managing NPCs en masse

[Magister]

One of the disappointing aspects of my GMing is handling non-combat
interaction with a number of NPCs simultaneously. I can handle combat
with many combatants reasonably well (although a combat involving
lots of independent groups all coming together at once involves a
similar
difficulty, since they're usually all trying to figure out who to ally
with
and who to attack, so it can turn into a sort-of mass negotiation).
If I just dive in and try to do everything, I end up overwhelmed;
usually most of the NPCs disappear into the woodwork. Excuses
for not having this sort of thing in adventures eventually wear thin;
I'd like to do it, and acceptably, when it's called for.

How can I improve? Here are some of the unsatisfactory things
I have tried, to avoid or handle such situations:
1) avoid two NPCs in the same place -- the game world may be
sparsely populated with significant NPCs.
2) making the PCs relative outsiders -- so NPCs who interact
with them prefer to do so discreetly or one-on-one; no parties
at the duke's castle.
3) don't have NPCs join the party -- unless they can be
played by one of the players, which limits the kinds of
NPCs who can be active in the party.
4) preplanning scenes with many NPCs -- but the PCs can
throw this off by butting in with something unexpected.
5) canned NPC responses -- the NPCs follow a few preplanned
types of responses, with default responses (usually brush-offs)
if none of them fit.
6) recruit a player to handle the NPCs for the short term -- this
has usually worked out badly, and I don't generally have extra
players available.

For longer term actions, I track PC and NPC actions on a grid;
every day/week/game session the PCs spend doing stuff, all of
the active NPCs choose some activity, and I mark milestones for
the NPCs (completing something that is likely to affect the PCs,
usually) so that I don't forget about the NPCs who are out of
sight. It's not too bad if all of this gets put off until after the
session with the players. But that is too slow and too much
bookkeeping for immediate interaction; players are OK with
taking turns in combat, but it feels weird and it's hard to hold
the thread of interaction if it's too slow or disjointed.

Suggestions (and criticisms) welcome.

--
Magister

[Ben Finney]

Post by Magister
One of the disappointing aspects of my GMing is handling non-combat
interaction with a number of NPCs simultaneously. [combat goes okay]
If I just dive in and try to do everything, I end up overwhelmed;
usually most of the NPCs disappear into the woodwork.

What is it you're thinking of? What "everything" is it you try to do?
I can think of many possible answers, but I don't know what it is
you're referring to in particular.

Post by Magister
Excuses for not having this sort of thing in adventures eventually
wear thin; I'd like to do it, and acceptably, when it's called for.

What types of situation would you like to see that you're not getting
now?

Post by Magister
How can I improve? Here are some of the unsatisfactory things
1) avoid two NPCs in the same place -- the game world may be
sparsely populated with significant NPCs.

I tend to go by this one. The focus should always be on the characters
of the *players*, and the various GM characters are there primarily to
make things happen around the PCs.

That's not to say the NPCs should not be vibrant, independent,
well-imagined characters. It just means that those characters are not
the *point* of the story -- the PCs are.

One primary real-world reason for this is: your players want to be
directly involved in what's happening. If the scene features a lot of
NPCs talking to each other, it's boring for the players -- they came
to interact, not watch the GM's characters perform.

Another reason is that the GM (or, for those fortunate enough, GM plus
helpers who play some NPCs) is portraying many different characters
anyway. Unless you have the skills of a professional bard from
pre-literature history, you likely don't have the skills necessary to
keep all those characters distinct in the minds of the players. It's
hard enough for the players to imagine the situation when there are
*no* NPCs present, let alone several talking to each other all from
the one mouth at the table.

Post by Magister
2) making the PCs relative outsiders -- so NPCs who interact with
them prefer to do so discreetly or one-on-one; no parties at the
duke's castle.

Parties at the duke's castle are fine, so long as the players have a
few memorable interactions and don't get bored by long descriptions of
NPCs interacting without their involvement.

Post by Magister
3) don't have NPCs join the party -- unless they can be played by
one of the players, which limits the kinds of NPCs who can be active
in the party.

Yes, a GM-played character in the party is often a recipe for all
kinds of unbalanced play.

Post by Magister
4) preplanning scenes with many NPCs -- but the PCs can throw this
off by butting in with something unexpected.

If the players aren't going to be involved in the interaction, why
play it out? Summarise the salient points, and only play out any
interactions with the PCs.

