PDA

View Full Version : All your NPC are belong to us



Khi'Khi
2016-11-08, 05:47 PM
It's a common understanding in tabletop games that the players are solely in charge of their PC's, while the DM is in control of the rest of the world, monsters, NPC's and all. Most of the time, the GM has freedom to make NPC's and decide their character and behavior at his or her own whim. Where I've seen this become a problem, however, is in the case of player-created NPC's; ones that are typically made up for backstory such as friends, family, significant others, etc. I started a threat a while back about GMs that see NPC's as cannon fodder for the BBEG of the story, and I guess this is an extension of that idea.

Lets say my PC has a best friend from childhood whom they've kept in touch with during their adventuring days. What happens when the next time we get back to town, suddenly that friend is a secret member of an assassin's guild, even though that's never been part of his character as I made it? Or say my character has a wife, and I come up with a touching story as to how they met, and I take time to develop her as a character alongside my PC. Then one day the GM says boom, she's sleeping with the local tavern keeper.

Do I have a right to say "she wouldn't do that?" Or should the GM have control over her as an NPC, despite the previous development I've made for her? How much agency should the players have in such situations?

DigoDragon
2016-11-08, 06:05 PM
Do I have a right to say "she wouldn't do that?" Or should the GM have control over her as an NPC, despite the previous development I've made for her? How much agency should the players have in such situations?

I think, and this is me as a DM saying this, that if the GM accepts player-created NPCs, then they should discuss any edits to the characters with that PC before they come into play. Such characters are part of the PC's background, and accepting the NPC should carry the same kind of treatment as accepting the background-- i.e. if something needs changing, do it before the game begins. Communicate ideas. Clarify what parts of the NPC can the GM adjust.

I've had players who went ahead and wrote in "My childhood friend should totally be part of the assassin guild or something to surprise me", but I've also had friends who got angry because I adjusted the Charisma stat on that kid sister of theirs by 2 points.

tl;dr, I think a player has a say in NPCs created in their background if the GM accepted them and uses them.

Karl Aegis
2016-11-08, 06:28 PM
So a previously barely mentioned NPC suddenly shows up and derails the plot.

When do I get back to the story and/or monster grinding.

Ninja_Prawn
2016-11-09, 05:54 AM
Do I have a right to say "she wouldn't do that?" Or should the GM have control over her as an NPC, despite the previous development I've made for her? How much agency should the players have in such situations?

I don't know about "rights", but I would have to say that this is something that should be negotiated OOC so that everyone knows where they stand.

My preference for close family and friends, both as a player and a DM, is that the player sets their personality then the DM takes over and plays them in accordance with that. If the DM makes them do something wildly out of character, that's not great DMing but I don't think it's worth fighting over. Maybe they're dominated or possessed or something?

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-09, 11:24 AM
Do I have a right to say "she wouldn't do that?" Or should the GM have control over her as an NPC, despite the previous development I've made for her? How much agency should the players have in such situations?

One of the rules of improv is "never say no", and D&D is essentially improv with dice.

You can't say that didn't happen because it isn't your PC. Your character however, can act with disbelief, disgust, horror, or contempt. "My friend would have never done this....my friend is dead. Whoever you are, you aren't him, you're just another assassin that my blade will cut down.

And I will cut you down, because you killed my friend, by becoming THIS."

A GM has every right to do whatever they want with ANY NPC, whether the player made them up or not. His responsibility is, however, that they should be used in a way that makes the game better for the player, not less enjoyable.

Now, in the cases of NPCs that characters pay actual points for (Such as contacts in Whitewolf games or Shadowrun) the GM should be a LOT more careful with how they handle that, much like they should take care about causing equipment to disappear or break. The player paid for the contact or servant the same way they paid for a feat or skill, so don't make them lose it on your whim. If THEY screw it up due to their stupidity, that's fine though.

Basically, the GM has the right to do what they want, but also the responsibility to be careful with it since these NPCs by definition matter greatly to players and if the GM flippantly treats them like crap, they wont be motivated to make more or get engaged with NPCs in general.

Satinavian
2016-11-09, 11:37 AM
This is why i don't like using NPCs of my players. If i ever do, i will always try to make sure the NPC is exactly as imagined. It can be really immersion-breaking otherwise. And i would ask for explicit permission for any cracy stuff.


One of the rules of improv is "never say no", and D&D is essentially improv with dice.That is only one of many ways to play RPGs. Personally i find this rule really bad in any games, regardless of being player or GM. Thankfully it is missing in most rulebooks.

Jama7301
2016-11-09, 01:15 PM
How one person pictures an NPC is not necessarily the same way everyone else will, especially the person who created them. This can lead to many different alternative character interpretations.

In the event of a spouse or friend, how long were you away from them between "They're fine" and "They're different"? Letters and speaking may be nice and all, but sometimes people need a physical presence keep them grounded and centered. This could be the DMs way of showing that the world changes or that the city you live in has fallen on hard times, or that your spouse has gotten lonely after months/years of you being away. Maybe someone joined the assassin's group out of necessity, or they became jaded with their life, and they didn't want to mention it because you'd try to moralize or talk them out of what they felt they needed to do. I don't know the exact characters here, so I'm just speculating potential motivations.

