Quote from: RedFoxTo see what I want to get at, scroll up quite a ways and look at Silverlion's post.  I want that.  Interesting NPCs that work fine outside of the context of "the plot" or "the action" and really draw the PCs into caring about them.

I should have just asked you which response you found to your liking  

Silverlion, tell us how you do it .

Regards,
David R

@John Morrow

I'm looking through your response and I think we are talking way crosswise here....again. I'm not talking about your table and it seems like you are talking about your table (Which sounds like a rocking LARP-Lite manbreast grabfest :win: ....I jest, I jest!), and reading my stuff from that POV too. It looks like it's really getting some stuff crossed up so you find some things personally insulting? *shrug* Ain't my intention.

Anyway, I really have to go now. So long everyone and goodbye ..... *waves*

Quote from: David RI should have just asked you which response you found to your liking  

Silverlion, tell us how you do it .

Regards,
David R

I introduce them into play usually through "events" (from being victims, to getting caught up in the same line waiting to register for school, to being thrust together in whatever weird situation happens along.). Then I have them act like, well people. Different personalities, different goals and dreams, and levels of patience. I also sometimes twist expectations up. For example the "smart" member of a pair of Twin Creesh (Catperson) girls is the one who has problem with magic and actively expressed her worry about the "magic test" required to decide who teaches them and how much work they'll have to do.  

I've got characters who flirt shamelessly, a character who is shy and blushing,one who has lost a child and mourns still for that loss---in short, I try and have them face the same emotional possibilities as the players in game, on screen. That gives them common ground, and common connections. I also try and watch the players reactions and give them a chance to shape their connection to the other characters.

For example: In my OVA (Uresia Setting, Majestic Wing Excelsior Campaign), Hadric is a well known prankster whose in training to be a Gryphon-Knight along with the PC's. He doesn't take a whole lot seriously. But one of the PC's entrusted him with a quite precious task--watching the "Gryphon Egg" they'd earned during one of their past tests, and are expected to treat almost as a baby. What will the prankster do? How will he act to have been given a degree of rather exceptional trust, in spite of his past behavior?  

I know what he'll do because I've thought about several core bits to every NPC's persona: What matters to them, How will they achieve their goals, and what are they willing to risk for those goals?

I also don't just run 'adventures', admittedly I LOVE excitement and adventure, but a lot of those seat of the pants trying make it through and live, doesn't give time for exploring the emotional connections between characters in the game. So I sometimes have moments where they explore, in part, mundane things--from helping the alcoholic chef who once dreamed of being a master alchemist out when he's passed out and left things unfinished in the kitchen, to simple study time where the interact and talk. Or playing out scenes where they simply have a meal together, with all the noise, mad conversations, and tensions of sitting across the table from a love interest, or  at an adjacent table to an enemy.

I try, in short to make use time to build upon the people, and make them interesting and entertaining, and most of all, I remember that they CAN change.

Am I any good at doing it? I don't know. But I do try to remember what makes fun TV shows, fun books, fun comic books and try and keep those bits in mind when I create scenes for my games.

Keeping to older games here, since some of the newer stuff I've been playing puts this in from the beginning:

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Not very at the beginning, but they quickly get more and more so until they become one of the central features of play. Most of my players, even those who are focused on combat, get interested in NPCs, so I bring them back for more, and then they're recurring, and they sometimes become friends or lovers, and this becomes pretty central over time.

2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

No.

3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

No. (Except when I play games like the one reviewed in my sig.)

Quote from: SilverlionI know what he'll do because I've thought about several core bits to every NPC's persona: What matters to them, How will they achieve their goals, and what are they willing to risk for those goals?

You make your NPCs with the same level of depth you want to get out of your PCs.  You make your setting, so the PCs are part of more than just a place.

Quote from: John MorrowFor a hobby full of people convinced that they are more imaginative than the general population, we all (myself included) seem to have trouble imagining other people doing things that we can't do.  We'd rather believe that something is impossible than accept that someone else can do something that we can't.

I don't think I'm more imaginative (or intelligent, for that matter) than the average person, taking all aspects of intelligence and imagination into consideration. There are plenty of playstyles I can understand others enjoying, even if I don't, though some stuff like the deep immersion you describe just flummoxes me - but no more than that people enjoy golf, for example.

Doesn't mean I go around writing abuse to golfers, though. Not understanding =/= "my hat know no limit!"

Quote from: JimBobOzDoesn't mean I go around writing abuse to golfers, though. Not understanding =/= "my hat know no limit!"

