The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: Play prep and NPC's
Started by: contracycle
Started on: 7/2/2007
Board: Actual Play


On 7/2/2007 at 1:26pm, contracycle wrote:
Play prep and NPC's

I was asked to discuss the kind of prep I do and had some thoughts on the prior thread about NPC's which I wanted to mention.

I thought I had of a PDF to link of an adventure I did some time back or Con-X but I appear to have lost the file.  It was not radically different from existing scenarios or modules, although I do do a few things differently.  All the physical locations were listed separately and did not appear in the main text, amid the plot or action, as they often do, and which I dislike.  I can't necessarily predict how the players will approach a location, so I need to know about it whatever approach they try, as a quite distinct track for their reasons for doing so. 

More generally, the approach that has worked best for the longest periods of sustained play is essentially a mission-based framework, on the understanding that "mission" refers to quite a wide range of activities that may not be formal missions.  In fact I have found it very hard to work with strongly mission-framed settings, a difficulty I don't entirely understand.  But anyway, the essence of this prep is what the task of the day is and what requirements there are for its performance. This is usually not stat-heavy, in that usually I will know a system well enough not to need to record these values, and the reasons for choosing them will be situation driven.  Its more figuring out that situation, how, as it were, to hit one ball with the cue such that the rest of the balls fall in the pockets.

Its also about having Enough stuff to do and interact with, so one might say, its about building an obstacle course.  It is pretty boring to solve all your problems the same way, and so having different types of challenges, or at least ones which differ in significant detail, is the spice of life.  I also look for opportunities for characters to demonstrate their specialties or things that have "tourist" value for the setting.

So what I aim for is, I guess, several interesting problems in several interesting places.  The purpose of "plot" is to link them together in a naturalistic manner, integrated with elements of setting exposition.  Its not that hard to do for a single character, but multiple characters make it much more complicated.  Motivations sufficient for one might exclude others and so forth, and many motivations might work once or only temporarily and have the long term effect of fragmentation, and so this is the hard part.

In terms of places, I will try to take play to interesting locations in the setting if possible, and think about these both in terms of what they actually are and how they will be first encountered, the literal first sight I describe to the players.  Again this is something I do not like to improvise; it works better if I have such a piece of exposition prepared.  When players wander off the beaten path it gets bland and dull quite rapidly.  When improvising I often resort to what is typical, but what is typical is typically repetitive.

Anyway, as you can see I have not mentioned NPC's yet, which is why they are in the title.  I think that may be a significant difference here between what Sydney and others describe as their use of NPC's.  I will very seldom have an NPC (other than crowds and extras) on stage for a significant amount of time,  and have never used a character who was like a member of the party (and don't approve of the idea either).  I do not play NPC's much like I play characters myself, although the actual physical portrayal is much the same.  If I am playing such a major NPC, that will be all that I am doing at that time, and interacting with that NPC is what is Happening Now, but this will not usually comprise a large portion of actual play time. NPC's are a role, a costume and some lines, usually aimed at a specific effect.  "Mingling" with NPC's is not really what the characters are there to do.  NPC's certainly have lives of their own and motivations, but those are reverse engineered from their function, and playing NPC's is not for me the point, or even particularly interesting.  They will have their own back-stories, but those back-stories will not contain elements like being religiously conflicted unless this is relevant to the action; that is they do not have such things in their own right, but in service of the game.

Unless play is About interacting with NPC's, such as conducting shuttle diplomacy or police interviews, interacting with NPC's is not usually a primary element of play.  Nor do I find it particularly entertaining to do, in and of itself.  Hence the absence of any pseudo-PC characters, I feel no particular need to have a character of my own in play.  Sometimes such characters can be used as conduits for information and missions and so forth but I found it was easier to structure the party so as to have that single point of contact instead of using an NPC; I also find this engages the players more and puts them in the driving seat.

So for all these reasons preparation is not primarily about NPC's either.  I choose NPC's to portray based on whether a scene would be interesting or important or momentous to the characters, and will concentrate on that portrayal for that scene.  You could say that I prepare conversations rather than NPC's as such, although thats probably a little extreme.  I generally dislike playing NPC's for an extended period of time as IME the characterisation gets weaker and weaker over time.  I regard players inability to remember an NPC identity as a clear danger sign and so would much rather deliver a short and impactful performance that leaves 'em wanting more than have an NPC's mannerisms decay into the commonalities of my own voice, body language, and thought patterns.

So I hope that explains what you wanted to know, but if not feel free to ask for clarification.

Message 24249#236751

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2007




On 7/2/2007 at 5:12pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
Re: Play prep and NPC's

When you're not roleplaying a character, what are you doing instead?

I ask what probably sounds like a stupid question because in games I've played in, basically since college, the majority of of the GM's time is spent roleplaying a character in interaction with the players' characters: Even if it's a fight scene, characters are usually talking too. The only other GM activities I can think of are describing the environment and running combat with nameless mooks or monsters who don't talk while they fight.

Its also about having Enough stuff to do and interact with, so one might say, its about building an obstacle course.


I think this sentence is probably the key to what you do, but I'm not really getting it. What kind of obstacles? What kinds of "stuff" to interact with -- presumably not interacting with GM characters socially, because you said that's not the point of your games.

Message 24249#236755

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/2/2007




On 7/3/2007 at 11:59am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

When you're not roleplaying a character, what are you doing instead?

I ask what probably sounds like a stupid question because in games I've played in, basically since college, the majority of of the GM's time is spent roleplaying a character in interaction with the players' characters: Even if it's a fight scene, characters are usually talking too. The only other GM activities I can think of are describing the environment and running combat with nameless mooks or monsters who don't talk while they fight.


That was kind of the impression I was getting.  In the Cyberpunk game I ran for a while, I would guesstimate that it averaged about 1 hour of PC-NPC chat, 1 hour of PC-GM chat, and a couple of hours for "the run", which had little chat.  I don't think I can remember an instance of characters speaking while in combat.

Otherwise, I spend my time watching the players and listening to their plans.  I don't exactly use the moving clue, but keeping track of player understandings and plans allows me to adapt my own in a suitable manner.  I am very aware of the fragility of the IS and the ease with which visions diverge, so thats another thing I look for.  I am happiest when the players are talking to each other, not to me.

I think this sentence is probably the key to what you do, but I'm not really getting it. What kind of obstacles? What kinds of "stuff" to interact with -- presumably not interacting with GM characters socially, because you said that's not the point of your games.


Well, exciting or representative things.  I was once congratulated on a cavalry charge, which the players really enjoyed not least because they had all spent years playing knights or similar and this was the first time they engaged in what knights really do.  So although this was "combat", 90% of what occurred was my narration, of the horns and the pounding hooves etc. The made a hit roll and we resolved this, obviously, but what distinguished this from a run of the mill fight was the setup and the presentation.

The AP account I gave of the raid on the BNP was heavily driven by the idea of the VTOL extraction from the side of a building; all the rest of the plot was created to bring that event about.  The same game later had the players attempting to extract a resurrected mammoth from a secure facility, because I thought the logistical problems of moving a mammoth around would be entertaining.

Representative things include architecture and landscapes, my approach is very much to look for things that would make a good movie set.  If the setting includes such things then I will try to move play so as to incorporate them, otherwise I might invent some, or do something about the social mores and so forth.  Show off the setting, make it richer, make it a distinct place.  So the Cyber game again went to the semi-submerged office blocks of New York simply because they were there to be seen, and I used them to stage a kind of sniper duel for one of the players, that is, I gave him an opportunity to enjoy his niche specialty as well.

I have described before how I ask players for "images" and then try to incorporate them in some manner.  That is part of this process and an attempt to determine and meet player expectations.  I am also a great enthusiast for preparing for a game in a given genre by getting the group together and watching movies in that genre before hand, this helps synchronise such expectations IMO.

Message 24249#236785

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/3/2007




On 7/3/2007 at 5:33pm, Rob Alexander wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Can I clarify a few things? Am I right in thinking that:

Gareth:

• Your missions/adventures/sessions are primarily linear affairs, and you think of them as a series of events or encounters
• You use make heavily use of pre-written descriptions (i.e. you may your own "boxed text")
• Your NPCs are primarily events that happen ("David threatens the king"), rather than characters that have goals and an ongoing state ("David wants be named heir and is currently recruiting people to lead a revolution")

Sydney:

• None of the above apply to the way you normally play

rob

Message 24249#236793

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rob Alexander
...in which Rob Alexander participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/3/2007




On 7/3/2007 at 6:32pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Rob, you're characterizing me correctly. Let me add one thing to the list for Gareth that I think is true and would like him to confirm:

* The players' interactions with the GM primarily concern physical actions the player-characters take, either towards inanimate obstacles or towards animate opponents (mooks, monsters, etc.) with which they do not interact socially in any way.

Message 24249#236794

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/3/2007




On 7/4/2007 at 8:49am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Rob, yes but I quibble slightly with the wording.

  * Your missions/adventures/sessions are primarily linear affairs, and you think of them as a series of events or encounters


Mostly, but not exactly.  That is I may not require or expect a particular strict sequence of events, but that is the general framework

    * You use make heavily use of pre-written descriptions (i.e. you may your own "boxed text")


Yes.    Things like location introductions will be pre-written, but I do not read from the page.  Discussions with NPC's etc are conceptualised rather than written, and I might have some characteristic turns of phrase prepared.

    * Your NPCs are primarily events that happen ("David threatens the king"), rather than characters that have goals and an ongoing state ("David wants be named heir and is currently recruiting people to lead a revolution")


Things get a bit trickier here because my approach to NPC's is that they are elements of the setting.  So if an NPC has some agenda that arises from their place in the setting, then they would implicitly have an off-screen life pursuing that goal.  But I do not myself worry about them in that case, they are just in never never land.

I suppose it would be fair to say that NPC's are events for me, in that they have no independent existence as such.  It would be entirely possible that at a given moment I think it would be appropriate for David to threaten the king as an emergent property of play, but more likely David would have been created, with that motive, in order to issue the threat.

I don't really consider NPC's to truly have an ongoing state because like any character they do not really exist, and "what my NPC would do" is not sufficient explanation for any given decision.


* The players' interactions with the GM primarily concern physical actions the player-characters take, either towards inanimate obstacles or towards animate opponents (mooks, monsters, etc.) with which they do not interact socially in any way.


Again yes and no, in that I think you have the right idea, but some of the mooks and monsters may actually be people with whom the PC's interact socially, but probably in an exploitative or mechanical way.  That is there may be guards to be bluffed or persuaded and the like, so the dividing line is not quite that clear cut.  Also, as the local game world encyclopedia, a fair proportion of my interactions are about the world but not about physical actions. So there may be interactions that concern NPC's, even socially, but largely in their capacity as objects in the game world.  The Con-X game was a police investigation, but even so speaking-part NPC's were present for probably only about one third of play time.

