When I GM, I usually prep an NPC with a personality drawn in broad strokes, some things they want to achieve themselves, and some things that they want the PCs to do.

I sort of suspect that many GMs write up something roughly like that (in addition to any system-specific work they have to do) ... enough of a notion of the personality to roleplay the NPC without making up everything from whole cloth on the spot.

What I'm interested in, in this thread, is what happens to this stuff when the NPC gets into contact with the PCs.

Personally, my NPCs are pretty mutable:  PC words and actions can have me scribbling all over my index cards, so that I make sure I don't forget "Okay, this guy no longer wants vengeance, he's seeking justice," and other changes to the personality.  After just a little bit of play, the world and its important people are covered with the fingerprints of PC intervention.

I've also played with people who have entirely different takes:  for instance, a GM who set up iconic personality that were as untouchable and fixed in their courses as the constellations in the sky.  He made it work great, building up layer upon layer of familiarity, so that we could recognize familiar configurations ("Oh, they're at it again!") and navigate the landmarks of personality to achieve our own goals.

Having seen those disparate styles (and more) I'm pretty sure that this is a matter of taste thing.  I'm interested ... how do you play your NPCs reactions to PC action, and what techniques do you have to make that into fun for everyone?

I tend to pretty well see an NPC as nothing more than a tool.  A prop, a plot device, etc.

Players are spectacualrly unpredictable when it comes to how they'll react to an NPC, so really, the best way to deal with it is just let the NPC fill the immediate role you need him for, and see what happens from there.

In other words, don't get attached.  Getting attached to an NPC has a habit of leading to GMPCs, and those jsut piss the players off.

Instead, let the players get attached to whom they will, and react accordingly.

NPCs are one of the most important components in a game apart from the PCs themselves. As such, you have to create a diversity of types for the players to interact with. Some will be intractable and/or unimaginative in reacting to PCs and so will be pretty immutable, whilst others are very changeable. It's not only individual NPCs that have to be changeable, the GM has to be, in making up a cast of supporting characters that will keep players interest. It's no great fun if every NPC reacts with great intelligence and perfect memory to everything that has gone before, just as it isn't if the PCs actions have no effect on any NPCs in the game. Just like most things, it's a balencing act.

So i guess i'm saying, some are and some aren't.

Moderately mutable.  Some NPCs that I create, that I have a clear idea in mind for, may not survive contact with the characters.  My voice or characterization might be off, the players may make entertaining assumptions, or the characters behavior towards the NPC may be so extreme that it results in my rewriting the NPC on the fly.

Quote from: TonyLBI've also played with people who have entirely different takes:  for instance, a GM who set up iconic personality that were as untouchable and fixed in their courses as the constellations in the sky.  He made it work great, building up layer upon layer of familiarity, so that we could recognize familiar configurations ("Oh, they're at it again!") and navigate the landmarks of personality to achieve our own goals.

Yeah, I'm more of this type of GM. I create NPCs who are pretty well defined but "change" maybe, through the course of the campaign because of their interactions with the PCs.

The thing is, it's very important for my NPCs to evolve through the duration of the campaign, because experience has taught me, that's what players find interesting.

Regards,
David R

When my players discovered that they had actually converted a spymaster from a neighboring kingdom to their cause (something completely not in my conception of things when they met him), they almost wet themselves with surprise and joy.  One actually did, but he's excitable anyway.

It's so helpful for me with player buy-in for me to open that particular window of possibility.  Makes it more exciting, too.

I was actually thinking about this during tonights game. My NPC's personality's change the minute they first meet the PC's and it's all dependant on the mood of the game at the time. It's very reactive to what the players want but as long as I keep the NPC's purpose in mind it's a lot more fun than trying to act out a written personality. This actually cuts to the core of my beliefs about characters, they're what they do not what you say they are.

Does any of that make sense?

63%

I'm really quite doubtful any of us has such a consistent approach to NPC design and portrayal that it's meaningful to talk in the abstract about how PCs and game events influence NPCs without reference to anything else, like the game being played, the social dynamics of the group, the characters of the PCs, and the importance of the NPCs to the story.

Okay, I kinda of have a system that I have used for the past couple of years when it comes to PC/ NPC interactions

Basically I rate the relationship between the PC and NPC on a scale of 1 -10. The first time the pc meets the npc it's a 5 - indifference. (Note: Some relationships begins with hostility) Depending on how the encounter plays out I either subtract or add 1 point to the scale, which reflects how the npc views the pc. Normally these are roleplaying encounters and sometimes not necessarily civil ones.