Talking with your GM about why they did these things may be the most prudent course of action. This may help to figure out why their behavior is the way it is., compared to how it was.

illyahr
2016-11-09, 03:00 PM
NPCs belong to the GM, no matter what game you are playing. If it is a player-made NPC, then the GM should keep that in mind and have them act in accordance with what is already known of the NPC, but that doesn't stop them from changing over time. People do that. No one remains the same forever. Does the Lawful Good best friend suddenly become Chaotic Evil? Of course not. However, the PCs may notice that he just doesn't care as much for Law as he once did, or that he has become jaded with helping others for some reason and has shifted to Neutral. Finding out why can be a great plot hook.

The GM is free to change the NPCs as he or she sees fit, as long as the change is believable and can be explored.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-09, 03:36 PM
It's a common understanding in tabletop games that the players are solely in charge of their PC's, while the DM is in control of the rest of the world, monsters, NPC's and all. Most of the time, the GM has freedom to make NPC's and decide their character and behavior at his or her own whim. Where I've seen this become a problem, however, is in the case of player-created NPC's; ones that are typically made up for backstory such as friends, family, significant others, etc. I started a threat a while back about GMs that see NPC's as cannon fodder for the BBEG of the story, and I guess this is an extension of that idea.

Lets say my PC has a best friend from childhood whom they've kept in touch with during their adventuring days. What happens when the next time we get back to town, suddenly that friend is a secret member of an assassin's guild, even though that's never been part of his character as I made it? Or say my character has a wife, and I come up with a touching story as to how they met, and I take time to develop her as a character alongside my PC. Then one day the GM says boom, she's sleeping with the local tavern keeper.

Do I have a right to say "she wouldn't do that?" Or should the GM have control over her as an NPC, despite the previous development I've made for her? How much agency should the players have in such situations?

I think the GM should have a damn good reason, and not be doing it on a whim, and should always contemplate the question "will the player have fun with this twist?" In general, I think GMs need to be cognizant and considerate of what each particular player will find fun. At the end of the day, an RPG is a game, and the point is enjoyment, not GM or player "ownership" or "control".

Some players enjoy playing out their character being mind controlled, and some will hate it and fight it every step of the way. No one, including the other players, has fun in the latter situation. Same goes for betrayal by emotionally-important NPCs. Same goes for death of spouse or parent or child plot elements. Same goes for anything.

A good GM understands what each player will get into, versus what they'll at best tolerate, and keeps that in mind.

Red Fel
2016-11-09, 04:04 PM
One of the rules of improv is "never say no", and D&D is essentially improv with dice.

Pretty much everything here. Let me add something, though. Instead of citing the "never say no" rule, I'd like to cite the "yes, and" rule. That's the rule where, rather than rejecting someone's proposed scenario, you say yes, and and expand on it.

Here's how it applies to NPCs, as I see it. When the GM creates an NPC, the GM creates an NPC, done and done. But where the GM uses a player-created PC, he has an obligation to "yes, and" it. Can he add to the NPC? Of course he can. What the GM cannot do is fundamentally alter the NPC.

A few illustrations. PC Bob was a farmboy in a small village. His childhood friend was NPC Jane, the daughter of the dairymaid on the neighboring farm. Bob goes away to become an adventurer. When he returns:
The small farming community has grown into a bustling town. Jane is not a dairymaid like her mother, but the mayor, and while she remembers Bob, she's a bit too busy to spend time with him. And while she's happy to see her childhood friend, she's not about to bend all of the rules for someone who, frankly, ran off; what they were was nice, but they were kids, and she has a responsibility now.
The small farming community is still a small, farming community, although it seems eerily still. The reason becomes apparent - an evil cult has taken root there, indoctrinating many in the community, including Jane. She still remembers Bob fondly, but will not allow him to get in the way of their goals.
The small farming community is a ruin of what it once was. War came to the region, and soldiers looted the farms and killed many of the farmers. Those who remained were fueled by hatred and resentment. When the Assassin's Guild came seeking resources, they found not only farms and supplies, but ready recruits, including Jane. Jane has come to resent Bob, who escaped before he could endure the hardships the rest of them suffered.
These are all, in my mind, fair game. Jane is still Jane, Bob's childhood friend. In one instance, she grew with the town, and learned responsibility. In another, she was brainwashed into joining an evil cult. In yet another, she suffered pain and loss that left her bitter and angry. But she's still Jane, and that shared childhood can still be exploited in some way. Here, by contrast, are some illustrations of how not to do things.
PC Bob saved NPC Timmy from bullies in childhood. Timmy was a gentle soul, who loved animals; despite being the son of the town butcher, he could never bring himself to harm a living creature. Years later, Timmy is a serial killer, no explanation given.
PC Bob and NPC Alice were best friends in childhood. Now, Alice has appeared and demands Bob's blood, claiming that she always resented him, no explanations given.
PC Bob's best friend growing up was NPC Steve, a veteran of many wars and retired hero. Steve stood for all manner of principles of mercy and justice, was highly decorated by church and country. Steve once even saved him from a bear, throwing his back out in the process. Bob goes to visit an aging Steve and discovers that the hero is in fact, and has always been, a member of a diabolical cult dedicated to corrupting the kingdom and destroying all that is nice and good, no explanations given.
That last one may have something to do with comics. The point, and common thread, is that these "bad examples" lack any justification - you're using the name and face of a familiar NPC, but giving a full 180 on personality and motivations, for no apparent reason.