Message 24249#236828

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/4/2007




On 7/5/2007 at 7:59pm, Rob Alexander wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Hi Gareth,

What are you looking for out of this thread? In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24175.msg236313#msg236313 you were complaining about trouble sustaining campaigns because of prep-related problems. If you're interested in scratching out some ideas for getting around that, it would help I think if you answered the questions I asked in this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24175.msg236392#msg236392

Looking at your posts above, I can see how you're setting yourself up for very heavy prep, and little opportunity for players to contribute to the game (other than by tackling the challenges you present them with). I can remember using that style in the past - it was hard work and required pretty obedient players.

I'm a little bemused by the "NPCs don't exist" comment... do they exist less than anything else in the game world?

rob

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 24175

Message 24249#236864

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rob Alexander
...in which Rob Alexander participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/5/2007




On 7/5/2007 at 8:52pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

I'm particularly struck by this observation of Gareth's in the parent thread:

contracycle wrote: left to their own devices the players do not seek out high adventure or dramatic experience, they make mundane arrangements and solve mundane problems.


Because in my experience, players tend to dive screaming like Stukas towards doing interesting stuff, either plotting and intriguing to gain power in the game-world or, in more Forge-y games, gleefully tying their characters' lives in soap-operatic knots. My last few sessions of our Burning Empires repacked as The Shadows of Yesterday game, I've had Ron Edwards-style "bangs" prepared and rarely get to use all of them because the players make so much trouble for themselves, on purpose, that most of my job as GM is reactive.

Message 24249#236866

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/5/2007




On 7/5/2007 at 10:54pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

I'm tentatively looking at the thread from a certain perspective, which may not be the right one. And for players in that perspective, it wouldn't be make sense to go tearing off into the world to do interesting stuff. Unless there happens to be...let's call it a 'finishing line' built into where you go, then there is no 'finishing line' there of course. That means you can only lose by going there. That's it. So you don't go there.

Play which pivots on the uncertainty of a characters choices is quite a different kettle of fish. The player can head out any old where and still be fairly uncertain of what his character will do when push comes to shove. While play that pivots on whether you can pass the finish line requires a finish line to be there before you go at all. Unless you just want the GM or yourself to decide this (ugh). 'Before you go there' is a relative term - the player could indicate he's going somewhere, the GM stalls him a bit with various techniques while he thinks up a finish line, then yah, the player goes there. However, the sort of thing you can think up in that time is unlikely to meet the average difficulty you intended the campaign to challenge with, thus making it less of an object of pride to complete. That's quite an issue, where the initiator of the campaign is laying down a challenge, but the mechanics and tools used eat away at it.

Finally, 'players contributing to the game', which some take so much for granted, kills the usual pivotal sources of uncertainty for this play. There's not much to guessing which cup the peas under, when the player himself was shuffling the cups, if you get my analogy.

That's another perspective to view this under along with the rest.

Message 24249#236870

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Noon
...in which Noon participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/5/2007




On 7/6/2007 at 9:00am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Rob wrote:
What are you looking for out of this thread?


You tell me.  I am responding to a request to explain my style of play; why did you want to know these things?

My only point that RP advice that amounts to "just make it up as you go along" is not actually advice at all.

In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24175.msg236313#msg236313 you were complaining about trouble sustaining campaigns because of prep-related problems. If you're interested in scratching out some ideas for getting around that, it would help I think if you answered the questions I asked in this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24175.msg236392#msg236392

Looking at your posts above, I can see how you're setting yourself up for very heavy prep, and little opportunity for players to contribute to the game (other than by tackling the challenges you present them with). I can remember using that style in the past - it was hard work and required pretty obedient players.


No, if they were OBEDIENT, then there wouldn't need to be any WORK involved, I'd just tell them I wanted them to do and they would do it, wouldn't they?  Its precisely this sort of insulting moralistic assumption that drives sort conversation off the rails. 


I'm a little bemused by the "NPCs don't exist" comment... do they exist less than anything else in the game world?


Characters don't exist; they are imaginary.  I cannot claim the character made me do it, because the character is an artifact of my creation, it has no properties I do not give it.  To say "this is what the NPOC wants" is to say nothing more than "this is

rob

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 24175

Message 24249#236882

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/6/2007




On 7/6/2007 at 10:15am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Proper version:

Rob wrote:
What are you looking for out of this thread?


Well I'm just answering questions, it was proposed to make a new thread.  More generally my only point that RP advice that amounts to "just make it up as you go along" is not actually advice at all, at least not for me.

[
In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24175.msg236313#msg236313 you were complaining about trouble sustaining campaigns because of prep-related problems. If you're interested in scratching out some ideas for getting around that, it would help I think if you answered the questions I asked in this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24175.msg236392#msg236392


...
What does "never go anywhere" involve in practice, though? For example, how did the Celtic game come to an end? Did you pull the plug or did your players demand it?


In that case, I pulled the plug because it was directionless, and because things had already gone wrong and created precedents I did not like;  and this occurred because I was trying to improvise.  This only ran for about 6 sessions or so; I had planned the first couple pretty strongly (this is where the cav charge comes from) and though I could rely on my implicit knowledge of the setting for the rest.  That happened in practice was, with little material on hand we sped through what material I did have much much faster than I had anticipated.  Also I had not exercised sufficient control over character design in this case, and the combination of bad results and a bad (absent) party relationship meant I thought it was unsalvageable.

Am I right in thinking that you've got an established player group (who are the ones that are tired of this)?


Yes and no; I have access to some old players from my highschool group, some new players I met in a games club, and several people I have introduced to gaming.  Its not only the old guard who are annoyed, also the RPers from the local club have much the same view.  The new players merely regretted the failure of the game, where that occurred.

Were there NPCs in the setting who might have caused trouble for the PCs? Or at least provide trouble that the PCs might have become involved in?


They had a sort of patron who should have been the contact point who provided them with future problems, but as above, I thought I would be able to just improvise this relationship. The stuff I had planned was inadequate; in short order I was running to keep up and things got even flakier.  I didn't really have sufficient motivations in place for an informal relationship between the PC's and the NPC, and so they fell into the formal one.


For example, in the wake of the bandit attacks one of the older NPC warriors might have challenged the chieftan (or whatever) for leadership of the tribe, forcing the PCs to take sides. This the kind of thing I'm trying to do in my games, have NPCs do things that put the PCs in difficult situations (if not always successfully - I'll try to find time to post an AP of my last TSOY session).


Sure, that was precisely the kind of direction I had wanted to go in.  Unfortunately I didn't have that kind of stuff prepared, and if I had, the staging of the fight itself would probably have been a little different, I would have made an effort to bring this dispute on screen right then.  And what I find is that if I am in play mode, doing stuff and answering questions, this kind of thing does not naturally just come to me.

There was another NPC they were interacting with, a kinda magician, but he was in there mainly for setting exposition., although I guess they both were, one political and one metaphysical.  Again, the set-piece scene I had planned for the magician worked well; improvising the relationship with the PC's went less well.

Looking at your posts above, I can see how you're setting yourself up for very heavy prep, and little opportunity for players to contribute to the game (other than by tackling the challenges you present them with). I can remember using that style in the past - it was hard work and required pretty obedient players.


No, if they were OBEDIENT, then there wouldn't need to be any WORK involved, I'd just tell them I wanted them to do and they would do it.  Its this sort of moralistic tone which really gets up my nose; then social contract I have used may not be yours but it is not compelled nor is there a power relationship involved.


I'm a little bemused by the "NPCs don't exist" comment... do they exist less than anything else in the game world?


Characters don't exist; they are imaginary.  I cannot claim the character made me do it, because the character is an artifact of my creation, it has no properties I do not give it.  To say "this is what the NPC wants" is to say nothing more than "this is what I choose the NPC should want right now".  I cannot abdicate my responsibility for the NPC's action to something that doesn't really exist.

---

Sydney wrote:
Because in my experience, players tend to dive screaming like Stukas towards doing interesting stuff, either plotting and intriguing to gain power in the game-world or, in more Forge-y games, gleefully tying their characters' lives in soap-operatic knots. My last few sessions of our Burning Empires  repacked as The Shadows of Yesterday game, I've had Ron Edwards-style "bangs" prepared and rarely get to use all of them because the players make so much trouble for themselves, on purpose, that most of my job as GM is reactive.


Well it depends, you see.  If you anticipate getting into a gunfight, you might go dig a trench and fill some sandbags; no doubt the gunfight will be exciting but the preparation is be dull.  So in the context in which I made the remark, I was referring to periods of play in which neither a push or a pull is operating; in those cases the players do things they think will be useful or interesting, including interacting with NPC's and so forth.  But none of this was generating or is likely to IME, any actual action.  These 'fallow' periods are not inherently bad and are part of the pacing, but thats pretty much I feel about improvising, that it borders on not playing at all.

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 24175

Message 24249#236887

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/6/2007




On 7/6/2007 at 2:15pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

If I were GM'ing and players started doing stuff that bored me, personally, I'd try to nudge them with "yeah, okay, you do that. It works. Now what?" Let them make, say, one roll for the two weeks of ditch-digging that determines how big a positive modifier (or whatever) they get for the gunfight.

And if they don't want to skip over the boring stuff, that might mean it's not boring to them.

Message 24249#236899

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/6/2007




On 7/6/2007 at 2:33pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Yes agreed.  But thats precisely how you can end up with players being active and interactive, but going nowhere, even in a world that is detailed, and populated by NPC's.  And hence the reasons for producing motivations, events and NPC's that can kick the action into a higher gear.

Message 24249#236900

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/6/2007




On 7/6/2007 at 3:12pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

That is, if you let the players just do stuff that they find interesting, no story or larger sequence of actions may emerge? If that's what you're saying, I'd agree; but I also would argue that your style's much more about enjoying the details of being in the imagined world than about The Plot or Drama. And when it works, it really, really works (viz. your old Actual Play thread at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20798.msg216136#msg216136). Maybe you need to embrace the strengths of what you're already doing and not worry about producing effects that your technique isn't suited for.

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20798

Message 24249#236901

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/6/2007




On 7/7/2007 at 8:15pm, Rob Alexander wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Callan wrote:
Finally, 'players contributing to the game', which some take so much for granted, kills the usual pivotal sources of uncertainty for this play.