Post by Magister
5) canned NPC responses -- the NPCs follow a few preplanned
types of responses, with default responses (usually brush-offs)
if none of them fit.

I use a variant of this. Rather than a canned response or a brush-off,
I always try to figure out what every NPC would rather be doing right
now. The interaction will then go on only as long as the players are
having fun, and the NPC would reasonably stick around.

When the players clearly have had enough of interacting with the NPC,
that's my cue for the NPC to make their excuses and get on with their
day.

Post by Magister
6) recruit a player to handle the NPCs for the short term -- this
has usually worked out badly, and I don't generally have extra
players available.

Agreed.

Post by Magister
For longer term actions, I track PC and NPC actions on a grid;
every day/week/game session the PCs spend doing stuff, all of
the active NPCs choose some activity, and I mark milestones for
the NPCs (completing something that is likely to affect the PCs,
usually) so that I don't forget about the NPCs who are out of
sight.

If the NPC doesn't have to respond immediately during the play
session, then one thing that can work is to enlist someone who doesn't
come to the session, and may not even be known to any of the players,
to play the part of an NPC by deciding their actions as you describe
above. This has the significant benefits of sharing the workload, and
getting some pretty interesting ideas for NPC actions that you would
likely not have thought up yourself.

Post by Magister
Suggestions (and criticisms) welcome.

Recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the medium. A table-top RPG
is strong on player interaction, and weak on synaesthetic passive
multimedia. You don't have access to the months-long writing and
editing processes, nor the cut-and-dried story and dialogue, nor the
plethora of highly-trained actors and wardrobe and makeup, nor the
synchronous visual and audial effects, of TV or movies. All of these
indicate you should not focus on things that involve many secondary
characters together in the foreground at once.

What you do have access to is your prepared notes, a few props, and
the collective imagination of your group of players, acting the roles
of the main protagonists. Use the fact that everyone is present and
encouraged to use their imagination to manipulate the outcome of the
scenes involving their characters. Don't kill it off by having complex
character interactions played out in the foreground that don't
directly focus on the PCs.

[Magister]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
One of the disappointing aspects of my GMing is handling non-combat
interaction with a number of NPCs simultaneously. [combat goes okay]
If I just dive in and try to do everything, I end up overwhelmed;
usually most of the NPCs disappear into the woodwork.

What is it you're thinking of? What "everything" is it you try to do?
I can think of many possible answers, but I don't know what it is
you're referring to in particular.

Try to play all of the NPCs fully, or fairly--as believable decision
makers. The difficulty is not so much presenting their decisions,
but in making decisions for all of the NPCs, factoring in feedback
from each other, without shorting most of them badly.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
Excuses for not having this sort of thing in adventures eventually
wear thin; I'd like to do it, and acceptably, when it's called for.

What types of situation would you like to see that you're not getting
now?

The main example would be to bring a number of NPCs together
with the PCs to play out some multiway negotiation. For example,
the PCs have rescued an NPC who is the closest relative of the
dying king and therefore the rightful heir, but other claimants (more
respectable, or better connected) are also making their bids. The
PCs might be caught up in an assembly of lords, with the objective
of winning the most support for their candidate for the throne.

Even in this example, the interaction with NPCs may be relatively
sequential, but all of the other NPCs are going to react rapidly
when they find out about one interaction between an NPC and
the PCs. And the PCs will probably want to find out about those
reactions rapidly as well, so they can plan their future actions.
One meeting with an NPC followed by downtime while I figure
out what happens in response is probably too slow to make
this playable.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
How can I improve? Here are some of the unsatisfactory things
1) avoid two NPCs in the same place -- the game world may be
sparsely populated with significant NPCs.

I tend to go by this one. The focus should always be on the characters
of the *players*, and the various GM characters are there primarily to
make things happen around the PCs.
That's not to say the NPCs should not be vibrant, independent,
well-imagined characters. It just means that those characters are not
the *point* of the story -- the PCs are.
One primary real-world reason for this is: your players want to be
directly involved in what's happening. If the scene features a lot of
NPCs talking to each other, it's boring for the players -- they came
to interact, not watch the GM's characters perform.
Another reason is that the GM (or, for those fortunate enough, GM plus
helpers who play some NPCs) is portraying many different characters
anyway. Unless you have the skills of a professional bard from
pre-literature history, you likely don't have the skills necessary to
keep all those characters distinct in the minds of the players. It's
hard enough for the players to imagine the situation when there are
*no* NPCs present, let alone several talking to each other all from
the one mouth at the table.