That's not to say that NPCs can't betray. Nor that player-made PCs have to include all details. In fact, when I reference NPCs in backstory, I frequently offer multiple story hooks for the GM to consider; likewise, before using NPCs in certain ways, I check with the players to determine if there are any plot hooks that are definite no-nos for them (without discussing specifics, naturally). Rather, it means that any NPC who behaves not-as-they-were-written needs to have an explanation that builds on who they were, rather than simply replacing it.

Otherwise, as Stealth Marmot points out, that NPC isn't the NPC your character once knew. It's a completely different person with a familiar name and face.

Darth Ultron
2016-11-09, 05:09 PM
Do I have a right to say "she wouldn't do that?" Or should the GM have control over her as an NPC, despite the previous development I've made for her? How much agency should the players have in such situations?

In any type of normal game: No. The player has no agency here.




tl;dr, I think a player has a say in NPCs created in their background if the GM accepted them and uses them.

This simply won't work. This is saying the DM can only use the NPC as a boring static pointless thing. Like any time the NPC comes around they will just be like ''well you know everything about me and nothing ever changes''.

And the game simply does not work if a player can be a jerk and veto things. And even if the player is just ''being protective'' and just ''acting like a jerk, but is not one or whatever'' it does not work. A player can't know story and plot detail and then just do the silly ''oh, I'll just pretend my character does not know...wink wink'', as that never works. Very few people can ''pretend'' to not know things when there is something effecting them directly.

The whole premise of the question is wrong also as, simply put, ''things change''. It is possible for NPC A to do something ''crazy'' and ''out of character''. But with a player just acting up and saying ''nope that will never happen'' it just won't work.

Mr Beer
2016-11-09, 06:44 PM
DM has control and if the player created the NPC it seems reasonable to discuss major changes with them.

Obviously not if they're one of Darth Ultron's reliably uncooperative jerkface players, but if they're a normal person that'd you choose to RPG with.

icefractal
2016-11-09, 07:18 PM
I wouldn't say the DM has to take the player's view into account, but if they aren't, why even use that particular NPC in the first place?

The whole point of using a player-generated NPC instead of one you just made up for the scenario is to give the players a stronger connection to the plot. If you change the NPC to the point that the player feels no connection anymore, then that's lost. And IMO, players trying to portray an emotional connection when they're actually just annoyed at the plot device is a poor experience for everyone at the table.

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-09, 09:37 PM
I wouldn't say the DM has to take the player's view into account, but if they aren't, why even use that particular NPC in the first place?

The whole point of using a player-generated NPC instead of one you just made up for the scenario is to give the players a stronger connection to the plot. If you change the NPC to the point that the player feels no connection anymore, then that's lost. And IMO, players trying to portray an emotional connection when they're actually just annoyed at the plot device is a poor experience for everyone at the table.

A GM who grabs a player-created, PC-connected NPC to just use however they'd use their own general NPC is maybe looking for "cheap heat" -- an easy way to generate emotional weight.

Slipperychicken
2016-11-10, 12:54 AM
NPCs belong to the GM, no matter what game you are playing. If it is a player-made NPC, then the GM should keep that in mind and have them act in accordance with what is already known of the NPC, but that doesn't stop them from changing over time. People do that. No one remains the same forever. Does the Lawful Good best friend suddenly become Chaotic Evil? Of course not. However, the PCs may notice that he just doesn't care as much for Law as he once did, or that he has become jaded with helping others for some reason and has shifted to Neutral. Finding out why can be a great plot hook.

The GM is free to change the NPCs as he or she sees fit, as long as the change is believable and can be explored.

I agree with this. Building on that, I think "acting in accordance with what is already known" does not preclude the NPC from having secrets that the PC was not aware of. That's one reason I consider a PC's spouse cheating on him to be fair game for a GM. The PC might believe, as some married people do, that their relationship is a perfect wonderful fairy tale right up until the reality rears its ugly head.

Stealth Marmot
2016-11-10, 09:28 AM
Pretty much everything here. Let me add something, though...

(Long post)



This is a much better explanation of what I was going for, thank you.





PC Bob's best friend growing up was NPC Steve, a veteran of many wars and retired hero. Steve stood for all manner of principles of mercy and justice, was highly decorated by church and country. Steve once even saved him from a bear, throwing his back out in the process. Bob goes to visit an aging Steve and discovers that the hero is in fact, and has always been, a member of a diabolical cult dedicated to corrupting the kingdom and destroying all that is nice and good, no explanations given.



What you did there, I see it. :smallwink: