In my few experiences as a DM,I usually like to let the players have relationships wich are benefical to the character,and the ocasional saving-your-wife-from-evil-mastermind plot,I also love to let players roleplay those personal lifes,not only them having a "link" with some other persons but that link actually evolving,sometimes breaking or enduring difficult moments.

But I think that s thanks to my experience as a player,in wich my DMS usually do this sort of thing.

Quote from: flyingmice;363405I don't say hands off the families, but I do say it will be an extra-ordinary event if their families are directly targeted.

I think one of the keys for me is that there should be a reasonable opportunity for the adventurer to protect family and friends. Rarely should a threat to one's family spring out of the blue.

Along the same lines is betrayal by an ally. The adventurer's closest (npc) friend should not be the one to turn on a character without at least a modicum of warning in advance that the relationship has soured.

I suppose it's just too easy for me as the referee to suddenly announce, "BOO-YAH! Your best friend just kidnapped your wife and kids, sucka!" And easy is boring.

Quote from: Silverlion;363582It's amusing to me that NPC's I intended to be one shot people appearing in a single session were so interesting the PC's came involved in there lives, and some NPC's intended to last more than one session. (Often there foes.) Rarely lasted that long.

This happens rather frequently in my games. And I'm always amused because it's normally the most unlikely NPCs that players have an interest in.

As fo putting friends/family in danger. I normally don't mess with them unless the PCs themselves put these relationships on the line.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R

Quote from: Originally Posted by SilverlionIt's amusing to me that NPC's I intended to be one shot people appearing in a single session were so interesting the PC's came involved in there lives, and some NPC's intended to last more than one session. (Often there foes.) Rarely lasted that long.  

This happens rather frequently in my games. And I'm always amused because it's normally the most unlikely NPCs that players have an interest in.

As fo putting friends/family in danger. I normally don't mess with them unless the PCs themselves put these relationships on the line.

Yes to both.

1) What is it, some kind of inverse effort law that states the more time you invest in creating an NPC, the more likely they won't be used heavily, while the converse law, the more throw-away/Slapdash the NPC the more likely you will find yourself completely statting them out and using them for months or years?

2) PC relationships, like others, I feel a need to ground in some sense of realism.  If you screw with the serious underworld, dirty politics, international intrigue, and/or create very powerful enemies, and then have a family, you'd best protect them pretty heavily.

Quote from: The Shaman;363750I think one of the keys for me is that there should be a reasonable opportunity for the adventurer to protect family and friends. Rarely should a threat to one's family spring out of the blue.

Along the same lines is betrayal by an ally. The adventurer's closest (npc) friend should not be the one to turn on a character without at least a modicum of warning in advance that the relationship has soured.

I suppose it's just too easy for me as the referee to suddenly announce, "BOO-YAH! Your best friend just kidnapped your wife and kids, sucka!" And easy is boring.

Agreed 100%. That's cheap. If his best friend was going to betray him, he should have a *chance* to see something happening in his friend.

-clash

Quote from: LordVreeg;363767Yes to both.

1) What is it, some kind of inverse effort law that states the more time you invest in creating an NPC, the more likely they won't be used heavily, while the converse law, the more throw-away/Slapdash the NPC the more likely you will find yourself completely statting them out and using them for months or years?

Or maybe it's not that mysterious. Players probably know which character are superficially defined or not. And intuitively they might want to be involved with vague NPCs because there's room to negotiate what those characters are and how they could relate to their PC? A path of lesser resistance of some sort...

Quote from: Imperator;363574They usually do. From time to time someone will come with a PC who lost everything, and that usuallu ishe reason for the PC to get engaged in the game, so is no problem, we don't always have a loner in te PC group. Also, the lone wolf usually longs for the relationships the other people in the group have (a very human reaction), so they end creating such relationships. So, it's not a big deal.

I don't believe that the lone wolf stereotypical PC is a sustainable PC, from a psychological viewpoint. We like tocreate believable people, not the usual psychopath. So, if some PC has no relationship or ties, usualy is against his will, a big part of his backstory.

The same I do. Only in horror games the families and SOs of the PCs are targeted by the bad guys, and I seldom do it.

Spot on, in my view.

The lone wolf seems to be a frequent choice of character for some players. This is possibly because they have been screwed around by dickhead GMs in the past, who kept murdering, kidnapping, etc, etc, their PC's loved ones. Some players though seem to use the lone wolf archetype as an excuse to be a sociopathic nutter with a high skill in torture.

A lone wolf tends only to be interesting in long term play, if they find a new pack to run with - obviously YMMV.

Incidentally, in our house, such lone wolf characters are known as Trenchcoat Twats.