Yes, that's an additional difficulty; narrating multiple NPCs ends up
mostly in third person form since it's hard to keep clear who said
what if it's me speaking for all of them.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
4) preplanning scenes with many NPCs -- but the PCs can throw this
off by butting in with something unexpected.

If the players aren't going to be involved in the interaction, why
play it out? Summarise the salient points, and only play out any
interactions with the PCs.

It might be summarized; the point is that the NPC decisions are
already made with a lot of thought in advance. Maybe the PCs
only hear about the results through gossip, reports from somebody
who observed it, scrying, or some other means.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
5) canned NPC responses -- the NPCs follow a few preplanned
types of responses, with default responses (usually brush-offs)
if none of them fit.

I use a variant of this. Rather than a canned response or a brush-off,
I always try to figure out what every NPC would rather be doing right
now. The interaction will then go on only as long as the players are
having fun, and the NPC would reasonably stick around.
When the players clearly have had enough of interacting with the NPC,
that's my cue for the NPC to make their excuses and get on with their
day.

But what if there are two or more NPCs in the same place?
Then they have to consider each other's actions as well as what the
PCs are doing. That's I think the essence of what is troubling me.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
For longer term actions, I track PC and NPC actions on a grid;
every day/week/game session the PCs spend doing stuff, all of
the active NPCs choose some activity, and I mark milestones for
the NPCs (completing something that is likely to affect the PCs,
usually) so that I don't forget about the NPCs who are out of
sight.

If the NPC doesn't have to respond immediately during the play
session, then one thing that can work is to enlist someone who doesn't
come to the session, and may not even be known to any of the players,
to play the part of an NPC by deciding their actions as you describe
above. This has the significant benefits of sharing the workload, and
getting some pretty interesting ideas for NPC actions that you would
likely not have thought up yourself.

That might be feasible, and offers some significant advantages:
appropriate decisions by definition, no disruption of the game
sessions,
less work for me.

Post by Ben Finney
Recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the medium. A table-top RPG
is strong on player interaction, and weak on synaesthetic passive
multimedia. You don't have access to the months-long writing and
editing processes, nor the cut-and-dried story and dialogue, nor the
plethora of highly-trained actors and wardrobe and makeup, nor the
synchronous visual and audial effects, of TV or movies. All of these
indicate you should not focus on things that involve many secondary
characters together in the foreground at once.
What you do have access to is your prepared notes, a few props, and
the collective imagination of your group of players, acting the roles
of the main protagonists. Use the fact that everyone is present and
encouraged to use their imagination to manipulate the outcome of the
scenes involving their characters. Don't kill it off by having complex
character interactions played out in the foreground that don't
directly focus on the PCs.

I am aiming at things where the NPCs are primarily reactive: reacting
to the PCs active role, and reacting to each other's reactions.
Slowing
down the pace of reactions so that there's time between sessions to
ponder responses and get input from other people may be enough,
and as much as I can expect. But it may also slow the sessions
down too much.

While it would be impressive to jump from NPC to NPC all acting
in character, it probably would just make the players lose track of
what's happening and lose the initiative. Unless, I guess, the
point _was_ for things to spin out of their control and end with a
result they really didn't want: "The Council is then in agreement?
These brave adventurers WILL undertake the suicide mission!
You have our gratitude!" and the PCs saying "Um, what just
happened?" I'd be happier if that was the natural outcome of the
roleplaying rather than something I planned to have happen, but
there isn't likely to be another good outcome, either, from the
game point of view, so maybe I shouldn't go there if this isn't
going to be the result.

Thanks for your comments and ideas.

--
Magister

[Tristan]

Post by Magister

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
One of the disappointing aspects of my GMing is handling non-combat
interaction with a number of NPCs simultaneously. [combat goes okay]
If I just dive in and try to do everything, I end up overwhelmed;
usually most of the NPCs disappear into the woodwork.

What is it you're thinking of? What "everything" is it you try to do?
I can think of many possible answers, but I don't know what it is
you're referring to in particular.

Try to play all of the NPCs fully, or fairly--as believable decision
makers. The difficulty is not so much presenting their decisions,
but in making decisions for all of the NPCs, factoring in feedback
from each other, without shorting most of them badly.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
Excuses for not having this sort of thing in adventures eventually
wear thin; I'd like to do it, and acceptably, when it's called for.

What types of situation would you like to see that you're not getting
now?

