Over on another rpg forum, one poster was talking about PC-NPC relationships, saying, "PCs and family members don't exist just to be tortured!" This is a topic close to my gaming heart, too. I think both players and GMs are at fault here.

GMs are at fault because if you're a bit of a dullard as a GM and can't think of a plot, you can always just pull a 24 on them and kidnap their daughter, blow up their mum, etc. This naturally makes the players paranoid about giving their character any kind of background. If you want the PCs to have a background, you have to leave their families alone...

Players are at fault because often they don't think of their characters as people, but as pieces in a game, like chess pieces. It's all play and no role. Often GMs might welcome, "my character has been hanging around this guy for six months now, working beside him every day... what's he like? Might they perhaps over a few drinks one evening get together and...?" but players just don't think of it.

A lot of rpg sessions and groups are about what PCs do rather than who they are.

I remember once as GM I had an NPC, Deborah, fall in love with a PC, Will. Will had been staying at her farm where she worked - she was a young window. He wanted some money, and to rest a bit and get to know the area. So he stayed there and worked. Deborah began making him nice meals, and fixing his clothes unasked. He was polite and kind to her, and he was a likeable person. When that went with them living together and working together on the farm almost as if they were married, well she fell in love with him. So when Will got on his bike to go away, he found that Deborah was selling the farm and following him As GM, I did not have Deborah kidnapped or killed.

I had one of my own PCs, K. Bonus, get together with an NPC. I specifically wanted some kind of Ally/Dependent (in GURPS terms), since we were gaming one-on-one and my own character couldn't do everything. So we developed an NPC female companion for my character. She was called Rozalya, and was a physician. She was a small person though not a dwarf, about 4'7", and quite slight, and a little shy. K. Bonus took the time to get to know her, and found that most people didn't pay much attention to her because of her small size, and shy personality. K. Bonus became something of a leader of the community, and he paid attention to and respected her when others didn't, so she became attached to him. Rozalya was intelligent and kind, so he became attached to her. Sometimes she helped him (was an Ally), and sometimes she needed his help (was a Dependent). We never said whether or not they had made love, I assume they did but that wasn't important; what was important was their emotional intimacy, and their trust. My GM did not have her kidnapped or killed.

With the same GM, I had my PC Aaron, who found he had a teenaged daughter, Zarah. She travelled with him. On one occasion she came us a Dependent because she was sick and Aaron could do nothing for her; he had to carry her some miles for treatment, which led to more adventures. On another occasion, she acted as an Ally indirectly - an enemy spared Aaron's life out of affection and regard for Zarah. This same GM of course did not have her kidnapped or killed, either.

Those were all one-on-one games, and we found them very enjoyable and fulfilling. There were no uncomfortable moments of roleplaying intimacy with one another, we just discussed where we thought each relationship would go, and described what the characters did day-to-day. In a bigger game group of course it's more difficult to achieve, but even then it can come into things.

For example, in my current campaign, all of the PCs are relatives of Old Man Joe, and of each-other. One has knocked up another's sister - it's not something which has been important so far, but as GM I'll try to make it important in the future.

You just need imaginative players and GM... and some trust and open-mindedness.

What have been everyone else's experiences with roleplaying out relationships between PCs, or between PCs and NPCs?

We put in family and background with the express purpose of stirring shit up. If folks don't get raped, killed, mutilated, held hostage, rescued, and occasionally turned into backup PCs, it's kind of a waste to have them around. The GM does the same thing with his NPCs a lot of the time, and we take full advantage of it.

One of my old AU magister PCs got his skull bashed in cos he used feeblemind to make a rakshasa's girlfriend permanently retarded as a bargaining chip in a tight situation.

In our current game, one of the PCs (now dead) had a daughter whose impending wedding(s) filled the first part of the campaign and drove the plot. She was supposed to get married to another PC (who didn't want to marry her) until the prince swept into town and took her as his own. The eventual rescue was wicked, with trials, duels, chases, ambushes, intrigue and all that stuff.

JimBob...where the hell did you hide the camera or bug that spies on my game sessions??

 Every one of our sessions has significant PC relationships with NPCs. We're talking  marriages, romantic involvements, drinking buddies, past flirtations and  old business contacts here.

 Also quite a few of my NPCs are capable enought NOT to get used as a hostage  or kidnap victim.  It almost happened ...but it was one of few times the dice were actually "lucky" in the game.


- Ed

You know I don't think most gamers care about these kinds of relationships. Or if they do, these relationships are just a means to create adventure. It all boils to IMO the fact that most gamers really don't see the setting/campaign as anything other than a game*.

Which is strange, because we can emphatize with characters from movies and books, but when it comes to our games, there is a detachment. I mean most gamers play in the "kill it and take it's stuff" mode, so that leaves very little space to actually care about developing deeper richer characters -which in my opinion is what these relationships are all about.

If all these relationships are there for is to provide your character with opportunities for adventure, then IMO you may as well play orphans and let the GM create those opportunities for you. I mean it ain't rocket science.

