Magister <magister@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> One of the disappointing aspects of my GMing is handling non-combat
> interaction with a number of NPCs simultaneously. [combat goes okay]
> If I just dive in and try to do everything, I end up overwhelmed;
> usually most of the NPCs disappear into the woodwork.
What is it you're thinking of? What "everything" is it you try to do?
I can think of many possible answers, but I don't know what it is
you're referring to in particular.
> Excuses for not having this sort of thing in adventures eventually
> wear thin; I'd like to do it, and acceptably, when it's called for.
What types of situation would you like to see that you're not getting
now?
> How can I improve? Here are some of the unsatisfactory things
> I have tried, to avoid or handle such situations:
> 1) avoid two NPCs in the same place -- the game world may be
> sparsely populated with significant NPCs.
I tend to go by this one. The focus should always be on the characters
of the *players*, and the various GM characters are there primarily to
make things happen around the PCs.
That's not to say the NPCs should not be vibrant, independent,
well-imagined characters. It just means that those characters are not
the *point* of the story -- the PCs are.
One primary real-world reason for this is: your players want to be
directly involved in what's happening. If the scene features a lot of
NPCs talking to each other, it's boring for the players -- they came
to interact, not watch the GM's characters perform.
Another reason is that the GM (or, for those fortunate enough, GM plus
helpers who play some NPCs) is ****traying many different characters
anyway. Unless you have the skills of a professional bard from
pre-literature history, you likely don't have the skills necessary to
keep all those characters distinct in the minds of the players. It's
hard enough for the players to imagine the situation when there are
*no* NPCs present, let alone several talking to each other all from
the one mouth at the table.
> 2) making the PCs relative outsiders -- so NPCs who interact with
> them prefer to do so discreetly or one-on-one; no parties at the
> duke's castle.
Parties at the duke's castle are fine, so long as the players have a
few memorable interactions and don't get bored by long descriptions of
NPCs interacting without their involvement.
> 3) don't have NPCs join the party -- unless they can be played by
> one of the players, which limits the kinds of NPCs who can be active
> in the party.
Yes, a GM-played character in the party is often a recipe for all
kinds of unbalanced play.
> 4) preplanning scenes with many NPCs -- but the PCs can throw this
> off by butting in with something unexpected.
If the players aren't going to be involved in the interaction, why
play it out? Summarise the salient points, and only play out any
interactions with the PCs.
> 5) canned NPC responses -- the NPCs follow a few preplanned
> types of responses, with default responses (usually brush-offs)
> if none of them fit.
I use a variant of this. Rather than a canned response or a brush-off,
I always try to figure out what every NPC would rather be doing right
now. The interaction will then go on only as long as the players are
having fun, and the NPC would reasonably stick around.
When the players clearly have had enough of interacting with the NPC,
that's my cue for the NPC to make their excuses and get on with their
day.
> 6) recruit a player to handle the NPCs for the short term -- this
> has usually worked out badly, and I don't generally have extra
> players available.
Agreed.
> For longer term actions, I track PC and NPC actions on a grid;
> every day/week/game session the PCs spend doing stuff, all of
> the active NPCs choose some activity, and I mark milestones for
> the NPCs (completing something that is likely to affect the PCs,
> usually) so that I don't forget about the NPCs who are out of
> sight.
If the NPC doesn't have to respond immediately during the play
session, then one thing that can work is to enlist someone who doesn't
come to the session, and may not even be known to any of the players,
to play the part of an NPC by deciding their actions as you describe
above. This has the significant benefits of sharing the workload, and
getting some pretty interesting ideas for NPC actions that you would
likely not have thought up yourself.
> Suggestions (and criticisms) welcome.
Recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the medium. A table-top RPG
is strong on player interaction, and weak on synaesthetic passive
multimedia. You don't have access to the months-long writing and
editing processes, nor the cut-and-dried story and dialogue, nor the
plethora of highly-trained actors and wardrobe and makeup, nor the
synchronous visual and audial effects, of TV or movies. All of these
indicate you should not focus on things that involve many secondary
characters together in the foreground at once.
What you do have access to is your prepared notes, a few props, and
the collective imagination of your group of players, acting the roles
of the main protagonists. Use the fact that everyone is present and
encouraged to use their imagination to manipulate the outcome of the
scenes involving their characters. Don't kill it off by having complex
character interactions played out in the foreground that don't
directly focus on the PCs.
--
\ "Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few |
`\ in pursuit of the goal." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
|