Your hat encompasses the universe? Damn, that's quite the sombrero!

Quote from: blakkieThere has just been a evolving and refining proccess of RPGs so they are being written the way they have actually been used. That the rules are implementing much closer to a practical usable form what often took years of experience and distilling some abstract essays (and then only hit and miss, but sometimes faster for a few gifted people). For example ditching that oft not used NPC reaction table for a more functional and useful replacement form.  That we are seeing games that are a more natural fit for different purposes.

The problem is that the way RPGs have "actually been used" varies from group to group.  And while I think there are some great general ideas and advice embedded in may of these games, once you wrap a bunch of rules around them and make them mandatory or express them in the context of a single situation, they stop being optional or adaptable.

Quote from: blakkieSo RPGs aren't like a cross between a jigsaw puzzle and Ikea furniture (sans assembly instructions) requiring a crapload of assembling just to get it functioning.

The problem with both of those analogies is that they can build only one thing (you can solve the puzzle and build the chair).  A better analogy is a pile of lumber and a woodworking toolkit.  And if you want to add cushions, maybe you'll need to buy or make those yourself.

Quote from: blakkieOh sure there are people that would like taking a few days to assemble a chair. A sizable percentage of the people here likely. Past products tends to weed out those that don't put up with that sort of thing.

To a degree, that's correct.  But by that measure, most people don't want to create stories, either.  They want to read or watch them, which is why there are many more people who read novels and watch movies than there are who write novels and make movies.  If you really want to reach a broader audience, wouldn't appealing to and improving the much-maligned GM who imposes a story on his or her players be the way to go rather than trying to turn everyone at the table into a storyteller, assuming that they are all frustrated GMs looking for a piece of the action?

Quote from: blakkieBut you don't think there are a lot of people out there that upon buying a chair would just like a fucking chair to sit their ass in? Or at least a chair you can put together in 10 minutes or less. Lower the barrier!

Yes, but now I have that one chair.  If I want something else, I have to buy a different chair.  If I don't like that chair, I'm out of luck.  I haven't learned how to build chairs.  I've learned to use a chair I've been given, that's been crafted to be used only one correct way.

At that point, we aren't talking about an evolution or development but about something entirely different.

Quote from: blakkieThe really kickass good news is that at least some of the people that got turned off come blazing back, and bring new customers with them, when you address some of the worst of the problems that drove them off and then get the word out about fixing it.

Have you read the explanations that I posted elsewhere, from Ryan Dancey, where he explains how D&D 3e brought people back?  It has almost nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Quote from: blakkieIf D&D 3e and more recently SR4 showed anything it was that.

D&D 3e is still a pile of lumber and a set of instructions.  The advice is better and the tools a little nicer, but that's still what it is.  It doesn't force you to go dungeon delving or play a certain type of game.  Yes, it's designed with certain assumptions about how people play, but it doesn't force you to adopt those assumptions, nor does it even explain all of them.

Quote from: blakkieOh, and a nice wide variety of chairs too. Chairs of all sort and shapes and sizes. That'd be nice I think. Even of the types I don't like much! (but I'll play too sometimes, like I'll listen to country music when I'm in the right mood)

Yes, but instead of having that single pile of lumber and instructions, you need to buy a new chair every time you want something different.  There is a reason why universal systems gained a certain amount of popularity.  At least two decades ago, people got sick of having to learn a whole new set of rules just to play a game in a different setting or genre, thus the idea of universal systems was born.  Now we've come full circle and have people creating games not only for one particular setting or genre but one particular situation.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Player: Less than zero; they get in the way of the job, which is what I'm doing when I'm at the table.  Save that for the shared-world writing forums, where that stuff actually matters.  So long as there are no alignment fights, I don't care.

GM: Don't care; that's defined by the players.  They wanna play Little Keep on the Borderlands?  Fine by me.  I can roll with that.

Quote2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

Hell yes they do!  Table time = Action Time; downtime at the table is To Be Avoided/Minimized.  Talk less, hack more.

Quote3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

In absolute terms, no.  In practical terms, yes.  I'll go no further in defining a relationship in legal terms than necessary.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?
I think relationships have always been very important to me (they were in my original primary source material), and I've just got better over time at using them.

2. Do these relationships get in the way of the "action"?
I find that question almost meaningless. I guess that clumsy attempts to insert 'relationship stuff' into an action-adventure game might feel a bit out of place; like when you see Van Damme try to act romantic.

3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?
That depends on the game.