Giving Advice As NPCs

[Opuk0]

How much is too much or too little? I've run the gamut between not even having NPCs accessible to the party and have a pseudo-leader to guide the party, and each time there were complaints about the campaign being directionless or railroady.

Two recent examples of both ends of the spectrum are in my latest runs of Ironfang Invasion which I'm going to spoiler the rest below.

Spoiler:

So in the run before this one, the party decided that they weren't actually going to help anyone out of Phaendar, they were just going to go straight to the bridge, clear whoever may be blocking it, and just hope that whoever gets out, gets out. Naturally no one got out, not even Aubrin who died at the Taproot since none of the PCs even bothered to give her a heal check. The PCs proceeded to aimlessly wander through the woods until they got bored and blamed me for not giving them clear directions.

In the latest run that just ended, PCs saved Aubrin and various other townsfolk, but decided that Aubrin was an iron-fisted ruler for asking the PCs to investigate spots of interest that the refugee scouts had found out about. The PCs had also complained that plothooks were too easy to find with their +10 perception and survival modifiers and dedicated nature-survival characters.

Other points of contention were PCs trying to negotiate with the troglodytes to let them live in their caves. Troglodytes demanded tribute in the form of gemstones or sacrifices to let the refugees even stay in the forest. The other was that the PCs wanted to leave the refugees behind and go to Tamran, where the roads are being watched by the hobgoblins to keep a chokehold on information getting in and out, and which the PCs came across and decided to backdown on fighting.

Altogether, this was seen as railroading instead of challenges in the party's way that they couldn't just nova in one round.

So now I'm at a loss as to what to do for my next campaign? How do I keep together a story while letting the party have the freedom to do whatever they want?

[Grumpus]

I have run a few APs (including currently book-5 of ironfang), and I always have a session-0 and request that the players make PCs who actually want to do the adventure. For instance as a player in War for the Crown, we all made characters who are interested in politics and want the best for Taldor. we didn't make characters who prefer to be alone and hang out in the woods.

And I also would talk to the players and let them know that when they agree to play a pre-written adventure, that they may have to sacrifice total freedom of their PCs in order to keep the story basically on track. If NPCs are giving them story hooks, they shouldn't fight against it.

If the players do not like this, then play a homebrew.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Agreed that the issue may be your players. Talk with them, see if they prefer a sandbox/open world type game or not. If they don't prefer to wander an open world, be firm but professional with them about accepting the obvious plot hooks you put in front of them in order to guide the PCs through the story.

On the other hand if they DO want an open world, have a frank discussion about PC goals and motivations. A wizard having a goal of "amassing more power" is too vague; the players need to establish specific, achievable short and long term goals for their PCs. They also need to agree that at whatever point their party becomes a singular team that they work toward goals together.

However... some players either don't know what they want, want some kind of hybrid of the two or they may change their minds throughout the campaign. This is where your skills as a GM will come into the picture. If your players want obvious plots but ALSO want the freedom to achieve personal goals and wander through an open game world, you as the GM need to either set a personal boundary with your players up front on how much/how little ad libbing you're willing to do or you need to prep for rolling with player decisions along the way.

As to how much/how little info your NPCs give away, this will depend largely on the personality of your players. It will also depend on factors like how often you all meet, how much your players review the game away from game sessions, how emotionally invested your players are in the current plot and so on.

If your players feel awkward speaking with NPCs, only meet 1/mo and rarely take and review notes for the game, chances are NPCs will need to be used as exposition dumps. On a successful Diplomacy check the NPC needs to be able to reveal a good deal of info in order to bluntly lay out the current scenario the PCs should care about, the stakes, potential consequences for failure... basically everything.

On the other hand if your players like wandering an open world, genuinely enjoy interacting with NPCs and are meeting every week to accomplish their own goals in tandem with whatever larger plot they find themselves in, chances are NPCs being tight lipped and cryptic will pique the interest of the players and their characters.

The Angry GM has some good blog posts specifically on running interactions with NPCs, giving your NPCs more personality or just generally building encounters and adventures. I've found their stuff useful several times and I've been GM'ing for decades!

As for parsing out info in RPG adventures, there's also the 3 clue rule. While I'm not always on board with everything on the Alexandrian blogs, this is super helpful. Essentially you want to pepper in 3 clues that get the players to the same conclusion; expect that the players will miss the first clue, misinterpret the second one but with the third one found the similarities between 2 and 3 get them where you need the PCs to be in the story.

