PDA

View Full Version : NPC interaction with NPCs



Who_Da_Halfling
2009-02-17, 12:44 PM
I had the occurence happen in my group's last session that there were two important NPCs who were friendly with the party and had shared interests (i.e. they didn't know each other but had no reason to be adversaries). The party concluded that the two should meet and talk with each other, but that ended up with the players sitting back as I RPed both NPCs.

My question is: is this kind of thing appropriate? Should I have found a way for the players to have to act as diplomats or middle-men or something? Is it problematic to give the party the option of sitting back and watching a movie of the DM playing NPCs?

-JM

wolfsnap
2009-02-17, 12:48 PM
When I run into these kinds of situations, I will usually roleplay the first few lines of dialogue between them, then drop out of character and say something like "As you continue to listen, Bob and Ray continue to discuss A/B/C and eventually reach the conclusion that X/Y/Z", then shift focus back to the PCs.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-17, 12:49 PM
If you have the resources for it, it can be helpful to have a friend(not a player in the campaign) run one NPC.

kjones
2009-02-17, 12:50 PM
I've been in this situation before, and it can be boring and/or awkward for the players. (Especially if you aren't the sort of DM who affects voices or accents... then, they can't even tell which one you are!)

If you end up in this sort of dialogue, keep it short, and leave ample opportunity for the PCs to get involved - for example, if it's a council meeting in which the PCs are participating, NPC council members are going to be reacting with each other, but the PCs will also get their say.

Otherwise, try to avoid NPCs simply having conversations with other NPCs, while the PCs do nothing but watch. Would you have two NPCs fight a battle in front of the PCs? This is the same thing.

Zaq
2009-02-17, 01:21 PM
What wolfsnap said. There are exceptions, of course... for example, when one NPC is going to be really important later and this is the first time the PCs have had a chance to really see his or her personality, or when the PCs have ample opportunity to interrupt and contribute, either asking questions or adding comments. I like kjones's example of the NPC battle... sometimes it's absolutely appropriate for two NPCs to fight each other in front of the PCs, but are you going to make them watch every attack roll and saving throw, or are you going to say "Alex blasts Sam with a Scorching Ray, but the counterattack leaves Alex on the floor gasping for breath?"

Dervag
2009-02-17, 01:37 PM
Yeah.

I agree that NPC-on-NPC conversations should be kept short if they are quoted in entirety. It also helps if they are funny or, as kjones suggests, if they leave plenty of places for the PCs to weigh in on the discussion. Conversations should be inclusive, not exclusive, unless you need to say something very specific and concise.

Sometimes, a few lines of NPC conversation will provide valuable information to the PCs, and that's a good thing. But long conversations are a mistake. If nothing else, few people are truly good at holding up both ends of a conversation without making one of the conversers sound like an idiot.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-02-17, 01:44 PM
My players love to torture me by forcing me into these situations. T_T

It's just a natural consequence of the fact I DM campaigns where the PCs are very much a part of the world around them. They have bosses, patrons, family, and sometimes underlings/servants, and obligations to all those groups. Occasionally they have to do boring functions like attend a meeting, a Church service, whatever--I try to skip over such things, but make the players aware that they're transpiring. When I do dialogue NPCs I try to make it realistic and characterful (I DM online so I don't have to attempt voices thank God).... I like to think that makes the enlarged role NPCs play in my campaigns feel more natural. The downside of this is sometimes players treat NPCs like they're other PCs---well, actually I like that, but it can be annoying when they feel the need to consult a cohort on his opinion or tell him to handle negotiations (on that last one I'm SURE they did it just to torture me...)

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-02-17, 02:44 PM
My players love to torture me by forcing me into these situations. T_T

It's just a natural consequence of the fact I DM campaigns where the PCs are very much a part of the world around them. They have bosses, patrons, family, and sometimes underlings/servants, and obligations to all those groups. Occasionally they have to do boring functions like attend a meeting, a Church service, whatever--I try to skip over such things, but make the players aware that they're transpiring. When I do dialogue NPCs I try to make it realistic and characterful (I DM online so I don't have to attempt voices thank God).... I like to think that makes the enlarged role NPCs play in my campaigns feel more natural. The downside of this is sometimes players treat NPCs like they're other PCs---well, actually I like that, but it can be annoying when they feel the need to consult a cohort on his opinion or tell him to handle negotiations (on that last one I'm SURE they did it just to torture me...)

Sometimes I wish I DMed by email, my voice was really hoarse after last session.

I am definitely understanding all your points about keeping the PCs involved. In this situation, i think the exchange was somewhat necessary and I think they enjoyed watching it (I think they just liked watching me squirm a little, especially after i spent the entire week threatening to have the party wizard eaten), but I'll be mindful of keeping exchanges shorter in the future.

I also agree with keeping combat short and to the point. Having to do die rolls for NPC vs. NPC combat was tedious and not really fun for anyone, so I'm definitely going to more-or-less wing it in the future.

Just a side note: is there such a thing as too much immersion? I mean, for my party, they're in a campaign city where they didn't know anyone, so they're having to meet a rather large number of people. They know two cops, the local mob boss, two priests, the wizard guildmaster, an armorer and his daughter, and the general of the army (in passing). That's not even including the main villain or other characters they've heard about. Is that too many people? They've been taking notes but sometimes they forget who they're talking about. Is this too much? Should I kill someone off or have them move or something?

-JM

wolfsnap
2009-02-17, 02:52 PM
Just a side note: is there such a thing as too much immersion? I mean, for my party, they're in a campaign city where they didn't know anyone, so they're having to meet a rather large number of people. They know two cops, the local mob boss, two priests, the wizard guildmaster, an armorer and his daughter, and the general of the army (in passing). That's not even including the main villain or other characters they've heard about. Is that too many people? They've been taking notes but sometimes they forget who they're talking about. Is this too much? Should I kill someone off or have them move or something?

-JM

I think it depends on your party. If they're taking the time to talk to all of these NPCs then they probably are enjoying the immersion. I give my players a diary for notes about the plot and their interaction with NPCs, so they help me with the bookkeeping a little bit.