The main example would be to bring a number of NPCs together
with the PCs to play out some multiway negotiation. For example,
the PCs have rescued an NPC who is the closest relative of the
dying king and therefore the rightful heir, but other claimants (more
respectable, or better connected) are also making their bids. The
PCs might be caught up in an assembly of lords, with the objective
of winning the most support for their candidate for the throne.
Even in this example, the interaction with NPCs may be relatively
sequential, but all of the other NPCs are going to react rapidly
when they find out about one interaction between an NPC and
the PCs. And the PCs will probably want to find out about those
reactions rapidly as well, so they can plan their future actions.
One meeting with an NPC followed by downtime while I figure
out what happens in response is probably too slow to make
this playable.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
How can I improve? Here are some of the unsatisfactory things
1) avoid two NPCs in the same place -- the game world may be
sparsely populated with significant NPCs.

I tend to go by this one. The focus should always be on the characters
of the *players*, and the various GM characters are there primarily to
make things happen around the PCs.
That's not to say the NPCs should not be vibrant, independent,
well-imagined characters. It just means that those characters are not
the *point* of the story -- the PCs are.
One primary real-world reason for this is: your players want to be
directly involved in what's happening. If the scene features a lot of
NPCs talking to each other, it's boring for the players -- they came
to interact, not watch the GM's characters perform.
Another reason is that the GM (or, for those fortunate enough, GM plus
helpers who play some NPCs) is portraying many different characters
anyway. Unless you have the skills of a professional bard from
pre-literature history, you likely don't have the skills necessary to
keep all those characters distinct in the minds of the players. It's
hard enough for the players to imagine the situation when there are
*no* NPCs present, let alone several talking to each other all from
the one mouth at the table.

Yes, that's an additional difficulty; narrating multiple NPCs ends up
mostly in third person form since it's hard to keep clear who said
what if it's me speaking for all of them.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
4) preplanning scenes with many NPCs -- but the PCs can throw this
off by butting in with something unexpected.

If the players aren't going to be involved in the interaction, why
play it out? Summarise the salient points, and only play out any
interactions with the PCs.

It might be summarized; the point is that the NPC decisions are
already made with a lot of thought in advance. Maybe the PCs
only hear about the results through gossip, reports from somebody
who observed it, scrying, or some other means.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
5) canned NPC responses -- the NPCs follow a few preplanned
types of responses, with default responses (usually brush-offs)
if none of them fit.

I use a variant of this. Rather than a canned response or a brush-off,
I always try to figure out what every NPC would rather be doing right
now. The interaction will then go on only as long as the players are
having fun, and the NPC would reasonably stick around.
When the players clearly have had enough of interacting with the NPC,
that's my cue for the NPC to make their excuses and get on with their
day.

But what if there are two or more NPCs in the same place?
Then they have to consider each other's actions as well as what the
PCs are doing. That's I think the essence of what is troubling me.

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Magister
For longer term actions, I track PC and NPC actions on a grid;
every day/week/game session the PCs spend doing stuff, all of
the active NPCs choose some activity, and I mark milestones for
the NPCs (completing something that is likely to affect the PCs,
usually) so that I don't forget about the NPCs who are out of
sight.

If the NPC doesn't have to respond immediately during the play
session, then one thing that can work is to enlist someone who doesn't
come to the session, and may not even be known to any of the players,
to play the part of an NPC by deciding their actions as you describe
above. This has the significant benefits of sharing the workload, and
getting some pretty interesting ideas for NPC actions that you would
likely not have thought up yourself.

appropriate decisions by definition, no disruption of the game
sessions,
less work for me.

Post by Ben Finney
Recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the medium. A table-top RPG
is strong on player interaction, and weak on synaesthetic passive
multimedia. You don't have access to the months-long writing and
editing processes, nor the cut-and-dried story and dialogue, nor the
plethora of highly-trained actors and wardrobe and makeup, nor the
synchronous visual and audial effects, of TV or movies. All of these
indicate you should not focus on things that involve many secondary
characters together in the foreground at once.
What you do have access to is your prepared notes, a few props, and
the collective imagination of your group of players, acting the roles
of the main protagonists. Use the fact that everyone is present and
encouraged to use their imagination to manipulate the outcome of the
scenes involving their characters. Don't kill it off by having complex
character interactions played out in the foreground that don't
directly focus on the PCs.

