[Shab-al-Hiri Roach] Control of NPCs

[Jason Morningstar]

Hey Roach Slaves,

I've been mulling over changing the rule on control of NPCs and I'd value your input.  My principal concern is the occasional awkwardness when a player frames a scene and introduces an NPC he wishes to interact with.  At this point, it isn't clear when/if he hands the NPC off to another for roleplaying, and if so, who allocates the NPC's die in conflict - the originator or the "role player".  I feel that it needs to be clear.

My current solution is to require named NPCs to be played by someone other than the scene framer:

"You must select other players to take the roles of named characters (Bantam Whaley et al) that you wish to interact with, but you can narrate in other people and groups and keep their dice for yourself.  If things get crazy, everyone may be playing multiple characters and factions.  This is fine.  Make sure every player is involved before assigning new roles - this is only polite.  On a related note, you cannot tell another player which side to support in a conflict, with player characters, named NPCs, or random passers-by.  They get to decide.  If you are spinning off folks, allocate wisely."

Plus side:  These central NPCs are always available for roleplaying without any weirdness.  There's a tactical/trust element associated with who you pawn them off on that I like.  Since it applies to everyone in turn, the net mechanical impact will be minimal. 

Minus side:  It further divides the stable of NPCs into named and not-named, might encourage people not to introduce named ones, and is also an extra rule.  It eliminates the opportunity to defensively narrate in a named NPC who would otherwise be hostile to you. 

Let me know what you think!

--Jason

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason,

H'm, I thought we were going by the rules when we did it this way. (Let's say it's my turn, it's the Faculty Senate Meeting event, and the other people playing include Tod, Maura, and Julie.)

1. I say, "I'm in an argument with Dr. Whatsisname [a named NPC in the event], and Tod, I want you to play him." Tod has to play him in opposition to me. So the foundational sides are each set. We role-play and put out some dice; you can just imagine everyone doing that throughout the rest of this.

(steps #2-4 all happen at once)

2. Julie says, "I'm in this one! I go in on Dr. Whatsisname's side." In go her character's dice. Maura may do the same for either side. Neither Julie nor Maura have to do this.

3. Tod says, "I drag in the old-boy faculty members who are all cranky and conservative and need their prune juice, about ten of them (it doesn't matter) on my side." He pops in 1d10 to represent all of them. Anyone on either side does exactly this, dragging in other named NPCs or making people and groups up if necessary, until people start saying, "That's stupid."

4. Interestingly, Tod may also put his own player-character into the conflict on either side, even "against himself" as Dr. Whatsisname, if he wants.

5. We all double-check that we have our chips and dice right. I've bid however many I want; any other involved player-character means the player's bid 1 chip. We probably role-play like sonsofbitches during this final step too, and if you play the Roach like we do, there are descriptions and suggestions and embellishments just storming in about now.

Roll!

Jason, that was going by the original rules as I understood them. It seemed to work really well, and it doesn't seem any different from what you're talking about now.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks Ron,

This may be a question of group dynamics rather than game mechanics, but it is important to me to make the rules crystal clear on this point.  We had a situation in the playtest like this:

Joel:  "Wakefield-Nutter is totally in my scene.  (Takes a die for Nutter)  OK, so me and Nutter are on the same side in this.   Lisa, I want you to play him."

I don't articulate in the rules (yet) how this works - does Joel keep the die even though Lisa roleplays Nutter?  Does the die go to Lisa?  Does she get to decide which side he's on, even though Joel introduced him?  Freinds can informally sort all this out, but I want it to be clear.

Right now I'm saying this - if you want a named NPC, you have to pawn it off to another player who has complete authority over him/her and the die they bring.  If you want to call in the groundskeeper, you can keep the die and the narration.  So it is actually a bit different, depending on whether the NPC is named or not.  That's what I need to decide on - keep everybody the same (player has full rights over the NPC), or make named NPCs a special case? 

Am I overthinking this?

--Jason

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I see what you're saying, and agree with you. However, I think you can make it much, much easier by phrasing it like this.

The acting player must state at least one NPC who opposes his character. This could be a named NPC or not. If it is, then he designates which other player controls that NPC.

I think where your example runs into trouble is that Joel hasn't stated a conflict, which is to say, any opposition. His character is in the scene, obviously, and Wakefield-Nutter is now in there with him as an ally ... but that's it. Two guys standing there as pals, but no fight.

The nice thing about my step #1 is that we definitely know who is in the scene for sure, the "foundation" for the rolls to come. There's at least one player-character, and there's someone else, named-NPC or not. After that, anyone who's added or who adds himself comes in on a specific side, without fail.

I'm also trying to get across the point that our games were functional in this regard because of the (your) procedure we followed, not because "we're friends and friends just agree."

