|
|
|
Overlord
 
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 5:36 PM
Posts: 1,480,
Visits: 3,862
|
|
Marios (4/14/2008)
I don't think distinguishing NPCs/PCs is simply (as it sounds as if people are saying) a matter of inappropriate conditioning/badly briefed/played NPCs - insofar as NPCs aren't the same as PCs (i.e. they don't feel as much as personal responsibility if their character fails in its goals because some/all of its goals come from a ref) they are going to behave differently.
Why's that then? Are you saying people can't invest as much in an agenda because they didn't pay for their ticket?Why would referee's be involved in briefing NPCs, surely you mean plot team?
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:52 AM
Posts: 505,
Visits: 950
|
|
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
Marios (4/14/2008)
I don't think distinguishing NPCs/PCs is simply (as it sounds as if people are saying) a matter of inappropriate conditioning/badly briefed/played NPCs - insofar as NPCs aren't the same as PCs (i.e. they don't feel as much as personal responsibility if their character fails in its goals because some/all of its goals come from a ref) they are going to behave differently.Why's that then? Are you saying people can't invest as much in an agenda because they didn't pay for their ticket? Why would referee's be involved in briefing NPCs, surely you mean plot team? Marios does have a point (I'm really going to have to bathe in bleach and loofa with wire wool here) in that no matter how good the intentions of the player playing an NPC role, they still won't have the same levels (or type) of dedication simply due to their motivations are influenced/dictated by another force for the benefit of the game/plot. I think I'm starting to realise I'm a simulation purist. I didn't like the linears I played 10 years ago which caused me to lose interest in LARP but now that I play fully or mostly player led plot events I'm finding everything so much more believable and immersing. Taking my Eos character as an example, if I played him in a linear I know that on some level hyis mentality would be "bored now, kill these so I can drink. Give me a real fight". Linears are a bit like MMORPGs (Warcrack) in that you have to kill x number of these/collect y/go see z then collect reward. Press button, recieve bacon. The whole purpose is to level whereas I'm there for the journey. Killing NPCs just starts to haze, whereas if I killed someone with that spark then it's more likely to affect me/my ccharacter in new and interesting ways. Consider me some kind of LARPing Libertine (I just hope I don't get bored and jaded too quickly) 
___________________________________________________
PD:- Dr/Cpt Heinrich Bellamorto - Pickled Surgeon
- "Shoot him in the eye, the face is for ruffians and amateurs."
- "I'm holding a pistol and I have a pocket that cries PARTY! We are NOT having a quiet one!"
- "Lovable in a Hitler kind of way" - Sass
EOS:- Jarn - Psychotic Runty Orc Beserker
- "Hello my Pretty Pretty...fancy some muddy cuddles?"
- "If we are what we eat, I could be you tomorrow..."
RL:- Pete Bridges - IT Mercenary and RA (special) Agent for Suffolk Mental Health Partnership
- "[LARP], it's not like drugs although it's probably just as expensive"
- "Yes, I snorted the Everclear and the Strawberry stuff with pips in"
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:12 PM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,151
|
|
Sarah (4/14/2008)
I disagree, NPCs *should* be the same as PCs - people who live in the game world. Personally, I think the distinction is a hangover from linear days of us versus them.
They are 'the same' in the sense of all being people who live in the game world. If you mean people shouldn't say "don't bother healing him, he's an NPC" then I think that's a given - if you mean that no one should be able to tell the difference between an NPC and a PC then I think (i) should hangs on what you're trying to achieve with your game (ii) that doesn't mean that there won't always be an observable difference between how NPCs tend to play and how PCs tend to play that justifies people like Matt P in preferring characters/games where they get to interact with the latter more than the former.
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
Why's that then? Are you saying people can't invest as much in an agenda because they didn't pay for their ticket?
I don't think it has much at all to do with ticket prices - you can turn up to monster/NPC a game and have to pay a ticket price to cover site hire and food (as well as transport there).
I think the distinction is that people don't (tend to?) invest as much self-esteem in agendas that they didn't create/choose themselves. If you want your NPCs to invest _more_ in the roles they play you do this by giving them more autonomy and more choice - but if they had precisely the same degree of choice/autonomy in choosing their IC goals, they wouldn't be NPCs, they'd be PCs.
