jhkimrpg ([info]jhkimrpg) wrote,
@ 2006-01-13 10:28:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:dawn of fire, dnd

NPCs in Post-Apocalyptic D&D
So more pondering on my post-apocalyptic D&D game... Specifically, I am pondering how to handle the supporting cast. For each PCs, I want there to be 2 or 3 NPC survivors who go with them -- who should almost all be weaker. The question is, how should I conceive and generate those characters?

So, by one method, the players would each designate and describe relationships for their PC -- like DNPCs in Champions or pre-bought Relationships in Dogs in the Vineyard. However, given the nature of the game, I am considering an alternate method which fits with how I am doing other aspects of the game.

I random-roll 3d6 attributes for (3 * the number of PCs) characters, and I allocate a fixed number of levels which the players can distribute among them. i.e. The four players look at the sheets, and can distribute 24 levels among the 12 characters, say. Probably they can also determine race and gender -- and maybe also name them (but I'm not sure about that). As GM, though, I get to freely make up the backgrounds and personalities for them all.

The logic here is that like the PCs, the NPCs begin as types. The players are familiar with them from having generated and chosen them -- i.e. "the 2nd level halfling Adept". However, I play them as real personalities and they are forced by circumstance into the PCs lives. One of the things which D&D3 in particular is good at is getting the PCs to set up defensive formations. I want to try to use that -- have vulnerable NPCs there on the battle mat for the PCs to protect in encounters. (EDIT: Not all at once, in general, but a few at a time.) In non-combat, I will play up all of their personalities, interactions, and so forth.

Am I crazy? It is radically different than how most narrative games have approached NPC generation, but it sounds good to me.




(Post a new comment)

yah, you're crazy
[info]vaxalon
2006-01-13 09:20 pm UTC (link)
Have you ever had a group of 16 characters, 12 of whom YOU are responsible for, all interacting simultaneously?

unless you're incredibly good at that... I don't think all the NPC's will get 'played'.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: yah, you're crazy
[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-13 09:42 pm UTC (link)
Ah, sorry. I didn't mean that all 12 NPCs would generally be all acting simultaneously in combat. However, I would like room for characters to be killed off, so I wouldn't want to reduce the total number much.

Still, you make a good point. I should have a plan for if more than a handful of the NPCs are threatened in a combat. I could farm them out to players, but I'd want to have some way to still have clear input on them. Hrm. I'll have to ponder it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: yah, you're crazy
[info]heiligekuh
2006-01-13 11:39 pm UTC (link)
Farming the NPCs out for player control is certianly an option, as is structuring the scenarios so that (especially in tactical moments) a much smaller group of NPCs are active.

You've talked a bit earlier about the activities you'd like the PCs to do, since the standard "explore and loot" model is gone. You've said a bit about "explore and defend" or "explore, with intent to dwell." Both of those and most other scenarions I can come up with for this world could easily involve escort style missions of varying complexity. That's certianlya method for having N<10 NPCs around for battle and still keep the possibility for meaningful NPC death around.

One of the best touches on the new Battlestar Gallactica is the running population total at the begining of each episode. When there's a big firefight one episode and the next one starts with 50 fewer humans left, it makes even the quickest half second space fireball have a bit more weight.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jamused
2006-01-14 12:16 am UTC (link)
Why require player input? Personally I prefer the NPCs to be the GMs responsibility, even in Champions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-14 12:22 am UTC (link)
Well, the principle is that it will certainly increase player familiarity with the NPCs, and typically increase attachment as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jamused
2006-01-14 04:28 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure that I've found that to be true of 3e characters. I tend not to get very attached even to my own D&D characters until I've gotten some adventuring and level advancement under my belt. And vivid personalities do a lot more to make characters distinguishable and memorable than having had to do the book-keeping excercise of creating them. But maybe that's just me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-14 05:40 am UTC (link)
Well, but your question was a relative one. Given that we're using (mostly) the D&D3e rules, we're comparing (1) joint stat creation by the players to (2) private stat creation by the GM. I'm saying that comparing #1 and #2, the players will be more familiar and to some degree attached by #2, all other things being equal. Either way, they would have distinguished personalities, so that's not an issue here.

