with the players about what kind of stories you, the DM, wish to run and see if they will try harder to stick to the unwritten rules of the campaign.

~Scott C.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by cfc at 2004-05-03 23:56:27
Converted from Phorums BB System

Just remember, in any world where cell phones are ubiquitous, so is voicemail...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Jethrow at 2004-05-04 01:47:37
Converted from Phorums BB System

Excellent analogy with the Gandalf thing. I run a Harnmaster campaign with a big Middle Earth focus, and there have been many high-powered NPCs associated with the PC party. One of the PCs met Gandalf and was asked by him to perform a service, and there were myriad reasons why Gandalf could not perform the task himself. I'm a story-based gamemaster myself. You've got it right with your post, my friend.