"contribute" was a bad choice of word on my part. I should have said something like "be proactive and choose their own direction". I.e. I didn't mean "Let's make there be cave in that hill", I meant "Let's see if there are any caves up in those hills near the town".

rob

Message 24249#236934

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rob Alexander
...in which Rob Alexander participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/7/2007




On 7/7/2007 at 9:10pm, Rob Alexander wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Hi Gareth, all

Sorry for the confusion - I know I asked for the you to post about the style, but I was asking about games that had gone badly (e.g. the Celtic game), whereas your first post in this thread sounds like you're describing a method that works well for you (e.g. the bank job session). Obviously, your most recent reply has addressed this.

My interest? I'm looking to work out some solutions to the problems you described. I can relate to your "start a campaign, it fizzles out...", and that was partly why I didn't game for several years. In the past I've used a prep style quite similar to the one you described in this thread. My feeling is that, for me, that prep style (and overconcern for consistency of minor details) was a big part of my problem. I'm trying to move to a different style of play and prep, but it sounds like you've had problems with this new style in the past and I'm keen to learn from your experience.

"obedient" was a poor choice of word. What I was trying to get at is that the style of play (as a player rather than GM) that goes with a linear, reactive mission game is quite distinct from that that sits well with an open-ended "make your own trouble" game. If your players expected (or wanted) a linear, mission-based game, it may not have been easy for them to switch modes. They may not have wanted to. Though I guess you're well aware of all this.

Leaving aside the players you've introduced to rolegaming yourself, what kind of game (in terms of prep style etc) is popular with your highschool crowd and the games club? Are linear plots the norm? I know a lot of people seem to like them (although, as you've guessed, I don't understand the appeal --- notwithstanding that this was what I'd always put my players through a few years back).

contracycle wrote:
I cannot abdicate my responsibility for the NPC's action to something that doesn't really exist.


Agreed. But presumably you do imagine that the characters are real so as to exploit your intuitive knowledge of how humans behave and interact? For example, while prepping do you do thought experiments along the lines of "If David were real, what might he do?". The benefit of thinking of NPCs as having goals, needs and desires is that it helps to stimulate your mind to come up with interesting stuff.

(E.g. --- Well, David might go looking for support among the criminal elements of the city for assistance in getting the old man off the throne. Of course, he's an arrogant, spoiled fop who is in no sense safe in the slums, so he's going to get into real trouble. And we've already established that Tim's PC has a younger sister who's very attractive --- how about she falls in love with David, just about when he's getting in too deep. And although David might be mostly ineffectual it doesn't mean he won't manage to expose the king to some real danger, and that could threaten the whole city, if not the country.)

Obviously, everything remains centered on the PCs - NPC's offscreen lives are only interesting insofar as they affect the PCs pretty directly. But you use your mental model of those offscreen lives to as an aid to generating interesting NPC behaviour (I'm guessing that you treat this behaviour as 'real', in the sense that it's enacted by you at the table). And, of course, this goes through a filter of "is this interesting/realistic/dramatically appropriate" before your bring it into play.

Am I disagreeing with you here? I don't think the above has anything to do with the problems you're reporting, which are more specifically to do with generating interesting stuff in real time, right?

I don't think anyone's saying "just make stuff up" here. But what method there is is subtle and hard to put into words. (And, personally, I'm a rank beginner compared to a lot of people here).

rob

Message 24249#236936

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rob Alexander
...in which Rob Alexander participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/7/2007




On 7/8/2007 at 12:46am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Rob wrote:
Callan wrote:
Finally, 'players contributing to the game', which some take so much for granted, kills the usual pivotal sources of uncertainty for this play.


"contribute" was a bad choice of word on my part. I should have said something like "be proactive and choose their own direction". I.e. I didn't mean "Let's make there be cave in that hill", I meant "Let's see if there are any caves up in those hills near the town".

In light of the link Sydney gave to a thread, I think the perspective I gave is way out of place anyway. Sounded close at the time, but wow, way off!

But in regards to the technique your referencing, the difference between looking for caves in the hill and making caves in the hill is slim. Slim enough that it's not hard for the difference to go away - stuff in Donjon where players create secret passages by rolling 'search for secret passages' were designed off how slim the difference is.

Message 24249#236942

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Noon
...in which Noon participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/8/2007




On 7/13/2007 at 1:12pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Rob wrote:
"obedient" was a poor choice of word. What I was trying to get at is that the style of play (as a player rather than GM) that goes with a linear, reactive mission game is quite distinct from that that sits well with an open-ended "make your own trouble" game. If your players expected (or wanted) a linear, mission-based game, it may not have been easy for them to switch modes. They may not have wanted to. Though I guess you're well aware of all this.


This I'm not so sure about, or at least, I'm not sure that anyone could tell from observation.  I mean, I have twice played long-standing games under GM's with whom I had had no prior contact at all, and I would be hard pressed to point out a significant difference in terms of the output.  Now that may be coincidence, but it seems to me that there is a lot more assumption that the game as actually played is significantly different than is warranted, IMO.

Leaving aside the players you've introduced to rolegaming yourself, what kind of game (in terms of prep style etc) is popular with your highschool crowd and the games club? Are linear plots the norm? I know a lot of people seem to like them (although, as you've guessed, I don't understand the appeal --- notwithstanding that this was what I'd always put my players through a few years back).


Well that is of course somewhat hard to say because I did not actually have access to the GM's materials in games where I have been a player.  One guy ran several of the Vampire metaplot scenarios in succession pretty well, and a couple of Cthulhu ones out of the book; another, who ran a vast and wandering Mage game, was so heavily into prep that his gaming materials were transported in a wheeled bag and we used to challenge him to produce various historical documents, which he could and would do.  One of the best linear adventures I have yet seen was produced for university RPG society for convention play, and although it it used a crutch I dislike (poisoning the characters at the start) it was well constructed and flowed naturally from strep to step. 

One of the most explicit differences I have encountered occurred in another Vamp game set in Poland, and the point of issue was whether my characters Herd stat was a subject of actual play; that is the GM wanted, and expected I would want, to play out every interaction with the Herd, while I thought of it as an abstraction which I had no intention of worrying about.  This produced a series of interactions that neither of us found much fun.  This is the one occasion I can really say was characterised by a different style, and was inclined to produce this sort of exchange:
me: how does such-and-such work?
him: how do you think it should work?
me: what I think doesn't matter

Having nothing else to do I started empire-building, which effectively made me the central figure of the game, which had its ups and downs.  Eventually this game too petered out; seeing as there were no real menaces to guard against, none of my preparations really mattered.  Possibly to liven things up, I still don't know, one of my schemes was hijacked and spoiled, which got up my nose a bit; it was not catastrophic but altered the tone somewhat.  I became much more cautious, less stuff happened, eventually virtually nothing happened.


Agreed. But presumably you do imagine that the characters are real so as to exploit your intuitive knowledge of how humans behave and interact? For example, while prepping do you do thought experiments along the lines of "If David were real, what might he do?". The benefit of thinking of NPCs as having goals, needs and desires is that it helps to stimulate your mind to come up with interesting stuff.


Well, for purposes of the portrayal, yes, but I'm really wary of "intuitive" knowledge.  Local ideologies and social value systems can produce effects outsiders would not expect, and behaviours that appear counter-intuitive and even unreasonable.  So I don't necessarily consider it safe to rely on my "instinctive judgment", as it were, without an eye to setting and situation.


Obviously, everything remains centered on the PCs - NPC's offscreen lives are only interesting insofar as they affect the PCs pretty directly. But you use your mental model of those offscreen lives to as an aid to generating interesting NPC behaviour (I'm guessing that you treat this behaviour as 'real', in the sense that it's enacted by you at the table). And, of course, this goes through a filter of "is this interesting/realistic/dramatically appropriate" before your bring it into play.


Well, yes and no in that I am inclined to start from whether the behaviour is interesting first, and construct a rationale for that afterwards.  For example, it would be easy enough for me to rewrite an existing NPC to give them a lover, if I thought that having a lover would add interest.  But my problem is, why should an NPC's romantic travails engage the PC's?  Well, presumably only if they care in some way, if there is some reason for this item to appear on screen.  So the problem once again is "why, and what for", not the coherence of the internal logic from which it is constructed.

One of the things that bothers me in the way I perceive this approach, is that I don't like the idea of an SIS full of moving NPC's in which the PC's are merely guests at a party, observing NPC's as they go about their "interesting" lives.  Fundamentally, I am not interested in the NPC's at all, they are only means to an end; it's the PC's and the players in whom I am interested.  Given a choice between playing an NPC and responding to a player attempting to Do Something in the gameworld, I would choose the latter.

Am I disagreeing with you here? I don't think the above has anything to do with the problems you're reporting, which are more specifically to do with generating interesting stuff in real time, right?


Yes.  I increasingly think that part of the problem is not having a stopping point, not having a clear end in sight.  The mage game mentioned above, by the GM with his bag of prep, staggered on for quite a while in a fairly purposeless way, eventually going through a full rotation of characters through death and retirement.  The question of "what are we doing and why" became more and more acute, and the game did not so much end as disperse.  Allegedly, this game did indeed have some kind of plot but was actually executed in quite a responsive, improvisational way interspersed with events according to some sort of schedule. 

I think, based on this and my own experience, that there is a practical limit to how long you can maintain such a game in your head without burning out, without your improvisation becoming perfunctory and minimalist.  I guesstimate thats seldom more than 6-10 sessions, and often less.  I have thought sometimes, when coming home from work to work on the coming weekends game, that a) for this much effort I could make real money writing a book, and b)  if I were writing a book, one day it would be over.  And that would mean that it could be paced, and not constantly a Red Queen game, forever running to keep up.  Hence I am increasingly interested in structure, staging and boundaries.

The single most useful RPG product I have ever used was the Hardwired supplement for CP2020 by Walter Jon Williams.  This is distinctly linear, but rather than compelling choices, it tends to make offers the players can't, or are in no position, to refuse.  I thought this worked very well and I was able to run this perfectly without any changes.  One of the effects was that this direction absolved me of a great deal of worry about incidental detail; because I knew full well, for example, that the PC's would never return to the location in which they started, I could be very free with detail without any fear of any of it coming back to haunt me.  Similarly, NPC's were brought on for a specific function and would likely never be seen again once that function was fulfilled; they were disposable rather than something requiring care and maintenance.  Also because I knew exactly where I was going, I could contribute to character creation to obviate some kinds of sticking points and encourage niches I knew would be well met.  All of this functioned, IME, much better than games in which a situation was created, even with NPC's, and left to "play out".