I haven't ever run an AP. I have used mega modules from Frog God Games such as The Lost City of Barakus or Rappan Athuk as source material for my own homebrews, but the vast majority of the time I run my own stuff. I tend to prefer creating a sandbox with open-ended plot threads. I may start with a vast, overarching plot in the background or I might only know where the campaign is going through L6.

Since I've been doing this a long time and all of my players are generally older, more experienced RPG gamers, game play at my tables tends to be guided by the players' decisions with me reacting often. Because I ad lib a lot, I tend to create my individual adventures very small. I try to use the 5 room dungeon method but applied to the whole adventure, not just individual adventure sites.

The 5 room dungeon is essentially 5 encounters that follow a formula. Room 1 is the intro setting the tone for the adventure, room 2 is a trick, trap or social encounter; this is usually where I give the PCs someone/something to interact with that helps explain what's going on. Room 3 is the setback; they have a means of reaching their goal but something more immediate blocks their path. Room 4 is the climax; typically the final battle with the BBEG but essentially the goal at the end of the adventure. Room 5 then is either the reward or reveal after achieving a goal. Room 5 could just be treasure and experience, perhaps some extra boon from an NPC for finishing the adventure, or it could be the revelation that while this smaller goal has been accomplished, there might be a bigger BBEG or plot out there behind the scenes.

Last, but certainly not least... remember that your NPCs are sentient beings. From a lowly Tatzylwyrm using snares to hunt for prey to stern high priests assigning crusades to the party, all of these beings have their own motivations, hang-ups, quirks and such. When you act in the role of an NPC as the GM, you have to remember to not only keep in mind what that NPC might know to reveal to the party, but also the nature of how that being might reveal it.

Consider the classic villain's monologue. Its a trope but it's still also a useful way for a villain to reveal info. Does the villain spill the beans because of overconfidence, or to emotionally blind the characters, or perhaps the villain is lying in order to manipulate the PCs. Only you as the GM know the answers.

To that point, beware of RAW and the experience levels of your players. Sense Motive checks, divination spells and player metagaming can all be used to reveal more from an NPC's words than you initially wanted the PCs to know. This is something you'll have to factor in when you inhabit the role of an NPC, so plan ahead as often as you can.

[HighLordNiteshade]

Grumpus wrote:

And I also would talk to the players and let them know that when they agree to play a pre-written adventure, that they may have to sacrifice total freedom of their PCs in order to keep the story basically on track. If NPCs are giving them story hooks, they shouldn't fight against it.

This. Exactly this.

When we started Rappan Athuk one of the players joked, "What happens if we just don't decide to explore the dungeon?" MY answer was, "We decided as a group to play Rappan Athuk so you're going in that dungeon."

When you've all agreed to play an AP, the players have to give up 100% total player agency.

[Azothath]

Opuk0 wrote:

... I've run the gamut between not even having NPCs accessible to the party and have a pseudo-leader to guide the party, and each time there were complaints about the campaign being directionless or railroady. ... what to do for my next campaign...

Setting

To be honest, if it was 'realistic' the world would go on without PC actions. It doesn't need them or revolve around them. Various NPCs have their plans, plots, and nature has things to do. In this autonomous plot driven/hands off style PCs are essentially the only ones with free will. They can discover things and engage in actions they want to do. The scenario can 'fail', villains win (as the 'heroes' didn't act in time) and the PCs go on with their own stuff in their own corner of the world. If they call it "directionless" retort that YOU as the GM have Direction, it is the PCs that are without direction. You are just the world and the backdrop with many things going on. Look at the players and say, "What do you want to accomplish? How will you do that? Tell me what you do."

The other side is like PBPost or Org Play scenarios where the PC's actions drive the scenarios for the most part. NPCs would hang about until the GM is forced to ask if the PCs will act or lead them from scene to scene by describing the set-up and current situation. It's a voluntary Railroad. The PCs can get off at any time and change the dynamic by ACTING (describing to the GM their plan of action and intent to act on it, making some checks for advice, then saying we do ____!). Telling the GM what they do and forcing the GM to react within the boundaries of the story and his knowledge of the locale. I have seen Org Play GM's paraphrase, "that is not described in the scenario so I cannot allow you to do that as I am forbidden from modifying the scenario" which is okay for that specific (in the box {makes a square sign}) format.