Quote from: boulet;363778Or maybe it's not that mysterious. Players probably know which character are superficially defined or not. And intuitively they might want to be involved with vague NPCs because there's room to negotiate what those characters are and how they could relate to their PC? A path of lesser resistance of some sort...

Smart players know when the GM has written stuff down, they are loath to rewrite it, whereas talking to a blank slate allows them more latitude to 'affect' the NPC?

Quote from: Gruntfuttock;363788Spot on, in my view.

The lone wolf seems to be a frequent choice of character for some players. This is possibly because they have been screwed around by dickhead GMs in the past, who kept murdering, kidnapping, etc, etc, their PC's loved ones. Some players though seem to use the lone wolf archetype as an excuse to be a sociopathic nutter with a high skill in torture.

A lone wolf tends only to be interesting in long term play, if they find a new pack to run with - obviously YMMV.

Incidentally, in our house, such lone wolf characters are known as Trenchcoat Twats.

I have to admit that I realized I was doing it wrong some time ago, when I noticed an enormous rise in the number of lone wolfs at my table. And then I realized that every campaign, someone got his family screwed up royally. Always. It was getting really old and not fun. My bad.

Quote from: LordVreeg;363794Smart players know when the GM has written stuff down, they are loath to rewrite it, whereas talking to a blank slate allows them more latitude to 'affect' the NPC?

I guess I should unpack this. Some people will advocate loudly about narrative control and how it should be distributed or assigned in a traditional way. That's their vision on how the game should work and it supposes the assumption that in trad' RPGs regular players only have control over their PC. But just by interacting intensely (typically just role playing) with a specific NPC the player is influencing the narration.

Say NPC Alyssa is a barmaid and the GM imagined her with a stable domestic life, husband, children etc... She probably doesn't have much of a personality beyond a few gimmicks for her accent, outgoing attitude and what not. I bet, with a flexible (yet traditional) GM who tries to react dynamically to his players manifest interests, it wouldn't take hours of roleplaying for a PC to find an emotional angle to get this NPC to cheat on her husband and start an affair etc... Sure the GM retains narrative control technically at all time, but the player's input isn't null either.

I assume that he more superficial the NPC was to begin with, the more latitude the player might have... in this hypothetical context.  

Quote from: Imperator;363796I have to admit that I realized I was doing it wrong some time ago, when I noticed an enormous rise in the number of lone wolfs at my table. And then I realized that every campaign, someone got his family screwed up royally. Always. It was getting really old and not fun. My bad.

You learn from your mistakes, and you're ready to acknowledge them. That's better attitude than many GMs I've played with.

I got very into requesting goals and long-term ideals for my PCs a while ago, as part of the backstory.  Amazing how many of them will ignore the relationship part of this until I ask about it.

As a game designer, I know a lot of gamers aren't comfortable with this. I put spaces on the Character Worksheet for relationships, but I don't mention them in the game. I figure that's a group level thing - what folks are comfortable with - and don't want to shove my idea of what is cool in their faces. I do wonder sometimes if that is the wrong approach, if I shouldn't be emphasizing this, but then I read threads about how embarassed and awkward some people are with roleplaying romance and relationships, and I don't change it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;364019As a game designer, I know a lot of gamers aren't comfortable with this. I put spaces on the Character Worksheet for relationships, but I don't mention them in the game. I figure that's a group level thing - what folks are comfortable with - and don't want to shove my idea of what is cool in their faces. I do wonder sometimes if that is the wrong approach, if I shouldn't be emphasizing this, but then I read threads about how embarassed and awkward some people are with roleplaying romance and relationships, and I don't change it.

-clash

It is a group level thing.  Much like you, I design my games, and mainly for my own purposes and my own players.  
So part of what I do is push boundaries.  Might come from my Psych background, but creating fully realized characters is sometimes a good exercise for the PCs.   I've been trying to leave space in the backstory for what they consider a future plan....

Quote from: boulet;363900You learn from your mistakes, and you're ready to acknowledge them. That's better attitude than many GMs I've played with.

Well, I've fucked up many games by being stupid so what can I say. Thing is, there's a lot to learn from the different tendencies in game design, as they usually are born as a reaction to some perceived problems and usually they bring good ideas and techniques to the table. So, as I delved into the OSR, the indie games, WW games back in their time and so and so, I've collected the core techniques and ideas and found some ways to make them work together. Overall, my GMing skills have got better because I don't reject anything new by principle, I think.

Quote from: Imperator;363796I have to admit that I realized I was doing it wrong some time ago, when I noticed an enormous rise in the number of lone wolfs at my table. And then I realized that every campaign, someone got his family screwed up royally. Always. It was getting really old and not fun. My bad.

Major Kudos. Like Boulet said, it's a sign of potential excellence when you're able to step back, look at the issue and say "alright - I screwed up - my bad" and improve from there. Some GMs don't ever get there - too much ego involved.