Message 24249#237117

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/13/2007




On 7/13/2007 at 7:36pm, FredGarber wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Yes.  I increasingly think that part of the problem is not having a stopping point, not having a clear end in sight.  The mage game mentioned above, by the GM with his bag of prep, staggered on for quite a while in a fairly purposeless way, eventually going through a full rotation of characters through death and retirement.  The question of "what are we doing and why" became more and more acute, and the game did not so much end as disperse.  Allegedly, this game did indeed have some kind of plot but was actually executed in quite a responsive, improvisational way interspersed with events according to some sort of schedule. 


I've played in a Mage game like that, and I liked it.  And the point of the game was that each session, every character had to ask themselves "What are we doing, and why?"  Our game was about Pride: Self-Worth vs. Hubris.  The "plot" of "There's a Techno-Nephandi who wants to undermine the magical fountainheads of the world in order to bring the Elder Gods back and destroy the world," was merely a backdrop for how our characters reacted to the day to day stresses of having Cosmic Power at your fingertips. Do you use it to do the laundry?  And it was interesting for Players who brought in new PCs to hear the "tales" of their old PCs, and how the survivors (mis)interpreted motives and opinions.

It seems you tend to create situations where the PCs can only really talk to themselves.  They might be able to call up their old war buddies at the airfield to rent a chopper to airlift a mammoth, but they couldn't really care less about inviting a war buddy home to dinner.  And that puts a limit on play in most groups, because when the PCs have finished talking about themselves and are done talking to each other, where do they look? Your NPCs are disposable.

I like your "guests at the party" analogy, and I would say, though, that rather than an SIS where the players OBSERVE the NPCs as [the NPCs] go about [the NPCs'] interesting lives, that there be a party in a very small apartment, where they players are often jostled by the NPCs as everyone goes about their interesting lives, and there's not enough beer to go around, and some of the NPCs want to get involved in the interesting lives of the PCs, and there's the one seriously hot girl and someone has the Xbox up on the Plasma TV.  That sort of SIS solves the "guests at the party" situation for me.

But I think you need to state, at the outset, that you are creating a game where there is an endpoint in sight.  It's a valid style of play.  To create an analogy, you want to make a Movie, not a TV Series.  If there's enough interest in the movie, you'll make a sequel. If there's really enough interest, you'll maybe make a franchise.  You're not interested in making a show that will remain on the air forever.

I think that if you establish this with your group at the outset: You're making a short term thing, and it will be renewed only if there's enough interest after each "movie," then if after the 8th session everyone goes their own way, there will be a "no harm, no foul" situation.  Maybe some players want to scrap their current PCs and come up with something completely different on the 9th session.  They can do that without feeling that they've ruined your plans.  You can accept this without feeling that you've overprepped for PCs who aren't going to be there next time.

So, game on, and do you mind if I borrow the image of a "vertical extraction of a mammoth" for my own use? :)

-Fred

BTW I totally get the "Herd" discussion: The ST there was trying to employ a technique of "Backgrounds Are There to Pull Plot Hooks,"  where you were working with "I Spent My Points On This Merit, Stop Trying to Turn It Into a Flaw." I've had numerous discussions on this "feature" in the WW systems, and on what sort of play it creates: where every victory of the PCs is just another chance for the STs to drag them down.

Message 24249#237127

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by FredGarber
...in which FredGarber participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/13/2007




On 7/13/2007 at 8:25pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

contracycle wrote: ....this direction absolved me of a great deal of worry about incidental detail; because I knew full well, for example, that the PC's would never return to the location in which they started, I could be very free with detail without any fear of any of it coming back to haunt me.  Similarly, NPC's were brought on for a specific function and would likely never be seen again once that function was fulfilled; they were disposable rather than something requiring care and maintenance....


Gareth, a technique question: How much detail are you describing your locations and NPCs in that you are worring about it "coming back to haunt me"? If I describe a room, or even a person, I do it in very broad brushstrokes: The Duke is lying under the bedsheet, his scarred, muscular chest bare, the sheet strangely flat where his legs should be, with his artificial limbs lying discarded by the side of the bed (to take a quick example from an actual Burning Empires session I ran). From reading novels and my own abortive attempts at writing fiction, and from doing a huge amount of writing as a journalist, I find that if you put more than, oh, four details into a description, the reader/listener overloads and doesn't remember any of it anyway; whereas if you concentrate on two or three salient details and repeat one or two of them every time you reintroduce a location or character, it's much easier not only for you to remember but for your audience as well.

Message 24249#237130

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/13/2007




On 7/14/2007 at 9:28am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

FredGarber wrote:
I've played in a Mage game like that, and I liked it.  And the point of the game was that each session, every character had to ask themselves "What are we doing, and why?"  Our game was about Pride: Self-Worth vs. Hubris.  The "plot" of "There's a Techno-Nephandi who wants to undermine the magical fountainheads of the world in order to bring the Elder Gods back and destroy the world," was merely a backdrop for how our characters reacted to the day to day stresses of having Cosmic Power at your fingertips. Do you use it to do the laundry?  And it was interesting for Players who brought in new PCs to hear the "tales" of their old PCs, and how the survivors (mis)interpreted motives and opinions.


Well, it certainly wasn't all bad, and in fact I have really warm memories of this game in particular and Mage in general.  I recognise the issues you raise, and that was one of the reasons I enjoyed it; we had a lot of that too but I don't think it was as explicit a setup as yours appears to have been.  But, like my own games, it faded rather than finishing.  If it had finished, the positive memories would be unqualified, and the ultimate failure is all the more disappointing.


I like your "guests at the party" analogy, and I would say, though, that rather than an SIS where the players OBSERVE the NPCs as [the NPCs] go about [the NPCs'] interesting lives, that there be a party in a very small apartment, where they players are often jostled by the NPCs as everyone goes about their interesting lives, and there's not enough beer to go around, and some of the NPCs want to get involved in the interesting lives of the PCs, and there's the one seriously hot girl and someone has the Xbox up on the Plasma TV.  That sort of SIS solves the "guests at the party" situation for me.


Well thats the kind of thing I would be interested in hearing about, the way others employ NPC's.  One of the reasons for my antipathy to0 NPC's is that if a given player is talking to an NPC, the rest are relegated to audience, which is something I am hesitant to do a lot.  But there may be devices here that have not occurred to me.

But I think you need to state, at the outset, that you are creating a game where there is an endpoint in sight.  It's a valid style of play.  To create an analogy, you want to make a Movie, not a TV Series.  If there's enough interest in the movie, you'll make a sequel. If there's really enough interest, you'll maybe make a franchise.  You're not interested in making a show that will remain on the air forever.


Sure, but deciding to do that is only the starting point.  If I am going to have an endpoint, I have to have a reasonable expectation that we will get there.  So thats how I come to the conclusion that I should be looking at more structure, more planning, rather than more improv.


So, game on, and do you mind if I borrow the image of a "vertical extraction of a mammoth" for my own use? :)


Sure.

Message 24249#237134

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/14/2007




On 7/14/2007 at 9:54am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Sydney wrote:
Gareth, a technique question: How much detail are you describing your locations and NPCs in that you are worring about it "coming back to haunt me"? If I describe a room, or even a person, I do it in very broad brushstrokes: The Duke is lying under the bedsheet, his scarred, muscular chest bare, the sheet strangely flat where his legs should be, with his artificial limbs lying discarded by the side of the bed (to take a quick example from an actual Burning Empires session I ran). From reading novels and my own abortive attempts at writing fiction, and from doing a huge amount of writing as a journalist, I find that if you put more than, oh, four details into a description, the reader/listener overloads and doesn't remember any of it anyway; whereas if you concentrate on two or three salient details and repeat one or two of them every time you reintroduce a location or character, it's much easier not only for you to remember but for your audience as well.


Well, the prep as such and the description I give are two separate things, one being objectively true and the other being subjectively true.  I don't think most of my descriptions in play are likely to be much longer than the example you give, but working to a "four facts" rule of thumb might be very useful.

The concern I referred to is rather players calling up details I thought were inconsequential.  So maybe I gave name to a a security guard, and the players remember that name and I don't.  The virtue of the move to other locations meant that all this inconsequential could be simply dumped.  On this I think that many of my games have implicitly contained the goal of the players sort of internalising the setting via osmosis; I am not keen on expecting players to process a lot of data up front.  And this has meant trying to maintain a persistent setting with internal consistency.  But I increasingly think this approach was mistaken and so now I pay more emphasis to situation, and what the function the specific locality can serve.

As above your four facts suggestion is something that may well be useful and the kind of thing that I would like to hear more of.  Just thinking about it now, such a principle may serve not least to focus NPC's and locations, to select from all the things they could be known for, the subset of things they should be known for.

Message 24249#237135

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/14/2007




On 7/14/2007 at 1:38pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Four facts -- or even better, probably, three -- is a pretty handy rule. I'm glad if it helps you, just as I'm appreciative of your putting so much effort and patience into helping us understand your play style.

contracycle wrote: The concern I referred to is rather players calling up details I thought were inconsequential.  So maybe I gave name to a a security guard, and the players remember that name and I don't. 


Okay -- why is this so bad?

"So the security guard guy -- um -- Jason -- says..."
"No, no, you said he was Michael West."
"Oh. Oh yeah. So West says...


I see that it's a little hiccup in play, but not such a bad one that I'd want to avoid giving the guard a name, or avoid ever bringing him back into the story at all, just to avoid the risk of this kind of exchange. I have a few guesses as to why you find it so much more problematic, probably related to your approach that

Well, the prep as such and the description I give are two separate things, one being objectively true and the other being subjectively true.


but I want to get your own explanation of why this is such a problem before I start overanalyzing..

Message 24249#237138

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/14/2007




On 7/19/2007 at 10:27am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Sydney wrote:
I see that it's a little hiccup in play, but not such a bad one that I'd want to avoid giving the guard a name, or avoid ever bringing him back into the story at all, just to avoid the risk of this kind of exchange.


Well the way I think about this, it is like having a stage set fall down during a show.  It shouldn't have happened and you should have made sure it wouldn't happen.

I have always taken a theatrical approach to RPG as performance, and no performer should find themselves obliged to apologise to their audience.  If the show isn't ready you should not be performing before the public at all.  Admittedly some of those rules arise from theatre being a business rather than a hobby, but IMO its still possible to take a craftsman's pride in your work and try to keep to those rules.

This reminds of an account I once read of someone being impressed by a hand carved wooden box, not least because it did not use nails.  Part of what was important to the observer was that it was not marred by its own mechanism, it was aesthetically conceptualised with that in mind.  I don't want to just make a functional box, I want to make a beautiful one.

Message 24249#237379

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2007




On 7/19/2007 at 3:20pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Aha. What you said is genuinely enlightening. It confirms one thing I thought but, more importantly, brings up something I hadn't really been considering.