Most games fall between those. I'd say; Serious, Moderate, Casual, or Org Play format. The game being Plot or Story driven going from Autonomous to PC action based.

Of course you can go full Martial Challenge as probably skills, puzzles, and social interactions are highly overrated in the game. Just skip the middle parts and go from combat to combat with 0-4 game hours rest between. It gives you extra time for lunch while you hear some players extol you for your dynamic GMming. lol...

In some ways a game is much like a Play and you are the Set Director & Director. You have a story, plot, and scenes. Sadly the players haven't read the scripts and must discover the play in the midst of a performance.

Players
some players are active, others passive, and most along for the ride with input now and then when they feel confident.
You should take notes on your players, what are their strengths, skills, how tactical, strategic? What don't they like? How much do they need authorial direction?
Interviewing the players and asking what they want is generally folly. Sometimes they do know, mostly they don't and will tell you what they think you want to hear or what they think others will support. Psychological studies prove this point endlessly. What an interview IS good for is giving you a general tone of their demeanor, how they approach the game, how clever they are and their general level of self-motivation. Their character sheets will tell you more about their system knowledge and what they want to do in the game as it is an artifact they created to address what they feel is the challenge of the game.

Skills and spells are what the party has to find out information. Make them use them. IF they don't have them look at them and say, "At 5th level do you have +10 in Diplomacy? Comprehend Languages, Speak Local Language, Detect Thoughts, or Locate Object spells? hmmmmm.... what about some trade goods and Prof:Merchant? Any Perform skills? Intimidate?"
Sometimes players have to recognize it is a Game with different situations and characters need a breath of skills and talents to be successful in those situations. If they don't have them then play is going to be somewhat tedious to frustrating.

I think it's best to only give direction after the party falters. I'd ask someone to make a skill check and throw out some info rather than involve a PC. Try to make the players come to their own decision and come up with their own plan of action based on their desire. Using an NPC for that can only be done "in the moment" while the NPC is engaged with the PCs. Forcing an NPC with a tidbit of news only informs the players that you as the GM will step in and break continuity if they seem to be at a loss. Let them flounder a bit, when asked questions say what skills have you got? How/Why does your character know stuff about that?
IN GAME the playing of a PC is always a mix of the player and the character on the paper. Most players think what they think is perfectly fine for the character on the paper no matter what the paper says (yes, just bad acting and character portrayal along with a dose of metagaming). Luckily it's just a game for fun and not on film.

NPC
Most NPCs are wrapped up with their own concerns and don't know anything about nefarious plots. They are living parts of the backdrop and provide "live" interaction with the players. They also provide the Social Challenge (as opposed to a Martial Challenge).

If you need tidbits to give out, a prepared alternative is to read the scenario and make up a list of plausible statements per scenario block. Some will be true(30%) but most based on superstition or some half-truth modified by the motivations of the character involved. Dole these prepared statements out when the party makes Diplomacy roles or similar skill checks. Again, don't give anything away. If someone makes a critical success feel free to use an actual true hint.

I've gone on enough... Read GMming 101.

Devices
As this is General Discussion (for the puzzle haters out there), Mr. GM look at a puzzle and decide What Skill(s){2-3} relate to it directly or closely{3-5} related to it(for -2 on the result) so skills can be used to solve puzzles. This alleviates the burden on the players and shifts it somewhat to the characters with an "in game" mechanic. For multiple characters (rather than a nominated challenger) I'd use the RMS value of the successes or the number of successes divide by the number of characters as the metric for success. Classically it could also be the nominated challenger's result +2 for every other success in the group.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Y'know what my favorite was recently? The source material I'm using lists a powerful high priest that's a socialite and prima donna. The PCs asked a big favor of the church and they're APL 8 so I had the high priest send them on a mission to slay a powerful undead menace. One of the players is like "well, none of us are actually worshippers of this faith... if this guy's so powerful, why doesn't HE go slay the bad guy?"

This question comes up a lot in my games and frankly it annoys me every time. Maybe the NPC isn't as powerful as you think, or maybe they have other things going on and can't. Maybe the reason they're sending YOU folks on this mission is a plot point in itself. WHO FREAKING CARES right now? Like, if you sign up to play in my games, you pester me with how you want plot hooks and a storyline, not just a sandbox, and then I almost literally THROW the plot hook at you, WHY are you questioning it?