I am aiming at things where the NPCs are primarily reactive: reacting
to the PCs active role, and reacting to each other's reactions.
Slowing
down the pace of reactions so that there's time between sessions to
ponder responses and get input from other people may be enough,
and as much as I can expect. But it may also slow the sessions
down too much.
While it would be impressive to jump from NPC to NPC all acting
in character, it probably would just make the players lose track of
what's happening and lose the initiative. Unless, I guess, the
point _was_ for things to spin out of their control and end with a
result they really didn't want: "The Council is then in agreement?
These brave adventurers WILL undertake the suicide mission!
You have our gratitude!" and the PCs saying "Um, what just
happened?" I'd be happier if that was the natural outcome of the
roleplaying rather than something I planned to have happen, but
there isn't likely to be another good outcome, either, from the
game point of view, so maybe I shouldn't go there if this isn't
going to be the result.
Thanks for your comments and ideas.
--
Magister- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dear Magister,

I might be wrong, but the problem you seem to have is the unstructured
handling of social interactions vs. structured physical combat
actions.
Negociations, Discussions, Debates and other "conflicts" of a non-
physical nature are in most RPGs sessions handled as free form play.
Maybe all you need to do is create similar actions and reactions for
social based conflicts which will automatically structure it more.
The winner of such a conflict could then be simply allowed to narrate
the outcome ...
There are a few Indie RPGs that take this approach.
Hope this helps.

Christian

[Magister]

Post by Tristan
I might be wrong, but the problem you seem to have is the unstructured
handling of social interactions vs. structured physical combat
actions.

Well, yes and no. One aspect is that I don't want to follow a
very simple structured handling that ends up unbalanced. If
the player characters meet two unallied enemies at the same
time, it should neither be the case that they always attack
the PCs together nor that they always fight each other. The
potential change in the threat to the PCs is very great if an
NPC aims its attack at other NPCs instead of the PCs, and
there are a large number of such decisions in a free-for-all
melee, even though I'm satisfied with the mechanics for combat.

Post by Tristan
Negociations, Discussions, Debates and other "conflicts" of a non-
physical nature are in most RPGs sessions handled as free form play.
Maybe all you need to do is create similar actions and reactions for
social based conflicts which will automatically structure it more.
The winner of such a conflict could then be simply allowed to narrate
the outcome ...
There are a few Indie RPGs that take this approach.

That could be useful in some contexts, but it's not that I want
to choose one side that prevails in the narration, it's more that
I want a narration to arise from the process itself. But rolling
lots of diplomacy skills doesn't seem right, either; I'm more
looking for ways to improve my abilities in free form play.

--
Magister

[Ben Finney]

Post by Ben Finney
What types of situation would you like to see that you're not
getting now?

The main example would be to bring a number of NPCs together with
the PCs to play out some multiway negotiation. For example, the PCs
have rescued an NPC who is the closest relative of the dying king
and therefore the rightful heir, but other claimants (more
respectable, or better connected) are also making their bids. The
PCs might be caught up in an assembly of lords, with the objective
of winning the most support for their candidate for the throne.

Okay. That sounds like a situation that would be very difficult for
the *real people* to decide in, let alone you keeping them all
straight in your head as fictional characters.

My suggestion here would be to simplify it on your side, while
presenting as much roleplaying depth as you like to the players. In
the situation you set out above, set a single, simple, *secret* motive
and goal for each of the NPCs. Write it down in advance of the play
session, and make sure there's an interesting variety -- but keep each
individual simple.

Then, in the play session, you can refer to the sheet and roleplay and
ham it up for each character. The players will be quite confused as to
what's going on, so there will be no need for you to make the motive
complex -- take your cue from the players and reflect their complex
interpretations back to them. In other words, allow the players to
imagine subtle motivations for the NPCs so you don't have to :-)

Even in this example, the interaction with NPCs may be relatively
sequential, but all of the other NPCs are going to react rapidly
when they find out about one interaction between an NPC and
the PCs. And the PCs will probably want to find out about those
reactions rapidly as well, so they can plan their future actions.
One meeting with an NPC followed by downtime while I figure
out what happens in response is probably too slow to make
this playable.

If you have a single secret motive prepared in advance for each NPC,
you can use these during play to take what the players expect of that
NPC and twist it a little. They'll come up with all sorts of ideas
trying to figure out why the NPC didn't react as expected.