1. What I'd suspected already

Based on your very cool "Raid on the Bank Nationale" actual play post and on this passage (emphasis mine) --

contracycle wrote: the prep as such and the description I give are two separate things, one being objectively true and the other being subjectively true....many of my games have implicitly contained the goal of the players sort of internalising the setting via osmosis; I am not keen on expecting players to process a lot of data up front.  And this has meant trying to maintain a persistent setting with internal consistency.


-- and on this passage as well (again, emphasis mine) --

contracycle wrote: it is like having a stage set fall down during a show.  It shouldn't have happened and you should have made sure it wouldn't happen. I have always taken a theatrical approach to RPG as performance...


and finally this one (emphasis mine)

I don't want to just make a functional box, I want to make a beautiful one.


-- it's clear that you believe strongly in the fictional world as an end-in-itself, not merely as a means to an end (e.g. telling "the story," providing cool background color to players' strategic or moral choices, whatever). The imagined reality should be so convincing and so internally consistent that you should feel it has "objective reality" external to any of the players' "subjective" experiences of it. Of course, the imaginary world doesn't have objective reality, by definition, it's just what people around the table agree to imagine -- but you could also say the Mona Lisa's smile is purely subjective and that objectively all you're seeing is some gobs of paint on an old canvas: creating the illusion of reality is high art.

In Forge-speak, I believe what your "creative agenda" is Simulationist, with a strong focus on Setting and Color, and secondarily Character, with System being low on the list or off it altogether (since you've not been talking at all in your Actual Play about wanting to make sure the rules of the game product results that appear "objectively real"). Specifically you're a strong believer in what folks have started calling "creative denial" -- that is, everyone around the table knows they're just making this stuff up, but they willingly suspend not only disbelief but the idea of their own input, seeking the (subjective) impression that the imagined world really exists separate from their imaginations.

What all this boils down to is simply this: You're pursuing a valid, noble, and for that matter highly demanding artistic goal. It's not the way I personally prefer to play, but I can respect and indeed admire it.

2. What I hadn't quite realized

But there's an aspect of your approach that I suspect is causing you unnecessary trouble -- that is, it's making achievement of your already demanding artistic goal more difficult than it has to be, rather in the same way that it would be much harder to paint the Mona Lisa without a model sitting for you. To go back to that second quote and complete it (again, emphasis mine)

.... I have always taken a theatrical approach to RPG as performance, and no performer should find themselves obliged to apologise to their audience.  If the show isn't ready you should not be performing before the public at all.


I get the strong impression that you consider yourself, as GM, to be the "performer" and the players to be your "audience," your "public." This is a traditional and time-honored approach, but it neglects one essential aspect of our hobby/art form/whatever you call it. In theater, you have a clear division between performer and audience. In roleplaying games, all the observers are also participants, so the performers are the audience.

Naturally, different participants can still have different roles -- traditionally, everyone focuses on one character, their own, except for the GM, who does the rest of the world -- and one person may spend more time as "performer" and less time as "audience" than another (or vice versa). But nevertheless (and this is where "the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" comes in), as long as any participant has meaningful input, even if it's simply that a player is improvising dialogue for his or her character, that player is in the moment of that input a perfomer rather than merely part of the audience.

Now, there are lots of different ways to deal with this performer-audience duality in roleplaying games, but you appear to have chosen one that puts the overwhelming share of the burden -- perhaps an impossible burden -- on the gamemaster: You as the GM have to create something that appears seamless to the players, and if there's any moment where you falter, that's as awkward and embarassing as a stage set falling down. If the players have to prompt you or suggest something, you feel that's your failure as a performer, rather than viewing it as their contribution as fellow performers.

I'm not suggesting going all out to some kind of Prime Time Adventures or Capes model where everyone around the table is explicitly talking out-of-character all the time in terms of goals and issues and conflicts for the fiction. But I think you can relax a little and have more confidence in the soundness of your own creative contribution and in the contribution of your players. If the players ask about or think about something and you don't have an answer right away, your fictional world isn't so rickety that it falls down like a stage set: Try to think of it as the camera just being out of focus for a moment before your players help you adjust the lenses. If your players get excited enough about your world to remember details you don't and bring them up again, that's not a sign that you've failed, it's a measure of your success in getting them engaged as not only passive audience but as active fellow performers.

The obvious counterargument is that this kind of player participation "behind the scenes" of the fictional world is inherently damaging to their belief in its reality. Not necessarily so. Have more confidence in your players' ability to imagine out of both sides of their minds, as it were -- to separate the "performer" part of what they do from the "audience" part. This is where "creative denial" comes in again, as I understand the term: A player can contribute to creating the fictional world at one moment and then, in the next moment (or even in the same moment, with another part of the mind) appreciate it as if it were independently, objectively real. Sure, it sounds like a lot of mental gymnastics, but it's only one step beyond what we do all the time when we watch a movie and know intellectually that the special effects aren't real even as we're totally convinced of their reality on an emotional level: The giant space robot goes BOOM! and everyone flinches as if it had really exploded even when they're perfectly aware that they're sitting in a comfortable theater watching flickering images on a screen in perfect safety.

So, come to think of it, even when watching a movie, the audience isn't merely passively receiving, but actively collaborating with its own imagination, albeit in a small degree. After all, if you took a Kalahari Bushman or someone else with no experience of modern media -- even someone from the early 20th century who expected long establishng shots and wasn't used to the sudden jump-cuts of 21st century film and TV -- and showed them the same film, they wouldn't have the same experience of it because they lack the imaginative skills to do their job as an audience.

What does all this boil down to? Simply put, relax a bit and trust your players have the skills to be creative collaborators and appreciative audience at the same time.

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20798

Message 24249#237403

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2007




On 7/19/2007 at 9:14pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Hi everyone,

What a great thread. Gareth, I've been looking forward to learning more about your play-experience for a while, and when it started up, I decided to shut up and read and not jump into it.

However, Sydney, I do have a little concern with your last post, because it's not clear to me that Gareth ever really asked for advice. Furthermore, if he did, then "just relax" is singularly bad advice in any context; my automatic reaction, at least, is to freeze and tense up. I suggest making it clear that such things as forgetting the guard's name is no big deal to you in your games, but that you can't fairly act as a judge on whether they are bad for Gareth in his games. And if they are, whether they (1) so bad (for him) that pushing himself to perform ever-more-excellently is the only option, or (2) actually not so bad as he thought, now that he's written it down.

Oh yeah - Gareth, I confess I'm not getting the most clear picture of just what it is you say and do as a GM. I gather that you don't dominate the verbal interactions, but I also gather that you do most of the scene-framing and descriptions of what player-characters see. Can you give me a representative example, or paraphrase, of what you might say to them in a particular instance?

Best, Ron

Message 24249#237426

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2007




On 7/19/2007 at 9:20pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Ron wrote:
Sydney, I do have a little concern with your last post, because it's not clear to me that Gareth ever really asked for advice....


Not that that's ever stopped me before... yeah, point taken.

Gareth, I'm very curious as to your answer to Ron's question.

Message 24249#237427

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2007




On 7/22/2007 at 2:33pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

I have been trying to think how to respond without actually writing a novel or similar.  So with that in mind, I will try to give a kind of paraphrased  account of the way a game played out.  This was heavily framed, to the extent that I created the character sheets and the situation, which is that the characters are FBI agents investigating a murder.

So the initial scene set, once the character sheets have been fleshed out into characters, was the stock interview with their superior giving them the outline of the problem and a clue to work on, with a little local colour such as the busy-ness of the office.  Once the players are settled I kick off with a statement about where they are, in this case in their bosses office, and I give a description,something like: "You walk into the office.  It is spare and elegant blah blah.  The chief is trim and balding blah blah; he glances up for some papers and says "Pull up a chair".  So this is all carried out in in-character dialog, with everyone acting their parts.  This goes on for only a few minutes and the characters are sent off to investigate.

They players then engage each other in a curious manner that drifts in and out of first person depending on habit, preference and experience.  Loosely speaking the tone is more inflected when in character, and more neutral when not.  I act as knowledge bank during this time, answering questions about the world and what characters (as opposed players) might know about such things. So in practice the way that works, is that if a player looks at me, the issue is about the world, and if they look at another player, they are in direct dialog.  I also listen to their plans and start to anticipate and compensate for them; sometimes I prompt or suggest things that might occur to residents of the gameworld, as it were.

Once the players have agreed amongst themselves some sort of Plan which they can now implement, or at least some sort of potentially fruitful act, the dialog will wrap up and they will start putting direct questions or propositions to me.  I try to look for or prompt a specific "go" decision for the plan because sometimes this is a bit vague when some of the plan is conditional. 

So in this case the players had a clue which was a very expensive engagement ring found on the body.  The ring carried a makers mark from a jeweler in the area, which is why they had the case.  So the plan they come up with, somewhat unnecessarily IMO (one of the players being an old and paranoid hand), was to pose as an engaged couple and inveigle their way into the jewelers trust, and then try to fish for  information out about the ring they were interested in.

So entering action, I set the scene again, describing their immediate arrival outside the building in which the jewelers was located (the jewelers a was a prepared location with one fully developed NPC, the master jeweler, and a verbal rather than graphic description of the layout etc).  Again this is little more than the building is made of such a material, how big it is, notable features etc.  The players briefly organise the last elements of their story and announce that they go in.  We play out their interaction with the receptionist, they get shown into the display room.  Again I give a brief location description, and details of the items on display.  The players set about pretending to be members of the wealthy set, and discuss with the jeweler the kind of thing that they are after, allegedly having seen something similar at a social event.  I guess this interaction, description and dialog, must have taken roughly half an hour, maybe more, pretty close to real time.  The players speak to each other OOC and IC easily more than to me; I only speak in response to queries or as an NPC or narrating the outcome of actions.

In this case the IC conversation was quite easy to turn towards my prepared clue, the photographic catalogue.  This contained the bespoke, rather than off-the-shelf, work of the jeweler and thus contained the names of the people who commissioned them.  So now the players had the name of the fiancee of the woman whose death they were investigating.

Having attained their goal, and accumulated some further information about precisely when the work was commissioned, the players go back into discussion mode.  They discuss amongst themselves how to approach the fiancee, given the sensitivity of the situation.  They do a trawl of engagement announcements to put a name to the body, which was handled in abstraction. The find out where she worked, and dig up some history on the company.  Conspiracy X has explicit powers for doing this sort of thing and so all they had to do was invoke their abilities. Similarly the search of the police databases that gives them an address.  This was probably another half hour.