Best,
Ron

[Lisa Provost]

I think where your example runs into trouble is that Joel hasn't stated a conflict, which is to say, any opposition. His character is in the scene, obviously, and Wakefield-Nutter is now in there with him as an ally ... but that's it. Two guys standing there as pals, but no fight

Actually, it's not obvious.  I once had Steve narrate in Bompus and he ended up playing Bompus against me.  My character, Prof. Doutress, was attempting to get a "Chair" in the department she was in.  Bompus ended up winning that round and sent her a literal chair.  *shakes fist!* 

So in my opinion, I like it as it stands.  It is up to the role-player to decide what and how that NPC acts and they have control of those dice.  It ended up being rather interesteing.

[Eric Provost]

You already have the stable divided between the named and the not-named.  I mean, as soon as you authored named NPCs that have to be brought into the Event you got that division.

Why shouldn't the scene-framing player be allowed to play a named NPC?  What purpose does it serve to require that player to tell which player to play the character?  

I feel very strongly that whomever narrates the actions of a character or group should be the player to roll their die.  Without exception.  If you wrote the game otherwise I'd houserule it back to this.  In fact I'd be somewhat opposed, mildly maybe, to a rule that lets another player tell me how I'm supposed to narrate an NPC's actions.  I mean, if I, the player, don't want you to win a conflict then I'm only going to want to narrate for NPCs that oppose your character.  If I'm saddled with an NPC that has to support you when I'm opposed, or vice versa, then my narration is going to be kinda lackluster.

Is there any way to use this issue to eliminate any future possibility of scenes where someone finds themselves unopposed (which I find mildly boring)?  In other words, I support a rule that says I can't win a conflict if there's no conflict.  To further support that rule, I'd be able to get behind a rule that says that I, as the framer of the scene, am authorized to pick out one player to play one named character who will be opposed to my character's actions.

I could also get behind a rule that says that anyone who opposes the scene framer get's dibs on the named characters, over the scene framer.

I'm just having trouble getting behind restricting who the scene framer can play.  But I invite you to change my mind.

-Eric


Cross-posted with Ron & Lisa

[Jon Hastings]

Jason,

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Eric.

When I've played, ALL the players have collaborated (tag team style) on playing the opposition NPC.  That seems different from Ron's description of how he's played, but under the rules, as written now, both options are allowed.  I'd be in favor of keeping both these options available.

Cheers,
Jon

[Jason Morningstar]

Thanks all.  Rockin'. 

Why shouldn't the scene-framing player be allowed to play a named NPC?  What purpose does it serve to require that player to tell which player to play the character? 

Because it can gum up the roleplaying bits and, at least in theory, lead to some dude having an argument with himself. I like Ron's suggestion of explicitly establishing sides from the get-go, which solves all this in a  very clear way (thanks!).  You lose the ability to start a scene before deciding on a conflict, but in play that's never happened as far as I can recall (although currently allowed - I set it up to accomodate folks who might want to get their immersion on and roleplay a tea party or whatever, then drift into a conflict organically).   

I feel very strongly that whomever narrates the actions of a character or group should be the player to roll their die.

Me too.  No argument there.  I just need to articulate that in the rules, so everybody is nice and clear.

Is there any way to use this issue to eliminate any future possibility of scenes where someone finds themselves unopposed (which I find mildly boring)?  In other words, I support a rule that says I can't win a conflict if there's no conflict. 

Not a chance - I like the idea of someone framing a conflict in which their desired outcome is so delicious that no one wants to oppose them.  That is rewarded with a free Reputation win, and rightly so.  Not boring to me at all. If someone frames a conflict that is, quite literally boring, I'd throw in with the opposition just to smack them.   

--Jason

[Jason Morningstar]

So in my opinion, I like it as it stands.  It is up to the role-player to decide what and how that NPC acts and they have control of those dice.  It ended up being rather interesteing.

You so totally deserved that adirondack!  Lisa, as currently written, there's nothing to stop you from narrating in your own opposition and playing them, which is screwy.  Taking Ron's suggestion means I'd abandon the tactical aspect of choosing who plays who, but the gain is clarity, which is really important. 

I also lose the "my scene is so awesome nobody can bear to oppose it" option, which makes me sad...

[Eric Provost]

Is there any way to use this issue to eliminate any future possibility of scenes where someone finds themselves unopposed (which I find mildly boring)?  In other words, I support a rule that says I can't win a conflict if there's no conflict. 

Not a chance - I like the idea of someone framing a conflict in which their desired outcome is so delicious that no one wants to oppose them.

+

I also lose the "my scene is so awesome nobody can bear to oppose it" option, which makes me sad...

=

You torment my brain.

[Jason Morningstar]

Yeah, I know.  I got all excited then realized it probably wouldn't work.  Trade-offs; sorry for the extra torment.