It's something that comes across with pre-genned PC/NPCs too - I've played games where I'm handed a brief which tells me what's happened to my character and I've played games where I'm handed a brief which tells me what's happened to my character _and how I feel about it/what my goals are_. All things being equal, it's much harder to invest in the second character because I didn't get to choose the goals/motivations.
If you were to define NPCs as just some people whose tickets you pay for - maybe you provide bunk space - but otherwise there's no plot team, none of the organisers talks to them about what they want to see more of and it's absolutely clear that you want them to play as normal players (they aren't trying to guess what it is you might want as a quid pro quo for tickets/bunks) - then I agree that these 'NPCs' might well be indistinguishable from 'PCs', but only because they are what I would described as PCs.
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
Why would referee's be involved in briefing NPCs, surely you mean plot team?
Depends on the system - not all games separate the two (it's a separation of duties that only fits with some conceptions of how larp should be). If you want a more blandly generic word "organisers" fits the bill (by definition a plot team organises 'something' and they are usually in some way part of the 'organisation' that runs the game).
Marios
P.S. Pipped!
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 5:36 PM
Posts: 1,480,
Visits: 3,862
|
|
Pete Bridges (4/14/2008)
Marios does have a point (I'm really going to have to bathe in bleach and loofa with wire wool here) in that no matter how good the intentions of the player playing an NPC role, they still won't have the same levels (or type) of dedication simply due to their motivations are influenced/dictated by another force for the benefit of the game/plot. I know Marios has a point Pete, but I'm trying to understand what his reasons behind it are. I don't think anyone on this thread has said its easy in any way to get NPCs to have the same level of motivation as players, but I certainly don't feel there's anything wrong with this as an aspiration. I'm also challenging his assertion that that anyone has said its an easy objective - it really isn't. Marios (4/14/2008)
I think the distinction is that people don't (tend to?) invest as much self-esteem in agendas that they didn't create/choose themselves. If you want your NPCs to invest _more_ in the roles they play you do this by giving them more autonomy and more choice - but if they had precisely the same degree of choice/autonomy in choosing their IC goals, they wouldn't be NPCs, they'd be PCs. If you applied this to another medium, Brando and Hoffman, et al, would take issue with your assertion here. Indeed, if solely self developed character was the basis of dramatic excellence then we'd need to completely re-write the rulebook and award a few grammies to some really crap films, thankfully it isn't. I think a really good character crew get get just as caught in a role that appeals as one that you devise for yourself, at least to the point where a player is able to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the game to the point that they no longer see a distinction between player and NPC. That's the kind of game I want to play in and to run. Unfortunately many systems see the long term NPCs as signpost characters - point the players in the right direction and "alas I cannot go with you." or fodder. This is what can give NPC driven plot a bad name. Marios (4/14/2008)
If you were to define NPCs...I wouldn't define NPCs the way you suggest, perhaps that was a little too instinctive - sorry To my mind character's devised by the organisers in a system predominantly populated by player devised characters should have there own agenda and should not compromise this unless they have a good character reason to do so. These agendas may interact with player agendas and goals, but should be just as entrenched. I don't use the term "Monster" in my games because it demeans the idea of character motivation. Instead I want Demons who don't reward you for effort (unless its in their nature), but have their own needs, that may or may not involve conflict. I want a standard of costume that's comparable to player standards, but hey on a budget, I can dream...
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:24 PM
Posts: 141,
Visits: 783
|
|
| Possibly what marios is saying is that people playing a role given to them by an authority figure (e.g. the ref team, or plot team if you have a seperate one in your system) dont invest as much of their ego into the achievement of goals associated with that role, compared to people playing a role they have been free to choose themselves within the bounds of the game world. Perversely this can in some cases lead to the ref-defined roles getting more stuck in to the roleplaying than the player-defined roles (more ego invested in following their brief in a creative, entertaining way. Their failure to achieve their goals might be totally inevitable anyway. Players be more likely to hold back/avoid risks). Mark.
Awww, its no fun when you admit it!
-But it is when I make the salad dressing!
(Weebl & Bob)
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:12 PM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,151
|
|
Mark is bang on the money - clearly he should precis all my posts - particularly that a game organiser may well not _want_ NPCs to be as risk-averse as players!