So the players decide that their strategy will be to investigate the dead womens house first, and then go to interview the fiancee.  But I don't think we need to go further; this was roughly the first quarter of the game, which was a one-session event.  That is the basic dynamic of play, the alternation between planning phases and action phases.  In planning phases, I pretty much leave the players to themselves.  IME players are usually quite happy to spend time in inter-character discussion, and so how much play time overall is spent in planning can vary quite a lot.  If they are decisive and have a clear idea of what they are doing, it can be pretty short; if they are indecisive or not under pressure, they may waffle about for quite a while and I may have to chivvy them along.  In action phases I speak more, but still largely in response to player initiated queries or description of results.  How much I speak will largely be determined by the complexity of the information the players are asking for, or how much stuff is caused to happen or otherwise going on.  It's possible for an innocent question to trigger a digression on geopolitics or theology or similar but its fairly rare as an event.

So, does this help?

Message 24249#237580

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/22/2007




On 7/25/2007 at 6:06pm, Rob Alexander wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Gareth,

contracycle wrote:
I have always taken a theatrical approach to RPG as performance, and no performer should find themselves obliged to apologise to their audience.  If the show isn't ready you should not be performing before the public at all.  Admittedly some of those rules arise from theatre being a business rather than a hobby, but IMO its still possible to take a craftsman's pride in your work and try to keep to those rules.


Since I asked for this thread in the first place, sorry that I've not been active recently. I've been very busy with work, but I'm still following with interest.

(I no longer have my initial concern, though, that I'll hit the problems you described in the other thread, at least for the same reasons that you have; I think our priorities and desires, game-wise, are very different).

rob

Message 24249#237854

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Rob Alexander
...in which Rob Alexander participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/25/2007




On 7/25/2007 at 6:13pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Gareth, I want to second Rob's thanks. I think your description of your interactions around the table confirm my initial guess that it's problem-solving, rather than roleplaying social interactions, that occupy most of your group's energy -- and if you're solving problems, you want a solidly believable world of puzzle pieces to manipulate, so that fits with your apparent "creative agenda" very well.

Message 24249#237855

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/25/2007




On 7/26/2007 at 11:42am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Yes I think thats fair enough.  Interesting things to do in interesting places, with a little bit of danger, a little bit of drama thrown in.

But as I mentioned originally, what struck me of others accounts were the use of NPC's and the degree of the presence. So if you related some of your approach to NPC's that might suggest ideas of how I could use them. Things like, when you decide to bring them on, what you bring them on for, etc.

Message 24249#237912

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/26/2007




On 7/26/2007 at 2:22pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Gareth, I'm going to repost from Story Games the description of how I came up with the major NPCs for the most successful game I've ever run to date:


Tony, in the Shadow of Yesterday "Battlestar Galactica in a Dungeon" game we played with Eric and Jen, I deliberately created all the (significant) NPCs after the player-characters were created and in direct response to things the players seemed to be calling for. Thus:

Jen had explicitly said she'd wanted more doomed romance for her character in our last campaign. So I made sure at three different NPCs were desperately attracted to Jen's character, Khaidu. Jen also had her character start as an exile from his barbarian tribe who was an outsider among the other PC's people.
Eric had created a character, Brother Vedis, whose story was all about finding out the mysterious and probably appalling secrets of the magical chalice of which he was the last surviving guardian. So I made sure that two NPCs cared intensely about the chalice. (And a third, the crazed sorcerer guy, had some background on why Vedis's religion was more sinister than he thought, but that never came up much).
You'd created a character, Yoshi, who was all about struggling with the appalling repression -- and internalized self-repression -- of women in the fictional culture. And she had a thing for Khaidu, of course. So besides the NPCs you specifically implied in your character generation (Yoshi's judgmental father and her mentor/seducer), I created characters who mirrored Yoshi's issues of power, powerlessness, family, and love.

Thus I created the characters who became major figures in the story:

Kaina: Yoshi's long-lost sister, a female paladin full of repression and self-denial, instantly crushing on Khaidu even as she wishes he were "civilized." She eventually became a huge deal, immensely intertangled with Jen's Khaidu and effectively "my character" in the story. (Hits Yoshi & Khaidu).

Khan: The freakin' giant tiger of death, Khaidu's rival as an embodiment of aggressive, virile nature, and connected to the Chalice and Yoshi's family history. (Hits Khaidu, and secondarily Vedis & Yoshi).

Archduke Corion and Baron Ran: Corion, the sort-of-rightful claimant to the throne, seeking Vedis' chalice to break the spell that kept him an aged man in a ten-year-old body, with utter contempt for the barbarian Khaidu, and demanding Yoshi's allegiance through his hold over her father, the Baron Ran (whom I'm not listing separately as he was very much your creation and doesn't fit into a discussion of my NPC-creating-method). (Hits Vedis, and secondarily Khaidu & Yoshi).

Arianwe: The witch-queen, powerful and cruel, Yoshi's grandmother -- eternally youthful thanks to hideous magics -- seeking Khaidu's male energy to perpetuate her immortality and wanting her hands on the Chalice for the same unholy purpose. The arch-villainness of the piece. (Hits all three PCs).

There were also two NPCs I created who pretty much fizzled:
Death-Her-Gift: A barbarian princess, a powerful, self-assured woman (in contrast to Yoshi), who was attracted to Khaidu and wanted him to rejoin the tribes. Jen thoroughly rejected this option, and since there was no dilemma or internal tension to exploit, I huffled this NPC off-stage. (Hits Khaidu, not very hard, and secondarily Yoshi).
Talin: Arianwe's son, driven mad by her mistreatment and his own demoniac sorcery, worshipping the dark form of the same deity as Brother Vedis, although I never made that anywhere near clear enough. Everyone thought he was an amusingly grotesque minor villain, but no one really engaged with him. (Sort of hits Vedis, and that's it).

Almost every session of play ended up centering on an encounter with one of these major NPCs and the player-characters' reactions to them.

The only procedure I can distill from what I did was:
1) Each antagonist hits on a protagonist's capital-i Issue, either by mirror-imaging the protagonist's problem or by directly posing a challenge to the character in that area.
2) Each (successful) antagonist hits at least two protagonists' Issues and, ideally, all three.
3) Each antagonist wants something from the protagonists (the great advice from Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard).


Does this give you any useful ideas?

Message 24249#237928

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/26/2007




On 7/27/2007 at 12:38pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

I am mostly interested in things such as sessions centering on an encounter with one of these NPC's.  Similarly I understand you created three potential love interests, but I am interested in how they were introduced into play.  For example were they all known to exist by the player prior to play?  Or did you actively introduce these characters in the course of play, and if so, simultaneously or alternately, what were the other players doing etc.

Message 24249#238006

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/27/2007




On 7/27/2007 at 4:15pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Gareth, good questions. To answer the simpler one first:

There were two major NPCs that were created by the players -- specifically by one player, Tony ("Yoshi"), whose character backstory called for a harsh, distant father and a charming, unscrupulous mentor/seducer. That said, I took those two characters and refined them and played them as my own. Similarly, the central magical MacGuffin of play, the Chalice, was invented by another player, Eric, although he gave me lots of room to invent its true backstory and significance.

Otherwise, all the NPCs were ones I came up with on my own, without knowledge of the players: The first time the players learned about a particular NPC was when their PCs first met or heard about that NPC. This is actually unusual for my group, where we usually thrash out major antagonists and so on collaboratively in the first session; but for this game, with its themes of mystery and rediscovering lost secrets of the past, it fit well.

I created all the major NPCs after our first session of play. What I did was have everyone read a couple pages of setting-and-situation intro, then make up characters collaboratively, and then run a brief game in which all the PCs they had just created were running madly away from the invading Horde to get into the (dubious) safety of the ruined city. I ended that session on them entering the darkened gates.

Then I went home and madly brainstormed appropriate things to be waiting inside. Between that introductory session and the second session, when the PCs actually entered the city, I came up with all six of the NPCs listed in my prior post (although I didn't stat them all up immediately) -- and placed each of them in a different location in the city. I had some control over the order the players would encounter them in, because I put Kaina (for example) in command of another band of refugees just inside the gates, while I put Arianwe and Talin significantly further away; but then again, I thought that Prince Corion's creepy haunted palace would scare them into bypassing it, and they marched right into it at the end of the third session.

Because of the rhythm we deliberately developed during play, at the end of each session I pretty much knew where the player-characters were headed for the next session, so I could prep any additional details I needed of the major NPC located there. Usually, the player-characters arrived at a given location all together -- though sometimes they "split the party," which wasn't too hard to deal with, as I just cross-cut every few minutes between what different players were doing.

Introducing an NPC simply became part of running the location, with minions or magic often guiding the player-characters to the encounter. Usually, the players did not know who the NPC would be -- although by the time they physically got to Arianwe, they had encountered her in visions and, in one case, been possessed by her as a result of a very unwise magical confrontation -- and, conversely, I had no idea of whether the players would want to kill that NPC, collaborate with him/her, or some mix of the two. That's where playing the NPC as "my character" came in. The structure of the game required me to improvise the whole encounter, but it also allowed me to focus on one major NPC at a time.

Message 24249#238021

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/27/2007




On 8/13/2007 at 1:02pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Hi Sidney,

I stopped posting to the prep and NPC's thread because it appeared to have been reduced to just the two of us, which seemed pointless.  I had hoping tyo start a broader discussion.  However I still don't really understand what you were doing from the description given.


There were two major NPCs that were created by the players -- specifically by one player, Tony ("Yoshi"), whose character backstory called for a harsh, distant father and a charming, unscrupulous mentor/seducer. That said, I took those two characters and refined them and played them as my own. Similarly, the central magical MacGuffin of play, the Chalice, was invented by another player, Eric, although he gave me lots of room to invent its true backstory and significance.


So lets say "identified" rather than created, and leave creation meaning full mechanical articulation etc. 


I created all the major NPCs after our first session of play. What I did was have everyone read a couple pages of setting-and-situation intro, then make up characters collaboratively, and then run a brief game in which all the PCs they had just created were running madly away from the invading Horde to get into the (dubious) safety of the ruined city. I ended that session on them entering the darkened gates.


So the first session could be conceived as a period of joint creation plus a brief amount of play, is that fair?  And all NPC's in it were minor or none appeared.

What to you is the difference between a major and minor NPC?

Then I went home and madly brainstormed appropriate things to be waiting inside. Between that introductory session and the second session, when the PCs actually entered the city, I came up with all six of the NPCs listed in my prior post (although I didn't stat them all up immediately) -- and placed each of them in a different location in the city. I had some control over the order the players would encounter them in, because I put Kaina (for example) in command of another band of refugees just inside the gates, while I put Arianwe and Talin significantly further away; but then again, I thought that Prince Corion's creepy haunted palace would scare them into bypassing it, and they marched right into it at the end of the third session.