Yeah, yeah I know I'm a Swine but I think characters developing relationships with NPCs or PCs is one of the best benchmarks which does involve the use of any mechanics. Okay I lost the plot. I'm not very good with rants.

*Okay, I know this is going to get me into alot of trouble, but at the moment, this makes a lot of sense to me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat have been everyone else's experiences with roleplaying out relationships between PCs, or between PCs and NPCs?

This happens in almost every game [that I play in] and, to be honest, I often care more about that part of the game than the stuff players conventionally think of as important.  The relationships can be friendships, romances, friendly rivalries, and so on.

Quote from: JimBobOzThis naturally makes the players paranoid about giving their character any kind of background. If you want the PCs to have a background, you have to leave their families alone...

This is exactly why I don't like the whole mindset behind assuming that any detail of a character's background on a character sheet is an invitation for the GM to mess around with it.  Sometimes a detail is just a detail, not a plot hook.

Quote from: JimBobOzPlayers are at fault because often they don't think of their characters as people, but as pieces in a game, like chess pieces. It's all play and no role. Often GMs might welcome, "my character has been hanging around this guy for six months now, working beside him every day... what's he like? Might they perhaps over a few drinks one evening get together and...?" but players just don't think of it.

Well, that's not a problem I think I've ever had, nor have I seen much of it in the groups that I've played with.  If you are looking at the game through your character's eyes, interacting with the setting as if it were a real place, and have a GM that doesn't force adventures on the players, then complex interaction with NPCs simply happens, in my experience.

Quote from: JimBobOzA lot of rpg sessions and groups are about what PCs do rather than who they are.

Doesn't who they are normally drive what PCs do?  That's certainly true with how I play and the people I role-play with play.  It it really that unusual in your experience?

Quote from: JimBobOzYou just need imaginative players and GM... and some trust and open-mindedness.

I really wish people would stop tying all sorts of good things that happen in role-playing to "trust" because I think it obscures the real issues.  I also don't really think it has to do with imagination or open-mindedness.  I think it's a matter of how the players and GM perceive the elements of the game and what they think they are there for.  If the players and GM look at everything through a meta-game filter (whether it be challenge, plot, playing the GM, etc.), then it distances them from seeing the setting as a real place and the NPCs as real people.  And my experience has been that when players make playing their characters like real people and interpreting the setting like a real place their priorities, all of the stuff you are talking about simply falls into place and just happens.  In fact, it becomes difficult to stop it from happening.

Why would a GM or players want to stop it from happening?  Because if the players spend too much time dealing with NPCs, it dilutes their relationship with the other PCs and for practical reasons related to the way the hobby works, it's just easier if the other PCs spend time dealing with each other rather than NPCs, at least for a significant amount of time during the game.

Quote from: David RYou know I don't think most gamers care about these kinds of relationships. Or if they do, these relationships are just a means to create adventure.

I don't think you have much evidence one way or t'other for "most gamers."  I think that some gamers do not care about such relationships.  They don't view the NPCs as the focus of attention, but rather as a tool that the GM uses to present the cool stuff.

As an example (from a game near and dear to my heart):  In Dogs in the Vineyard, you can easily see the townsfolk as being relevant only inasmuch as they present the players with a moral conundrum to judge.  Say the Dogs learn that the old woman is secretly the mother of the Steward's daughter, but that it was all covered up years ago ... at that point, do they care that the old woman longs to travel, and envies the Dogs their freedom?  Uh ... quite possibly not.  It's not relevant to the main thing, the puzzle-piece in the moral conundrum, that's been expressed through her.

And yet, I do like NPCs, and I do (personally) often try to make "the main thing" be about them, just themselves, rather than any larger purpose being expressed through them.  Sometimes human relationships are what you're focussed on.

It's damn unpleasant when you've got players disagreeing about what the focus is, though ... you play an NPC as likable and appealing, but the players just sort of go passive on you, waiting for the moment when the NPC will become a channel for Something Important.  Uncomfortable all 'round.

Some people I've gamed with saw NPCs strictly as equipment, scenery, or sign posts.  However, over the years I've gamed less and less with this type of player, not by premeditated design but simply it's one aspect of a style of gaming that doesn't mesh well with my own.  I enjoy interacting with characters (PCs and NPCs) that are interesting in their own right.  I also tend to be protective of "my" NPCs when I'm a player -- the allies, family, clan, dependents, the people we've rescued, the townsfolk who've helped us, etc.  When I'm player in a long-running campaign, I tend to accumulate a lot of ties, allies, enemies, etc.

On the other hand, as a GM, I try to pay attention to who the players seem interested in.  What are their favourite villains?  Who do they seem to like?  Because it makes my life a lot easier if I can just present them more of the people (and things) they are interested in, rather than cardboard cutout NPCs they have to rescue just because it's in the mission specs.  I also ask the players to write up a few NPC descriptions (three-four lines or so) of people thyey want as contacts, allies or enemies.  That really helps populate the setting, and I get a big pool of go-to NPCs when someone throws me a curve ball.

