QuoteMy basic philosophy is that if the NPC is not an integral part of the adventure, then gloss over that NPC; relegate the NPC to the background. Move onto something that showcases the PCs.

This is not to say there should not be interesting NPCs in a campaign, just that they should not be the focus. Interesting NPCs should be used to shine the spotlight on the PCs. Use a memorable NPC to make the interaction and information that NPC provides for the PCs memorable. When the PCs walk away from an encounter they should remember that something happened to them there, not that there was something unusual about the NPC; the NPC should be secondary to what happened. (source)

If a non-player character is more interesting than your player character, then I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the referee is not the problem.

Shorter? Interesting npc != Mary Sue.

Can't really say anything wrong with that view.  The game isn't about you or the NPC'S but what the players do or don't do in the setting.  As much as I love Dragonlance and White Wolf both made the error of doing the exact opposite for example.  Thank God that can be fixed with a few simple techniques.

That doesn't mean make NPC'S cookie cutter boring with no motivation beyond being a punching bag or whatever more equally boring thing for players to abuse.

I don't wilt as a player the second the spotlight shifts from me, so I would say this DM is full of shit.  What is memorable about any adventure isn't me by myself, but what happened in the totality, which can include a PC's actions, an NPC's actions, or anything else.

There's a galaxy or two of difference in between a Mary Sue GMPC and this guy's "lame NPCs'.

I honestly can't imagine enjoying a game where the PCs are functionally cut from any kind of interesting social interaction because the GM has decided to populate the game world with lame NPCs.

Even worse is the suggestion that the only NPCs should be those "integral to the adventure". If you're trying to empower your players by predetermining which NPCs they're supposed to find interesting, then I'm afraid you don't understand what the word "empower" means.

I do the exact opposite: I fill my game world with interesting NPCs and then I let the players tell me which NPCs they're interested in interacting with. (Hint: Those would be the NPCs they choose to interact with.) I develop those NPCs, giving them more depth and detail in order to reward the players as they continue to interact with them.

The result is that, over time, the players (and the PCs) become emotionally invested in the game world.

Quote from: Marleycat;543679The game isn't about you or the NPC'S but what the players do or don't do in the setting.

Interacting with npcs is a big part of what the players do or don't do in the setting. Interacting with cardboard cut-outs isn't half as entertaining as dealing with fully realized people.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;543695Interacting with npcs is a big part of what the players do or don't do in the setting. Interacting with cardboard cut-outs isn't half as entertaining as dealing with fully realized people.

Totally true, I know I missed the point of the thread because I didn't read the linksie, sorry.

Good NPCs know when to sit down and shut up.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;543689Even worse is the suggestion that the only NPCs should be those "integral to the adventure". If you're trying to empower your players by predetermining which NPCs they're supposed to find interesting, then I'm afraid you don't understand what the word "empower" means.

I do the exact opposite: I fill my game world with interesting NPCs and then I let the players tell me which NPCs they're interested in interacting with.

Yeah, that was pretty much my initial reaction as well.

If it wasn't for npcs with intrigues and agendas, my campaign would consist of nothing but characters banging swords together.

You'd think there'd be a happy middle between Mary Sues and cardboard cutouts. Sometimes players want to interact with the seemingly most mundane things. But as you flesh out those mundane things, they breathe life into the world and often draw the players into greater potential adventures. Why would you as a GM try to pre-decide such things? Let the players have fun; part of the GM's fun is trying to keep up fleshing out this world they're exploring.

Well, I guess it might be important if you have a story arc or adventure goal to follow... But dampening NPCs seem like such a lost opportunity. I'd rather toy with a few mundane and eccentric characters just to see what my players want to do.

QuoteWhen the PCs walk away from an encounter they should remember that something happened to them there, not that there was something unusual about the NPC; the NPC should be secondary to what happened.

4e player detected.  Sometimes the interesting thing that happened is the NPC.

Sometimes you want the NPC to be interesting so that the Players feel something sympathetic towards the NPC when bad shit happens to it. Doesn't make it a Mary Sue GMPC.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;543674If a non-player character is more interesting than your player character, then I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the referee is not the problem.

Shorter? Interesting npc != Mary Sue.

The quoted text seems to equate "interesting npc" with DMPC. NPCs can be interesting without hogging spotlight or taking over the adventure. Interesting NPCs are important parts of a good adventure in my book.

So what's the issue here? Since we all agree the premise is fucked up.

I introduced a throw-away henchmen (humanoid fodder) for a game back in 2005 or thereabouts. He had a funny Italian accent and was mostly just a goof-off, spur-of-the-moment creation.

The players loved him.

I tired of him very quickly, but they wouldn't let him leave the party, or get captured, or die. I was letting the dice fall where they may and they often went against him, but the players love him so there was always had to be some reason for him to be back.

Ugh. Didn't mind at all when that campaign died.

The inherent problem here is one that has infected new school and continues to be enabled by game systems:

Me   Me    Me!!

The fixation of the player on their little snowflake and all the kewl stuff he/she can do has led to a very egocentic view of play. Good times, fun adventures with friends, and exploring a fantasy world have taken a backseat to showboating wankery.

The kind of crap passed off in that example further disconnects the players from the game world and reinforces the view that the game world is just a two dimentional cardboard backdrop constructed to be chewed on by the psychoctic wish fufillment fantasies of the players.