What I am not getting here is why the players are doing this.  Is this something you have added to an existing play agenda, such that they had to go those places anyway for other reasons?  Or are the other players simply tagging along?  Or is it just the one player doing this, and if so, what are the others doing while this is happening?

Introducing an NPC simply became part of running the location, with minions or magic often guiding the player-characters to the encounter. Usually, the players did not know who the NPC would be -- although by the time they physically got to Arianwe, they had encountered her in visions and, in one case, been possessed by her as a result of a very unwise magical confrontation -- and, conversely, I had no idea of whether the players would want to kill that NPC, collaborate with him/her, or some mix of the two. That's where playing the NPC as "my character" came in. The structure of the game required me to improvise the whole encounter, but it also allowed me to focus on one major NPC at a time.


I find this confusing; if you only designed the NPC's after each session of play, then where the locations pre-designed?  And is what the characters are Doing being driven by these locations, or some private agenda, or by visiting the NPC's?

Message 24249#238851

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/13/2007




On 8/13/2007 at 1:04pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Well, that was meant to be a PM, but seeing there is nothing I can do about that slip of the finger it might as well stay.

Message 24249#238852

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/13/2007




On 8/13/2007 at 11:32pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

I have no problems posting back and forth between the two of us rather than private messaging. I figure someone, somewhere will benefit from our conversation on this topic being concluded in public.

I'm going to tresspass mildly on forum etiquette and do a point-by-point reply:

1.
On "identifying" vs. "creating" an NPC:

The two NPCs that came from the backstory Tony made up for his character (Yoshi) he had described as her authoritarian, rejecting father, a nobleman, and her mentor-turned seducer, a priest of the dominant (and very male-dominated) cult of the setting. I gave them names, stat blocks, and backstory, so the creation was very much a joint effort, with me elaborating on Tony's initial idea.

But I'll still stick to the word "creating" rather than "identifying" for both Tony's role in the process and mine, for two intertwined reasons.

First off, there's clearly a difference in our attitudes towards the reality of the game-world here. "Identifying an NPC" implies some kind of independent existence to the character -- that he or she alreay existed and was simply discovered, or at least had to be there and was extrapolated. That's a central conceit for a certain style of play which prioritizes the imagined reality over all else (it's the "constructive denial" central to "Simulationism," I think), and I think it's essential for your style of play, but it's not for our group. We're very open about "hey, I want to make this thing up!" "Cool! And it should have this detail!" "Yeah!" Our comfort level with this style of play is high because we see the imagined reality not as an end-in-itself but as a means to an end, specifically as a set of tools for putting pressure on our characters to force hard, interesting choices ("narrativist" or "thematic" play).

Second, I want to give the player (Tony in this case) full credit for being the person who actually made up the character in the first place. I just refined and elaborated his initial idea.

2.
Major vs. minor non-protagonist characters

So the first session could be conceived as a period of joint creation plus a brief amount of play, is that fair?  And all NPC's in it were minor....


Exactly.

What to you is the difference between a major and minor NPC?


In my games, a minor NPC is one I introduce for a specific purpose in play -- to fight the protagonists, to mock their heritage, to represent a particular group in the game-world -- and which I don't have any intention of reintroducing later. They may well reappear and take on a life of their own if the players take an interest in them.

A major NPC, by contrast, is built to provide continued pressure to at least one protagonist on some critical issue identified (explicitly or implicitly) as interesting and important by that protagonist's player. A major NPC is one I intend to reintroduce, though they may get shuffled offstage if the players aren't interested. These are the characters I tend to play as "my PC," with long-term goals and motivations of their own.

3.
When I designed what

if you only designed the NPC's after each session of play, then where the locations pre-designed? 


Good question; I wasn't clear enough. Three stages:

i) Before the first session of play -- when we made up characters and did a short introductory adventure -- I had the basic set-up of refugees from a fallen fairy-tale kingdom fleeing an invading horde to a haunted, abandoned capital city, but nothing else. I had the culture and history of the kingdom sketched out in a few pages, to provide character generation material, but nothing about what had caused the collapse of the capital or what the player-characters would find inside it.

ii) After the first session of play, now that I had all the player-characters not only generated but "road tested" with a bit of actual play, I came up with basic ideas for all the major NPCs -- i.e. the continuing characters to pressure various aspects of the protagonists -- and the various major locations within the city where those NPCs were based. I made a map of the city and handed it out to the players, but most of these NPCs weren't finalized with stat blocks yet.

iii) After each session of play -- including the first, but also after every subsequent session -- I would know from what players had just decided where they were heading next, so I went ahead and worked out the details of that location: the major NPC's actual stat block; the major NPC's likely reactions to whatever the players had just done; ideas for minor NPCs (but usually no stats; I improvised these on the spot); and a description for the physical location (in my head, not a written-out text block, let alone a map). Keep in mind I was using Clinton Nixon's The Shadow of Yesterday (which my group and I love), which allows you to define a minor character with one number and a fully-defined character in five minutes, so my prep was very light.

As the campaign progressed, I also elaborated the backstory of the world -- in part in response to player input, in part because I simply hadn't had time to do everything I wanted before the first session. Specifically I wrote up a 12-page mythology of the fallen kingdom's gods and drew a family tree of the old royal line that showed the various PCs and NPCs who were part of it.

4.
Player motivations

This is the crucial one, so I've saved it for last.

What I am not getting here is why the players are doing this [i.e. going from place to place in the city -- SF].  Is this something you have added to an existing play agenda, such that they had to go those places anyway for other reasons?  Or are the other players simply tagging along?  Or is it just the one player doing this, and if so, what are the others doing while this is happening?...And is what the characters are Doing being driven by these locations, or some private agenda, or by visiting the NPC's?


The basic premise (small-p, not speaking GNS jargon here) of the campaign was that the players were the heroes and leaders of a band of refugees desperately seeking safety from the invading hordes in the dubious shelter of the abandoned ancient capital. Everyone signed off on that when I pitched the campaign and the other members of the group agreed to play, and all the players created characters with some reason to care about the refugees' survival.

In play, the players would debate, mostly in-character, with each other and with refugee NPCs (played by me, naturally) about where to take the refugees next and what they needed to do for survival. The first session was merrily railroaded -- they had to flee the Hordes and get into the city by the one surviving bridge -- but, again, everyone had bought on to "we flee to the city" as a premise.

The second session I introduced the pressure of the refugees not having any actual source of food or water, and the players contemplated the map of the city before deciding where to search for it. I had an encounter (with Khan the enchanted giant tiger) planned to show up pretty much wherever they camped for the night; but Tony's character also ended up scouting out a location -- the haunted palace of the old kings -- I hadn't expected anyone to dare yet, and then all the other PCs rushed in after the first one trying to keep her from getting slaughtered. Conveniently, as the player-characters all started up the hill, it was a good time to call it for the night, so I ended play and went home to stat up the major NPC I had already invented for the palace, the cursed Archduke Corion.

By the third session, when they actually went inside the haunted palace, they were off any kind of railroad tracks and operating with zero guidance or nudging from me. Well, except for one case where one of my continuing NPCs, Kaina, had a strong opinion about where to go -- but she lost the argument, which really became less about "where should we go" and much more about "will Jen's character Khaidu accept the leadership of the refugees or refuse it and defer to Kaina?"

Which brings me to the essential point, that all this stuff about "where do we go, how do we survive" was the bones of the story -- the "A-plot," in TV terms -- but the real meat of it, the heart and blood and muscle of it, was the interactions of the players' characters and those NPCs they found most engaging -- the "B-plot." If you've seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you've seen this pattern a hundred times: Sure, the A-plot is "how do we defeat the monsters and save the world," but the B-plot is "how do we deal with our lives as ordinary teenagers under extraordinary stress," and the A-plot exists only to provide structure and pressure for the B-plot.

Here, I think, we come to the critical difference between my style of play and yours. For my group, problem-solving is very much secondary. What matters is not how the protagonists solve problems, but how the protagonists change who they are as a result of the decisions they make. I think this is one indicator (among many other equally valid ones) of "simulationist" versus "narrativist" play.

Message 24249#238881

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/13/2007




On 8/14/2007 at 1:35pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Moderator point: there is nothing wrong with an organized, point-by-point post. In fact, that's what's encouraged. What's discouraged is quoting someone else's post line by line and responding to each one as an independent, picked-apart thing. That almost always leads to vicious and anti-intellectual posting. You haven't done that or anything faintly resembling it, so you are miles and miles away from anything violating my content standards.

Sydney, please, persist in organizing your posts into meaningful points. That's a good thing.

Best, Ron

Message 24249#238900

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/14/2007




On 8/14/2007 at 2:36pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Sydney wrote:
First off, there's clearly a difference in our attitudes towards the reality of the game-world here. "Identifying an NPC" implies some kind of independent existence to the character -- that he or she alreay existed and was simply discovered, or at least had to be there and was extrapolated. That's a central conceit for a certain style of play which prioritizes the imagined reality over all else (it's the "constructive denial" central to "Simulationism," I think), and I think it's essential for your style of play, but it's not for our group. We're very open about "hey, I want to make this thing up!" "Cool! And it should have this detail!" "Yeah!" Our comfort level with this style of play is high because we see the imagined reality not as an end-in-itself but as a means to an end, specifically as a set of tools for putting pressure on our characters to force hard, interesting choices ("narrativist" or "thematic" play).


That was not exactly what I meant, I meant something more like the two step process in first declaring a variable (creating a bucket), and then assigning a value to that variable (putting something in the bucket).  So the distinction I am drawing here is between saying "there is a ships captain" and actually detailing that ships captain.

Could you, for example, decide that despite the player declaring the NPC to have motivation X, wearing your GM hat you decide this is in fact a cunning ruse and the NPC is really motivated by Y?  Who holds the real authorial power over this character?


A major NPC, by contrast, is built to provide continued pressure to at least one protagonist on some critical issue identified (explicitly or implicitly) as interesting and important by that protagonist's player. A major NPC is one I intend to reintroduce, though they may get shuffled offstage if the players aren't interested. These are the characters I tend to play as "my PC," with long-term goals and motivations of their own.


Everything about this strikes me as wrong, intuitively.  If I were invited to participate in a game in which I thought this was likely to occur, I would probably refuse; it strikes me too much as being a game as platform for the GM and their personal interests.

So, what do you think this adds to the games, what use do you find this has?