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
I know Marios has a point Pete, but I'm trying to understand what his reasons behind it are. I don't think anyone on this thread has said its easy in any way to get NPCs to have the same level of motivation as players, but I certainly don't feel there's anything wrong with this as an aspiration. I'm also challenging his assertion that that anyone has said its an easy objective - it really isn't.
I'm not saying it's easy to reduce the gap or undesirable - generally I prefer games where the gap between PCs and NPCs is minimal - but I do think that the only way for NPCs to have the same investment in IC goals as PCs is for there to be no effective difference between NPCs/PCs are generated/what expectations they labour under. If there is no difference then you haven't got NPCs which have the same level of investment in IC goals - what you have is "no NPCs".
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
If you applied this to another medium, Brando and Hoffman, et al, would take issue with your assertion here. Indeed,if solely self developed character was the basis of dramatic excellence then we'd need to completely re-write the rulebook andaward a few grammies to some really crap films,thankfully it isn't.
As you say, that's a different medium and 'dramatic excellence' is rather subjective. Actors with scripts/monsters with scripts can both be 'dramatically excellent', but it's hard to argue that they are investing in their IC goals (unless they slit their throats after the performance because the script denies the resolution of their IC goals!).
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
I thinka really good character crew get get just ascaught in a role that appeals as one that youdevise for yourself, at least to the point where a player is able to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the game to the point that they no longer see a distinction between player and NPC.
This is the point I - and others - depart on. I've played with and against really, really good character crew and they are almost always distinguishable from players, at least to some fraction of the playerbase. I don't think it's necessarily something which destroys your suspension of disbelief per se by you being constantly aware of it, but it's enough that people like Matt P can consistently claim to not want to interact with NPCs because they don't find it as enjoyable as interacting with PCs.
Conversely, when players play as if something in their brief matters to them more than any investment of ego they tend to get confused with NPCs - which is fairly reasonable since it's a very hard standard to meet unless (i) you're only playing in short bursts and (ii) you're relatively free from fear of failure because you didn't write the brief.
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
Unfortunately many systems see the long term NPCs as signpost characters- point the players in the rightdirection and "alas I cannot go with you." or fodder. This is what can give NPC driven plot a bad name.
That's also a factor - but I think you might be failing to grasp that people with experience of well-played NPCs with relatively autonomous briefs are still saying that they would still rather interact with PCs. It's not that they are 'badly-played/badly-briefed' NPCs - it's that they are NPCs and not PCs. I don't think this is a matter of confusion that can be fixed by any kind of "improved NPC" which isn't effectively a PC (i.e. as free from ref influence as a PC).
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
To my mind character's devised by the organisers in a system predominantly populated by player devised characters should have there own agenda and should not compromise this unless they have agood character reason to do so.
If the NPC is 'devised by the organisers' then in what sense do they have their own agenda? If you mean, they are free to _develop_ their own agenda in response to IC actions, so long as they start with the agenda in their brief - that's what I'd call a standard autonomous NPC
Allen Stroud (4/14/2008)
Instead I want Demons who don't reward you for effort (unless its in their nature), but have their own needs, that may or may not involve conflict.
This is the point - a well-played/well-briefed demon devised by an organiser and then played by someone else is always going to be different from a well-player demon devised by the player because the player is responsible both specifying character motivations _and_ implementing them.
If the NPC demon is told (that it's in their nature to want ...) to capture people's souls but finds it really hard IC to do IC, that's quite a different experience from deciding to create a character who has exactly the same IC goal and then finding it really hard to achieve them IC. Inevitably this leads to distinct behaviour because, for the NPC, the stakes are that much lower (as indeed is the reward for success since you're sharing it with the person who devised the character).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:44 PM
Posts: 770,
Visits: 2,088
|
|
I think I'm starting to realise I'm a simulation purist Welcome to the team *passes out the manifesto* I think the distinction is that people don't (tend to?) invest as much self-esteem in agendas that they didn't create/choose themselves Having played quite a few larps where everyone has a pre-written character, I'm not sure this is true.
------ PD: St. Legion the blessed, ' "If you're a loyal eidolon, where were you when we killed the first-born?" RW: Ketta Sheng "Girls are evil. They break your heart, and then your spear, and then they get killed" EOS: Hasib Suran: "Yes, older brother, it's your choice. I only advise you." TNN: Druid Coran: "Do not heckle me, witch!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |