I've noticed in many a game that there tend to be a significant number of 'named NPC' types floating around, even if they are not statted up.  I'm not adverse to this in general, but it can be problematic.  

Let's take a game like Noblis. Doesn't have to BE Noblis, mind you... just one about Godlike characters who fill niches in reality.  Noblis just works well for the purpose of discussion.

Am I the only one who has noticed that all the 'easy' concepts tend to already filled by the designer?   Just to head Grimgent off at the Past 'In Nomine' tended to do this to.   I can just picture character creation with a bunch of players...

GM: Okay, you guys are Gods, (angels, whatever), and you represnt facets of reality... got it?

Joe Player: Great. Can I be... Death? yeah, death sounds cool, I can totally work with that.

GM: Sorry, Joe. Death is like a Major Archon, in fact you guys will be working for his nemesis.. no, not life, she's this other character....

Joe: Crap, what about Treachery? Can I be Treachery?

GM: Sorry, that NPC is already made up too.

Joe: Fuck a duck! What is left, man?!!!

GM:... Hmmm... well, I haven't seen a God of Pencil Eraser Dust yet.

Joe: Whatever. I'm going for pizza, see you later dude.





I've seen it in Superhero games too. Huge swaths of potential names and concepts already listed, even if not actually Statted.  Its not like superhero names are hugely complex, Spiderman anyone?  If you name a character 'Blue Devil' you risk some Player character having to be second fiddle with his 'Red Devil' or perhaps 'Blue Dragon' or what have you. Comic Books already have a huge chunk of names squatted on, don't add to the mess by populating your world.

What do I mean? What about Abberant with the signature character of 'the Fireman'.  I can totally see a Player going for a simple, evocative name like that.  Oops... never mind, he's running for president.

Now, names like "Divis Mal' are far less problematic. Or squatting on the God of pencil eraser Dust. Very few, if any, players are going to try to come up with shit like that.  

From a design spectrum I can see that easy names, easy concepts are... well... easier to come up with. But! Why do you need to lay down eight hundred NPC's for the players in the first place???

Just don't do it. Leave the simple NPC names alone.  If you gotta force players into 'unique world niches' leave the niches as open as possible.

Quote from: SpikeLet's take a game like Noblis. Doesn't have to BE Noblis, mind you... just one about Godlike characters who fill niches in reality.  Noblis just works well for the purpose of discussion.

Actually, Nobilis makes it clear that the NPCs in the book are simply examples, and that the choices made by the players should always come first. If there's a genuine conflict for some reason, the GM can divide the Estate between several characters, just as Destruction is shared by the angel Za'afiel (whose dominion is benevolent destruction which clears the way for new creations) and Lord Entropy (who rules permanent destruction from which nothing can ever recover).

By the way, there's no canonical Power of Death in the game, and it's apparently one of the more popular PC concepts out there.

Quote from: GrimGentActually, Nobilis makes it clear that the NPCs in the book are simply examples, and that the choices made by the players should always come first. If there's a genuine conflict for some reason, the GM can divide the Estate between several characters, just as Destruction is shared by the angel Za'afiel (whose dominion is benevolent destruction which clears the way for new creations) and Lord Entropy (who rules permanent destruction from which nothing can ever recover).

By the way, there's no canonical Power of Death in the game, and it's apparently one of the more popular PC concepts out there.

Grim, I realize that my examples were somewhat spurious just as I realized you'd come in to reflexively defend your beloved game... notice the shout out I gave you in the OP...

Here is the thing: It doesn't matter if the 'game belongs to the players' or 'these NPC's are only examples' or even if an Estate can be divided. People tend to look at stuff written down as 'more relevant' that shit they come up with themselves.  It's the 'appeal to higher authority' principle in action.  Higher authority tends to be viewed as infallible, or at least mostly so.

Thus players will tend naturally to feel somewhat inferior to the 'canon' NPC's that are provided, regardless of wether or not the text says they are only examples.

Nor was my post meant to lambast Noblis, which may be the least offensive of the bunch.  Its the principle of the thing, not the thing itself...

Hmm, there aren't that many games where you personify something. In other game, the Big Name guys are at least a nice target for players to have. "One Day I'll take Lhaeos place in Elminsters heart!". Erm. Or something.

In Nomine at least partially has this, where the angels and demons attempt to be assosiated with a 'Word'.  To illustrate just how stiff competition for Words can be, the only published adventure I have read for it essentially revolved around an NPC demon attempting to become the Demon of Rock and Roll.

In other words, there is a shortage of Words to go around, good luck picking on for your character to try an 'embody'.

Noblis got picked on because there you actually START as the embodiment of something.  I'm reasonably certain I've seen others.

But it wasn't a 'genre' fight. I got Supers in my sights.

Guys like Elminster and whatnot are a whole seperate beef.  Nobody I know would get bummed out because their entire concept just went out the window because there is an NPC named Elminster already.  

I think it's Mutants and Masterminds that had a super called Minotaur. That I can just see some player trying to say 'but, this is MY character called Minotaur... from the greek myths and shit...' complete with :confused:  over his head....