By the third session, when they actually went inside the haunted palace, they were off any kind of railroad tracks and operating with zero guidance or nudging from me. Well, except for one case where one of my continuing NPCs, Kaina, had a strong opinion about where to go -- but she lost the argument, which really became less about "where should we go" and much more about "will Jen's character Khaidu accept the leadership of the refugees or refuse it and defer to Kaina?"

Which brings me to the essential point, that all this stuff about "where do we go, how do we survive" was the bones of the story -- the "A-plot," in TV terms -- but the real meat of it, the heart and blood and muscle of it, was the interactions of the players' characters and those NPCs they found most engaging -- the "B-plot." If you've seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you've seen this pattern a hundred times: Sure, the A-plot is "how do we defeat the monsters and save the world," but the B-plot is "how do we deal with our lives as ordinary teenagers under extraordinary stress," and the A-plot exists only to provide structure and pressure for the B-plot.

Here, I think, we come to the critical difference between my style of play and yours. For my group, problem-solving is very much secondary. What matters is not how the protagonists solve problems, but how the protagonists change who they are as a result of the decisions they make. I think this is one indicator (among many other equally valid ones) of "simulationist" versus "narrativist" play.


Yes; I thought Buffy was unwatchable shite full of implausible characters and implausible dialogue, and that the main reason for this was the emphasis on the B plot.  That is, it was really a teen highshool soap opera with rubber masks.  IMO, the B plot, as it is usually executed, is invariably execrable: for example, I also was not much moved by the "I am your father, Luke" moment either.  I never could see how that changed anything.  It is the very fact that I have seen it a hundred times, nay a thousand times, that makes me despise it so; it gets to the point that you can largely predict the dialogue and outcome after the first 15 minutes, it is such conventional boiler-plate.

Presumably its a bit less mechanical and predictable when you have real players speaking for the characters, and presumably it will not be so reliant on preaching some little conventional wisdom homily, as these TV programmes invariably do.  But Major NPC's, as you describe them, simply do not exist in my games at all because they have no function to fulfill.  I am aware of the GNS definitions but I was hoping that there might be something that could be generalised or extrapolated from your handling of NPC's to the kind of game I run, but this looks increasingly unlikely if their handling is specifically caused by mode.

There might still be something useful in how you go about designing an NPC for this purpose that I might be able to use, if only from the perspective of giving the players a different type of problem to solve.  I don't really understand what kind of approach you would take for this purpose, so more detail on that action might be valuable.  Do you consciously sit and speculate on what issue is driving a player, and custom-build an NPC that is in some way relevant to that issue?  How often do you guess right, or do you just ask the player? How do you deal with multiple players having multiple issues, do you design them an NPC each?  Do you actively intervene in order to bring these querants on stage, as it were?  It almost seems that your use of NPC's is analogous to my use of locations.

Message 24249#238904

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/14/2007




On 8/14/2007 at 7:01pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Ron wrote: Moderator point: there is nothing wrong with an organized, point-by-point post. In fact, that's what's encouraged. What's discouraged is quoting someone else's post line by line and responding to each one as an independent, picked-apart thing.


Thanks, distinction duly noted. I was just worried I might've quoted too many little bits of Gareth's original post out of context.

Also, Ron, Big Model check on aisle three: Am I using terms like "narrativist" and "constructive denial" right?

Now, to Gareth's questions:

1.
Player-GM cooperation on creating NPCs

contracycle wrote: the distinction I am drawing here is between saying "there is a ships captain" and actually detailing that ships captain. Could you, for example, decide that despite the player declaring the NPC to have motivation X, wearing your GM hat you decide this is in fact a cunning ruse and the NPC is really motivated by Y?  Who holds the real authorial power over this character?


A very good question. In the case of the two characters that arose from Tony's backstory for Yoshi, I fleshed out their motivations and played them, so they were definitely mine. That said, I felt I was responding to very clear requests from Tony as to what he wanted these characters to do, so I thought it would be (a) disrespectful of Tony and (b) self-defeating for me as a GM to go against those requests. If Tony says "motivation X," then I felt it was not permissible for me to say, "no, actually motivation y instead," but I felt not only permitted but encouraged to say, "actually, X plus Y."

Thus, Tony created his character's harsh, authoritarian father, a noble who had believed the (false) accusations that she had lost her virginity before marriage and cast her out of his household in disgrace. I linked this father-character to one of the factions I created in the fallen capital city (that of the cursed Archduke Corion), giving him a strong motivation to kept putting pressure on his daughter to serve that faction's agenda -- which nicely challenged Tony's goal for his character to grow and become independent. I also gave him another, unacknowledged daughter (Kaina) who was loyal and virtuous and virginal, to create family tension and a "mirror, mirror" version of Tony's character for Tony to play against. Lastly, I made the father still, on some level, still love the daughter he had cast out, complicating the relationship and making it hard for Tony to just say, "he's a jerk, she hates him."

Likewise, Tony created his character's former mentor, a priest of the god of the sun, light, rationality, and patriarchy, who had slandered her and ruined her reputation, leading to her being cast out. Tony didn't give this NPC much motivation beyond being a jerk, so I felt free to fill in that the priest (Severus) was actually on a quest to restore the old kingdom, of which Tony's character and her sister were secretly the last heirs (something I made up, not Tony) and was in a weird way trying to protect Tony's character by getting her cast out of her family and into the protection of a religious order. This had the pleasant effect of changing Tony's reaction to this character -- and everyone else's for that matter -- from "you're an insufferable lying bastard who screws with people's lives" to "you're an insufferable lying bastard who screws with people's lives, and what's worst of all you think you're morally justified." It made smacking the guy down particularly satisfying for all the players.

2.
The role of major NPCs

Gareth wrote:
Sydney wrote: A major NPC is one ... I tend to play as "my PC," with long-term goals and motivations of their own.


Everything about this strikes me as wrong, intuitively.  If I were invited to participate in a game in which I thought this was likely to occur, I would probably refuse; it strikes me too much as being a game as platform for the GM and their personal interests. So, what do you think this adds to the games, what use do you find this has?...Do you consciously sit and speculate on what issue is driving a player, and custom-build an NPC that is in some way relevant to that issue?  How often do you guess right, or do you just ask the player? How do you deal with multiple players having multiple issues, do you design them an NPC each?  Do you actively intervene in order to bring these querants on stage, as it were?


Remember, I create these major NPCs directly in response to the players' characters and in service to those characters' agendas, and while they may evolve in play, I try to evolve them to keep pressure on the PCs rather than to go off in their own directions. So when I say these characters have "goals and motivations of their own," it's very much in the mode of the excellent advice from Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard, in that each NPC wants something from the player-characters.

Specifically, Tony's character Yoshi was the disgraced daughter of a noble house; Jen's character Khaidu was a noble barbarian exiled by his own people yet contemptuous of the civilized kingdom; and Eric's character Brother Vedis was the last surviving guardian of a mysterious Chalice. So I created NPCs who hit on the issues of problems-with-authority that both Tony and Jen brought in, and who all wanted the Chalice that Eric had invented:

- The cursed Archduke Corion, too weak to rise from his seat in the abandoned palace, thought he was the rightful heir to the fallen kingdom; he wanted Vedis's chalice to cure him of his curse and he wanted Yoshi and Khaidu to acknowledge his authority.
- The beautiful sorceress Arianwe was Yoshi's grandmother and had her own claim to the throne. She wanted Yoshi to take the throne as her puppet, Khaidu to be her love-slave, and Vedis to give her the magical chalice to strengthen her magically-granted youth and vitality.
- The Sword Virgin (nun/paladin) Kaina turned out to be Yoshi's long-lost sister and, being the eldest, also the legitimate heir to the throne. She started out wanting Yoshi to obey their harsh father and having a huge crush on Khaidu; she ended up joining with Yoshi to reject their father and forcing Khaidu to choose between continuing to live as a free savage or accepting her hand in marriage, making him King.
- The barbarian princess Death-Her-Gift wanted Khaidu to accept her hand in marriage and return to his people as the heir to the Khan. Khaidu rejected her decisively after two sessions and I quietly walked her out of the game.
- The insane sorcerer Talin was Arianwe's bastard son, driven mad by her manipulations, but nobody really cared because I forgot to give him much of anything he wanted from the player-characters except "acknowledge how screwed up I am!" I shuffled him offstage after one session.
- The giant enchanted tiger Khan basically wanted to eat everyone, but he developed a strange respect for the equally savage and virile Khaidu.

None of these NPCs is off trying to conquer the world or whatever. All their desires converge on the player-characters. Thus I'm not dependent on the player-characters wanting to save the world or rescue the princess or complete the quest: No matter what the players do, they're going to run afoul of my NPCs simply by virtue of wanting to do their own thing instead of what the NPCs want them to do.

3.
Creative agenda

thought Buffy was unwatchable shite full of implausible characters and implausible dialogue, and that the main reason for this was the emphasis on the B plot.  That is, it was really a teen highshool soap opera with rubber masks. ... I also was not much moved by the "I am your father, Luke" moment either.  I never could see how that changed anything.


Wow. Because for me, "I am your father" was the point. Without it, you have a pretty cool series of action movies. With it, you have a story about love and identity and redemption and loss. You'd have hated our "Lost City" campaign, Gareth: I explicitly pitched it as "post-apocalyptic soap opera," and who wanted to have sex with Khaidu became one of the driving forces of the plot.

I find it fascinating and enlightening that we've traced our different techniques of how we play all the way back to a radical (literally, at-the-root) difference in the agendas of why we play.

Message 24249#238917

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/14/2007




On 8/14/2007 at 8:54pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

Postscript:

That said, I should emphasize that there are techniques I've discussed that you could use for your own purposes. For example, you could probably adapt the basic concept of "major NPC" as someone who wants something from the player-characters and keeps pressuring them to get it. There's no reason why the things-the-major-NPCs-want have to be personal, emotional, and soap operatic instead of, say, political. If my players had created different protagonists, I'd have created very different antagonists for them -- and in fact, with Eric's Brother Vedis, whose main "issue" was his possession of a mysterious magic Chalice, what I did to pressure him was give different NPCs incompatible desires for what they wanted him to do with the Chalice.

The core of this trick is that the major NPCs don't care about things that are outside of the player-characters' immediate possesion. If the Dark Lord wants to conquer the kingdom, that's because the PCs not merely live in the kingdom, but are the ruling lords thereof; if the Dark Lord wants to destroy the magical macguffin, the PCs aren't merely questing to protect it, they actively depend on it for their own survival.

Message 24249#238921

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/14/2007




On 8/21/2007 at 3:46pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: Play prep and NPC's

An NPC with those sorts of properties would usually fall into the category "villain", but I may be able to think of other ways to use them.

Message 24249#239172

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in Actual Play
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 8/21/2007