But, just bcause the encounter is hostile does not necessarily mean that the npc in question views the pc with hostility, in other words it does not mean I subtract a point from the scale. The encounter may have been hostile but, the npc (because of his well defined personality) admires a quality that the pc has.

Now, when it comes to the crunch, those make or break situations where the relationship between the pc and npc determines the outcome of a particular event, I tally up the score, and see how, the npc views towards the pc has changed (if at all) over the course of their interactions.

I tend to have a large cast of NPCs, and I've found that this method keeps everything in perspective. Also it's cool, because sometimes, the PC is unaware that a NPC has a positive view of her because their interactions have not been civil, but when the NPC helps out another character and it's pretty obvious he does so, because of his attitude towards this pc, it makes everyone a little more aware of the complexcity of the characters they interact with.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBasically I rate the relationship between the PC and NPC on a scale of 1 -10. The first time the pc meets the npc it's a 5 - indifference. (Note: Some relationships begins with hostility) Depending on how the encounter plays out I either subtract or add 1 point to the scale, which reflects how the npc views the pc. Normally these are roleplaying encounters and sometimes not necessarily civil ones.

I like that idea. I think I'll borrow it when I start running again.(I'll send
you a nickel royalty each game I use it in.)

I have two types of NPCs.  'Main Characters' and 'Supporting Cast' types.

MC are the ones who are there regardless of whether or not the PCs interact
with them or not. i.e. Strahd or Azalin  in Ravenloft. These along with others
that I develop usually don't change much upon meeting the PCs (although they
might act differently infront of the PCs.)

SC are the ones most subject to change. If they visit the npc once, I tend to
forget about them( a cobbler they visit once and never return to the areas he
is in) But most SC will be around for at least a few appearances. Sometimes
the PCs will latch onto a SC so hard they end up becoming MC due to the
attention they receive (players paying that much attention makes it worth my
while to put more effort into them.)

But even with the most minor NPC, I try to put something memorable into them,
some quirk, speech pattern, physical trait, or accent(or all the above). Then
a semi memorable name (Rohbar of Cornwall, Goodman Thed) and I see where
it goes from there.

Quote from: David RBasically I rate the relationship between the PC and NPC on a scale of 1 -10. The first time the pc meets the npc it's a 5 - indifference. (Note: Some relationships begins with hostility) Depending on how the encounter plays out I either subtract or add 1 point to the scale, which reflects how the npc views the pc. Normally these are roleplaying encounters and sometimes not necessarily civil ones.

Interesting.  Does this ever translate into changing the NPC in ways other than how they relate to the character?  Like the classic "I was fighting for the bad-guys, but your example of virtue has turned me back to the light," and such jazz?

NPCs have a personality and goals in my games.  Events that occur in game may change those things, if it seems reasonable to me that a real person in that situation would change.

In other words, an NPC who is courted by a PC may change their view on them, an NPC who is thwarted in a plan by a PC may change plans, but an NPC will not change personality merely because I think it might now be cooler for them to have a different personality or plans.

So it happens, but organically within the game world.

Quote from: TonyLBInteresting.  Does this ever translate into changing the NPC in ways other than how they relate to the character?  Like the classic "I was fighting for the bad-guys, but your example of virtue has turned me back to the light," and such jazz?

Definitely. Most often though it's not so black and white. Like I said, just because the npc in question has a favourable attitude towards the pc this may not necessarily translate into becoming an ally. It does however mean that the npc in question is willing to risk something to indirectly aid the pc. There are no small roles only small NPCs

Regards,
David R

Balbinus:  Absolutely.  Internal consistency is a big deal.  Now ... how often, in practice, do your NPCs actually change?  Lots?  Occasionally?  Once in a blue moon?

Quote from: TonyLBBalbinus:  Absolutely.  Internal consistency is a big deal.  Now ... how often, in practice, do your NPCs actually change?  Lots?  Occasionally?  Once in a blue moon?

Fairly often, people change in real life all the time, besides when I create them I have no idea what the PCs will actually do, but whatever they do it tends to be consequential, generally the PCs leave the NPCs they interact with with little choice but to change at least their plans.

So, the NPCs regularly change because the PCs do things which cause people to change.  I simply don't prejudge what the PCs will do.