Quote from: SpikeThus players will tend naturally to feel somewhat inferior to the 'canon' NPC's that are provided, regardless of wether or not the text says they are only examples.

They shouldn't, at least with Nob. The freedom of the group to pick whichever Estates they want and at the same time create their Imperator is one of the cornerstones of the chargen system. It's all part of the whole "player empowerment" deal: they get to choose who their characters are, and whom they serve, and where they live. And as yet another solution, since the PCs are expected to have the power to go against Lord Entropy, Lucifer or even the Creator if the players so decide (although Borgstrom once remarked that she recommends this "more for the conclusion of a campaign than for a random encounter"), they might conceivably take over the Estates of canonical NPCs later on.

Grim:

Please, let go of your reflexive defense mechanisms for once. You are making me very sad by refusing to let go of the idea that you must stand for the honor of Noblis against any and all challengers.


It doesn't matter what the intent of the writer is, or even much what the book actually says on the subject. What matters is how people, particularly large groups of generic people (as compared to the undoubtedly, but specificaly individual counterexamples you are probably prepared to give...) wind up playing it.

It doesn't matter that the Treachery dude is only used in example, for the prepackaged adventure or what not. He exists and is named. Any player wanting to play 'treachery' must now face the fact that every other person who has read the book has a preconcieved notion who 'Treachery' is. This makes the PC Treachery a 'poor replacement' at best and an outright copycat/fraud at worst.  It's fundamentally an issue of psychology. The NPC was there first, he's got first dibs. The book/author is the authority of the setting, and thus more valid than the player's idea.  Different people will react different ways to the sense of inferiority to the 'canon'.

It's better, then, to just NOT DO IT. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, official book NPC's have a sense of primacy.  If you DO need official NPC's then do your damnedest to make them as un-PC squashing as possible.

Which no one, certainly not Borgstrom, does.

Quote from: SpikeIf you DO need official NPC's then do your damnedest to make them as un-PC squashing as possible.

But then there's a chance that you'll end up with a world ruled by the Grand Sovereign of Limp Noodles, which could be terribly damaging for the atmosphere that the game is trying to evoke... Pretty much the only other option would be to provide no sample NPCs at all, since for every concept there's at least one player somewhere who would like to claim it as her own.

I don't quite get the alternative. Leave examples right out? Create some rather silly NPCs just to keep PCs safe? More than anything else, existing _comic books_ will "destroy" the ideas of the players. In the decades since Action comics #1, almost every concept has been done. Not very good most of the time.

This is true for most other endeavors, too. Frantically trying to be original is the path to the Indy Side, young padawan...

Ah, but the current atmosphere is this: In Deadlands the main 'Big Bad Uber NPC' of all was named...


Stone.


That's right, Stone. A common, simple name that anyone could take. Unless they were playing in a Deadlands Setting, where it was highly probable someone at the table would accuse them of stealing the name from the Big Bad.  

I think a couple of the other NPCs had similar, simple names too, like Raven and such.   Not crippling, but damned annoying.

Besides, I'm not entirely certain why you need to name the grand poobah of the setting. Or why a game like Noblis, of all the games out there, even needs a 'Grand Poobah' NPC catagory? I mean, aren't the PC's supposed to be fakkin' Gods? Why not go all out and let them actually be... you know... in charge, instead of somebodies flunkies.


Yes, I know why, in the setting as written, they are flunkies. My point, Grim, is that there is nothing else in the setting or rules that makes this necessary. If any setting should allow PC's to be absolute, unfettered rulers of all they survey... by DEFAULT... it should be Noblis, where they fakkin' embody reality itself.

Sadly, I know you will just come back with some reflexive defense again about how you could certainly play it that way without violating anything... except the way the damn book was written! Le Sigh.

Quote from: SosthenesI don't quite get the alternative. Leave examples right out? Create some rather silly NPCs just to keep PCs safe? More than anything else, existing _comic books_ will "destroy" the ideas of the players. In the decades since Action comics #1, almost every concept has been done. Not very good most of the time.

This is true for most other endeavors, too. Frantically trying to be original is the path to the Indy Side, young padawan...

Actually, Sos: I think the answer is trivially simple: Stop trying to populate the entire universe with every NPC known to man. You don't need dozens of named PC style NPC's running around. You really don't need any. Its A-Ok to simply state 'there are hundreds of costumed heroes running around' without naming a single, solitary one.  

not that anyone ever tries that... which is the damn point. Instead they suck up all the easy names populating their world and leave players struggling to make the 'Lord of Limp Noodles' seem cool, or having a character named 'The Fireman' not be overshadowed by the NPC presidential candidate of the same name.

EDIT::: Comic books, at least, have the advantage of normally being in a different universe, thus not necessarily Canon to the setting.  Obviously the most commonly known heroes are verboten under pain of shame (spiderman, ferex), not that that stops people.... but the fact that 50 years ago there was a superhero (or three or four) who had the name 'The Minotaur' probably wouldn't affect 99.9% of most superhero playing PC's.  Out of sight, out of mind. IN SETTING characters are never either.