Note that I do not want the players to think of the NPCs as fully-fleshed out, deep characters whom they love at the start. They are going to be thrown together by circumstance, and they start out knowing the NPCs by their class, race, and level -- and will get to know them during the course of the game, not through any labels at the start. That is deliberate, and indeed I think the whole point of the game is taking these familiar elements and looking at them in a new light.

Now, if you're asking why I would want to use D&D3e, that goes back to the basic concept that I went through in Breaking Down D&D. I'd be happy to talk about it more, but do you have a particular question or direction?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]inkylj
2006-01-14 06:17 am UTC (link)
Hmm, what if you didn't have to create all the characters at the start? Like, assume there are 50 people in the colony, or something, and by default they're all 1st-level commoners. But if the players need some specific kind of NPC, they can say "I pick out the three toughest people and tell them to guard the gates while we're gone -- I'll spend some warrior levels and make these guys a 2nd-level warrior, and two 1st-level warriors". Then later if they need some warriors, they can say "Ok, we tell Fred and George to guard the gates again -- too bad Bob got killed in that last goblin raid."

It seems like it might make the players feel more attached to them if they created the NPC for some specific reason, plus it seems like spreading out the NPC creation will make each one easier to get a feel for.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jamused
2006-01-14 10:01 pm UTC (link)
No, I think I'm clear on why D&D3e, I just think you're mistaken, even all other things being equal, about the mnemonic and ownership value of the fairly tedious 3e chargen process. My experience has been that players don't initially remember their own stats/skills/feats/AC without consulting their character sheets (and in fact never remember more than a handful of most used skills).

My guess is that you can get just about all the mnemonic and ownership goodness there is to be had by letting the players collectively choose 12 characters with a total of 24 levels from a pile of randomly created pregens. And one thing about 3e is that it's not hard to find software that'll spit those out for you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jhkimrpg
2006-01-15 07:21 am UTC (link)
Josh, you seem to have a bug here, but I can't see what it is.

You're at least saying that there's some mnemonic and ownership goodness to be had there, but now you're suggesting giving a big pile of completely filled out pregens. What is the advantage compared to what I said -- players picking race, class, and level? It seems like more work for me as a GM because I have to generate a big pile of character sheets instead of just 12. It seems like more work for the players because they have to sift through a bunch of sheets to find, say, a 2nd level elven Adept instead of just saying it. At least, it seems easier to me to say a race, class, and level rather than sift through a pile to find what I'm looking for.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jamused
2006-01-15 01:13 pm UTC (link)
I was conceding the goodness for the sake of argument, since you seem convinced it exists. Personally it seems to me that you're reserving the only fun and useful part (creating the character's name, personality and back-story) for yourself as GM. I'd rather either more collaboration, or less.

Normally, generating characters, even NPCs, for 3e doesn't stop at race, class, and level. If you're not going to make the players flesh out feats, skills, equipment, and domains & spells if applicable, then you're right, it would certainly be simpler just to choose the race, class, and level.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]chgriffen
2006-01-14 12:23 am UTC (link)
I think the idea is great. Involving the players in creating the NPCs will give them both more of a connection and sense of ownership with the NPCs, as well as tactical options for how to create them. As long as you don't just aim to kill them off to make a point in the game, I am sure the players will love it.

I would suggest, though, that maybe you determine some of the personality and/or background first, so that the players feel like they're developing a person rather than a combat tool.

In fact, I would personally really enjoy it if, for example, you had several NPC "templates" ready with different slots for personality, background, and name (or whatever), and you've filled in one or two of them and the group gets to fill in the rest.

But anyway. Shared creation of NPCs rawks, is all I'm saying.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…