I don't threaten allies and dependents very often, only as a very occasional trick and especially if the player has indicated that this would be a plot s/he's interested in.  For example, if the three-line description of the NPC is that "Little Markie always gets herself in trouble and Voodoo Man has to bail her out," I got my free pass to use Little Markie as bait.  

Just because an NPC is listed in a character's background doesn't mean it's fair game for torture.  Sometimes a player lists an NPC as important in the PC's life (e.g., as role-model such as a parent, sensei, mentor, etc. or as love interest) not because s/he wants to have to rescue this NPC all the time, but because it explains who the PC is.  Before kidnapping Aunt May, I check whether Peter Parker's player will find this an exciting plot or a chore.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't think you have much evidence one way or t'other for "most gamers."  I think that some gamers do not care about such relationships.  They don't view the NPCs as the focus of attention, but rather as a tool that the GM uses to present the cool stuff.

(Bolding mine) This part is tricky for me. Perhaps it's so ingrained in rpgs but over the years, I found that if NPCs are used as tools for the GM to present the cool stuff, they remain just that, tools. There's this balance I keep trying to maintain...or maybe that's the problem - my problem - between making the NPCs real and keeping the spotlight on the players.

The thing is, most times IME keeping the NPCs real has nothing to do with them being tools for me to the present the cool stuff. Am I making sense here?

QuoteAs an example (from a game near and dear to my heart):  In Dogs in the Vineyard, you can easily see the townsfolk as being relevant only inasmuch as they present the players with a moral conundrum to judge.  Say the Dogs learn that the old woman is secretly the mother of the Steward's daughter, but that it was all covered up years ago ... at that point, do they care that the old woman longs to travel, and envies the Dogs their freedom?  Uh ... quite possibly not.  It's not relevant to the main thing, the puzzle-piece in the moral conundrum, that's been expressed through her.

Good example. (Bolding mine) This is what I mean. I think that most gamers (okay some...okay I don't know how many) would consider this the extent of a N/PC relationship. But, I think that there is more to N/PC relationships then just this. Or at least I think there ought to be.

In my current OtE campaign, I find that the players are getting more distracted by the relationships they have with NPCs who do not have anything to do with the main "event" but yet these relationships is what fuels them to pursue the campaign goals.

QuoteIt's damn unpleasant when you've got players disagreeing about what the focus is, though ... you play an NPC as likable and appealing, but the players just sort of go passive on you, waiting for the moment when the NPC will become a channel for Something Important.  Uncomfortable all 'round.

This is good. Very good. I'm lucky in that such uncomfortable moments are becoming a rare occasion in my campaigns.

Regards,
David R

I get that confusion a lot in the online games I run from time to time. Honestly? I revel in it. The PCs walk into a tavern, they strike up some innocuous conversation with the barkeep, they get friendly, he tells them what's on his mind about his life these days--the ale quality has dropped ever since the brewer's wife disappeared a year ago, etc. etc.

These are not predesigned plot hooks. They're just stories, in the sense that most every human being has a story. They become plot hooks if the players decide that's what they are--if they decide to treat the NPC as a person, not as a clue-o-meter.

I can do this in online games because a) the players aren't studying my face in realtime to find out whether the PC is Meaningful For The Story or not; and b) I have enough time to make shit up about the brewer's wife.

That's what I like about online games. Inexhaustibility. The more depth the players want the more they will receive. They never hit a signpost that says Nothing To See Here Report Back To The Plot Immediately.

Kidnapping/threatening the significant other of a PC can be overdone, certainly. However I feel I should point out there is a difference between a dependant ala GURPS or HERO system and a NPC that your character has met in game. Once a game mechanic is involved, there is a certain expectation that your DNPC will be messed with some of the time. The challenge for the GM in this case is to mess with them in different ways each time.

But to speak to JimBobOz's original point, I think it is important to make those family/romantic relationships take up some game play; as much time or more than any other NPC, seeing as those sorts of relationships are supposed to be the most important to the character. I would say that it is preferable to let the PLAYER spend some time in game getting attached to the NPC before you carry them off to the dungeon/laboratory. The trick is doing it in such a way that it is fun, which depends greatly on the player/gm.

To the larger point of NPC's having a life outside of their purpose to the plot I say: absolutely! That's what seperates tabletop play from Balders Gate or something; that is to say no one has a script and you can talk to anyone. Players should be able to make friends and enemies when the GM least expects it. This adds more depth to play and makes the world seem "bigger". You don't have to be a master thespian to pull off playing a cast of thousands, but you do have to be able to view those little lines of stats as though they were individuals and not plot points. That's part of why we call these things "role-playing games" and not "monster-killing games". Because sometimes the players stand up your dungeon to argue with some zero level drunk about polearms...  Ideally, your players never know which characters are the ones they are "supposed" to talk to, and adventure can come from anywhere... YMMV.