Quote from: SpikeIf any setting should allow PC's to be absolute, unfettered rulers of all they survey... by DEFAULT... it should be Noblis, where they fakkin' embody reality itself.

Because sheer omnipotence from the very beginning, without any opposition or obstacles to overcome, is dull. Which would you prefer to play, and which would make for a better game: the PC as God who can cause absolutely anything to happen with a passing thought, or the PC as a man who is given a taste of divinity and begins to scheme in order to overthrow God?

Quote from: SpikeActually, Sos: I think the answer is trivially simple: Stop trying to populate the entire universe with every NPC known to man. You don't need dozens of named PC style NPC's running around. You really don't need any. Its A-Ok to simply state 'there are hundreds of costumed heroes running around' without naming a single, solitary one.

Reducing the number of named suspects just decreases the likelihood of collisions. It still sucks if the _one_ example NPC left there is your character concept. And it makes for a pretty bland setting, i.e. no setting at all. This is okay for a generic, DIY game, but if you want to implement at least the very traces of a common world, you'll get some overlap in character concepts.

Again, not a big problem, just start your own world. Then you'll reduce the collision to about the same level of annoyance as pre-existing movie and comic book characters.

I'd rather have a setting with some flavor and examples that show the imagination of the designers, than a gray wall of generality for fear of annoying someone. Obviously our mileages vary here. I can play a pseudo-celtic Barbarian who sneers at civilization without copycat angst. Fuck Conan.

Quote from: GrimGentBecause sheer omnipotence from the very beginning, without any opposition or obstacles to overcome, is dull. Which would you prefer to play, and which would make for a better game: the PC as God who can cause absolutely anything to happen with a passing thought, or the PC as a man who is given a taste of divinity and begins to scheme in order to overthrow God?

I thought that was the role of the Execrucians: To give the PC's something to do while they were busy being somebodies flunky.

Never mind the fact that there is still room for 'equally powerful but opposed' NPC's there.  As it stands, as written, the PC's are generally the least powerful immortal types around, having to work their way up in power levels to challenge the NPC's that lord over them...


Hmm... sounds sort of D&D ish to me there, chief. :raise:



Sos: I get where you are coming from, really I do, but there are options other than blandness.  Aberrant, for example: The Fireman could have remained 'Randal Porter' without the 'fireman' name and not made the setting dull. There are plenty of NPC's with very low thresholds of 'PC likelihood' all over them. Divis Mal, while otherwise ultra annoying, has the simple benefit of having a name that is not much different than an otherwise random collection of sylibuls. Caestus Pax isn't much worse in that regards.  Even Mephistophicales takes the combination of a vaguely unlikely name and giving it a more or less unique twist... you can go 'oh cool' while also saying 'I wish I could have thought of that' instead of 'Damn, there goes my idea'.

Then you have things like 'Superbeast'... a throwaway NPC, who by dint of repition is almost unavoidable. There are almost as many bad examples of NPC names, usually the more minor sideshow characters, as there are good NPC examples.

A setting is not made up of NPC's, or at least not entirely. It's made of history, geography and even organizations... all things highly unlikely to squash a PC's concept into the ground like a bug.  

Let's say you want your setting to have a mysterious masked figure who has righted wrongs for hundreds of years from the shadows.  Mysterious, named, with vaguely defined powers.  You can have that... but once you start detailing the current incarnation (assuming it's a passed down mantle thing...) you start taking away from the Players ability to work within the setting. You've stopped adding and started taking away.

Not the best example, but I work with what little I've got.:what:

EDIT::: reducing collisions is the entire point.  You can't reduce any probability to zero... Somewhere there is a guy who will pick up Abberant and go 'wait, I have a character all made up for Champions named Divis Mal, the first Mutant,a gay dude from the 1930's pulp era.... what the fuck, man?'

6.6 billions humans makes it so....

Quote from: SpikeI thought that was the role of the Execrucians: To give the PC's something to do while they were busy being somebodies flunky.

Never mind the fact that there is still room for 'equally powerful but opposed' NPC's there.  As it stands, as written, the PC's are generally the least powerful immortal types around, having to work their way up in power levels to challenge the NPC's that lord over them...

The Excrucians are one potential source of entertaining conflicts, certainly, although by no means the only one. But it's up to the players to decide whether their characters are in fact "flunkeys": remember that they create their own Imperator in every detail, while the other higher powers have no true authority over them (with the exception of the Council of Four and the Locust Court if they are caught breaking Entropy's Laws). If the players declare that their lord and master lies in a cursed slumber, only to awaken once every hundred years, that's their right. The PCs can be pitiful slaves driven to pointless tasks by a sadistic fiend, or they can be the de facto regents of the Chancel whose reign goes unchallenged on every occasion, or they may be the valued companions of an amiable god who feels privileged to help them in whatever way they might require: either way, that choice belongs to the players.

Also, all the Noble NPCs are built more or less on the same scale as the player characters and are their equals in power. For instance, while Arikel is the reason why night even exists in the first place, he's explicitly an example of a potential PC. Then again, you could say the same about every sample profile.

The PCs can aspire to become gods, to rule worlds, to create new universes. Sure. But none of that comes easily. Getting there is the fun bit.