Game WISH #71
Thanks to Arref for picking up the slack with a two-parter on this one.
For GMs: when you plan or play your NPCs, do you intentionally leave out some of the story for each? Do you hold something back and let the Players imagine the rest or do you present NPCs from the core of who they are? Is time a factor–a short game or one-shot not allowing much character depth? Does NPC expertise shine through? Or are there character foibles that cloud the better qualities of the NPC? Are there short-cuts to get this across?
Normally, for major NPCs, I start with an outline of a background, and fill in the details as necessary. I like to make players work at finding things out, whether it’s about each others’ characters, the NPCs, or information in game. My minor NPCs tend to be very sketchy, which did come back to bite me in the Grand Ellipse, when Shirley recognized Thug #3 as a former client, and I had to come up with an explanation for his presence both in London and in the current situation PDQ. Thank goodness it was PBeM! As for NPC-expertise shining through, I think it should, but not in a way that’s forced. Going back to the Grand Ellipse, one of the major NPCs (Esperanza, who is a native Spanish-speaker) turned out to be a linguistic prodigy. However, she’d been with the relevant PCs for several weeks (game time) before she surprised them by speaking fluently in the local language at the train station in Madras (after listening to several native speakers on the train for a week or so). I tried to lead up to revealing her talent by having her learn English very quickly, and diminishing her accent rapidly (and that’s not easy to do in writing!). As for the last two questions they relate qute nicely; character foibles are a great way to indicate to your players that all may not be as it seems.
For Players: Do you rely on the NPC as presented, or are you usually looking “between the lines” to figure the elements that are hold-backs? Do you care that the NPCs might have as many conflicted qualities as the PCs? Should a game really revolve around the PCs in every respect, including a certain ‘artificial’ quality to the secondary cast? Or are you happier if the NPCs are ’sticky’?
Because of the way I operate when I run a game, I would be disappointed if the major NPCs were as simple as they’re presented. Good NPCs ought to be well-rounded, and surprise the players every now and again. Relegating an NPC to secondary cast is a mistake, I think, because they are very much the medium through which the GM steers the game. They can be just as important–or even more important–than the characters. As a player, I prefer not to feel as if the world revolves around the PCs, unless they are sufficiently powerful that it would follow logically.
Powered by FireStats