It might be summarized; the point is that the NPC decisions are
already made with a lot of thought in advance.

iIf you want things to be more responsive in play, I would suggest not
doing so much detailed planning in advance. Set the stage for NPC
motivations (exterior and ulterior) by preparing in advance, but do so
only in order to allow you to come up with NPC decisions on the fly,
to meet the actions and interpretations the players come up with.

Post by Ben Finney
[...] I always try to figure out what every NPC would rather be
doing right now. The interaction will then go on only as long as
the players are having fun, and the NPC would reasonably stick
around.
When the players clearly have had enough of interacting with the
NPC, that's my cue for the NPC to make their excuses and get on
with their day.

But what if there are two or more NPCs in the same place? Then they
have to consider each other's actions as well as what the PCs are
doing. That's I think the essence of what is troubling me.

Hopefully by keeping the motivations simple (so you have less to
consider) but secret (so the players don't have all the information),
you can use your players' ideas during play to improvise the
details. Ask them probing questions while they figure things out, so
you get them to articulate their interpretations -- then use them,
twisted slightly.

Done well, this can make you look far more prepared than you actually
are, and make the players feel much more involved in the story: some
of their ideas were right after all!

Post by Ben Finney
If the NPC doesn't have to respond immediately during the play
session, then one thing that can work is to enlist someone who
doesn't come to the session, and may not even be known to any of
the players, to play the part of an NPC by deciding their actions
as you describe above. [...]

appropriate decisions by definition, no disruption of the game
sessions, less work for me.

Let us know how it works out; I've never used this "off-stage evil
overlord player" technique myself.

Thanks for your comments and ideas.

You're welcome; please report back as to the efficacy of these
suggestions.

[psychohist]

Ben Finney posts, in part:

I tend to go by this one. The focus should always be
on the characters of the *players*, and the various
GM characters are there primarily to make things
happen around the PCs.

I also like for the focus, during game sessions, to be on the players'
characters.

I don't agree, however, that the gamesmaster's characters are just
there to make things happen around the players' characters. I prefer
my game world to work in such a way that all characters have equal
levels of reality, so to speak.

Warren J. Dew

[Dr. Games (Rich Staats)]

Post by Magister
One of the disappointing aspects of my GMing is handling non-combat
interaction with a number of NPCs simultaneously.
Suggestions (and criticisms) welcome.

Hi Magister,

My recommendation is to have a loose script worked out before-hand
(with appropriate branches and sequels) when you know that significant
NPCs are going to be at the same place as the PCs.

In more of a process flow form ...

1) Start with motivations and goals ... what are the goals of the NPCs
involved, and what do they hope to attain in their perfect world from
the interaction?

2) What are the extenuating and mitigating circumstances ... what do
the various NPCs know that gives them advantages over the other NPCs,
e.g., Fred has poisoned Joe and Fred has the antidote? What aspects
of the environment might influence events, e.g., the meeting takes
place at Joe's castle, and the NPCs are surrounded by 500 heavily
armed, rabid followers of Joe?

3) Script out the interaction between the various NPCs as if the PCs
were not going to be present.

4) Think about the goals/motivations/playing style of of the PCs and
lay out some likely out actions on the part of the PCs.

5) Determine the likely, reasonable responses of the NPCs.

6) Add some spice by having 2-3 items that the NPCs can say or do that
might surprise the PCs and give the initiative back to the NPCs.

You measure success in such a case by how believeable it is that the
meeting would have taken place without the PCs present.

Question for you: if two NPCs meet and the PCs never know about it,
did the meeting actually take place?

;-)

In service,

Rich

More gaming goodness at my RPG WWW site at:

http://www.drgames.org/staats2.htm

[psychohist]

'Magister' asks about "handling non-combat interaction with a number
of NPCs simultaneously."

I'd suggest that you consider working on your ability to play multiple
characters at one. Perhaps you could start with scenes where there
are only two gamesmaster characters present - say, the dying king and
the rescued heir only - and once you feel comfortable with those,
gradually start adding more characters into the scenes.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
'Magister' asks about "handling non-combat interaction with a number
of NPCs simultaneously."
I'd suggest that you consider working on your ability to play multiple
characters at one. Perhaps you could start with scenes where there
are only two gamesmaster characters present - say, the dying king and
the rescued heir only - and once you feel comfortable with those,
gradually start adding more characters into the scenes.

When I saw the post, I thought of your game rather immediately as the
only example I could think of that rationally required that degree of
NPC detail.

Mostly because I remember you saying that you didn't care if the
players showed up or not.