Restricting/Redefining DNPC

[Michael Hopcroft]

The recent discussion on the Avengers movie has made me bring this to mind: the "helpless" character that PCs continually have to rescue has practically disappeared from the comics, and is apparently not much missed. In its place are characters who are capable but not super-capable: they can handle themselves in most adventuring situations but get over their heads in situations only the PCs can handle. The difference between the Silver Age Lois Lane and the current version of Lois Lane Kent is a prime example.

 

Do Champions players need to restrict or redefine the DNPC Complication to take advantage of this change? It is certainly a matter of campaign style -- a Golden Age campaign might be perfectly comfortable with the cringing innocent act. But there's a case to be made that the less boring the DNPC the more they add to the game and that the Complication should be good for more than just fouling up the hero's life. One could also make a case for redefining DNPC altogether by combining its complicating aspect with the perks of the Follower advantage -- in other words, creating a character who is a net asset but still needs to be taken care of in certain circumstances.

 

And Hero has never really had a good system for that sort of relationship among PCs (for the Fantastic Four-style campaign where the PCs are very much a family unit as opposed to just a superteam).

[Zen Archer]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

And Hero has never really had a good system for that sort of relationship among PCs (for the Fantastic Four-style campaign where the PCs are very much a family unit as opposed to just a superteam).

 

I'm not certain it needs one. I'd just let it develop (if it does) through role-playing.

 

Redefining the DNPC makes sense for modern games; as the point totals for beginning characters keep going up in later editions of Champions, the point totals for DNPCs good get a boost as well. If you want to differentiate between types, drop the "D" from the designation for the more capable ones.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I don't necessarily define the DNPC as 'constantly in need of rescuing' so much as defining it as simply 'creating plot fodder'. I suppose the 'D' becomes unnecessary in that instance, as Zen Archer says.

[Christopher]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

The recent discussion on the Avengers movie has made me bring this to mind: the "helpless" character that PCs continually have to rescue has practically disappeared from the comics' date=' and is apparently not much missed. In its place are characters who are capable but not [i']super-capable[/i]: they can handle themselves in most adventuring situations but get over their heads in situations only the PCs can handle. The difference between the Silver Age Lois Lane and the current version of Lois Lane Kent is a prime example.

Yes, to "profit" from that you have to change the relative Power of your DNCP. From totally helpless to "Less Powerfull". Luckily the drastical reduction in Required Complciations (up to halving) in 6E makes this not really an issue.

 

Of course this could just be a mater of perception:

When comparing a 400 point super with a 175 point normal, the "normal" still seems totally helpless 100% of the time. It's just that they have more "skill" getting into trouble. Instead of being abducted, they sneak all the way into the basis of the enemy, see and indentify the plot device (to later tell the hero) and only then get captured. The result is the same (DNCP is in need), they are just a little bit more Mr./Mrs. Exposition.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I don't necessarily define the DNPC as 'constantly in need of rescuing' so much as defining it as simply 'creating plot fodder'. I suppose the 'D' becomes unnecessary in that instance' date=' as Zen Archer says.[/quote']

 

That's how we've always seen in. We've always thought of them as "emotional attachments" rather than exactly DNPCs. Plot hooks more than rescuees.

 

I've always questioned getting fewer points if they're more powerful. After all in if the Goddess Athena or Superman is actually in trouble is it easier to help them than Polly Pureheart or is the problem that they can't solve going to be insanely hard?

[Christopher]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I've always questioned getting fewer points if they're more powerful.

Don't look at the points. I understood it at "how much can they help you" or "how difficulty the task of saving them will the task be"

When a (comparatively weak) Superhero has Superman (one or two power levels above him) as "Weaker" DNCP then this does not means that Superman is weaker. It would just mean he isn't much of a help (when the PC needs help) and the way how you help him are easy. Could be as simple as "go to palce A, put Kryptonite in lead box, save the man of steel" or "help him finding that one clue that he needs" (but isn't equipped to find).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

The difficulty grappling with this is the extent to which the (D)NPC will be a help rather than a hindrance. If they will be more hindrance then help, they are DNPC's (although more helpful means less points), while NPC's who are more helpful than hindrance end up as Followers or Contacts. Maybe we should be able to buy Followers who are also Complications as DNPC's, segregating the extent to which they are helpful from the extent to which they create complications.

 

I think there is too much focus on having a few big Complications. If you aren't fixated on that DNPC generating 20 or 25 points of Complications, you can create a fleshed out DNPC who is competent and has useful skills, worth 5 or 10 points, who will add much more to the campaign. Depending on how you run your game, other players may never figure out this is "Mighty Man's DNPC" rather than an interesting, recurring NPC in the campaign.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I'm sure I'll be shouted down as a heretic, but I've been considering removing the 'mechanical' aspects of RP from HERO and just letting RP be RP. Build characters at 350 points with no required Disads; you can take Disads for more points, but the only available ones are the ones with mechanical consequences like Susceptibility or Vulnerability. And NPC is an NPC, whether a D or a Hunted or whatever ...

[Christopher]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I'm sure I'll be shouted down as a heretic' date=' but I've been considering removing the 'mechanical' aspects of RP from HERO and just letting RP be RP. Build characters at 350 points with no required Disads; you can take Disads for more points, but the only available ones are the ones with mechanical consequences like Susceptibility or Vulnerability. And NPC is an NPC, whether a D or a Hunted or whatever ...[/quote']

I had a similar Idea, but without complications at all (everyone get's 400 points). Of coruse that caused problems with the Limtitaions (teh same thing is nothign worth as Complcaition but something as Limitations).

 

You approach remidies that, but I think unless you reduce the amount of "Optional Complcations" (say to 15-20) all you end up with is people with a giant Load of Vulnerabilities.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I'm sure I'll be shouted down as a heretic' date=' but I've been considering removing the 'mechanical' aspects of RP from HERO and just letting RP be RP. Build characters at 350 points with no required Disads; you can take Disads for more points, but the only available ones are the ones with mechanical consequences like Susceptibility or Vulnerability. And NPC is an NPC, whether a D or a Hunted or whatever ...[/quote']

 

There's something to be said for this. If there are no DNPC's in the game, does that mean there will be no innocent bystanders in need of assistance or rescuing? Does a lack of Hunteds mean this week's game will have no villains?

 

On the other hand, don't cry foul when that "True Blue Hero" decides it's OK to backstab the baddie in this one specific instance, or the Code vs Killing boy scout decides that this particular villain forfeited his right to live. No mechanics means just that.

 

Drawing the line could be tough too. How different are "-3 OCV at range" and "Prefers to fight hand to hand"? Is "Missing an Arm" sufficiently mechanical? There's come definite crossover in complications. Is "cannot read", "colour blind" or "no understanding of modern culture" role playing or mechanical?

 

The crossover between limitations noted by Christopher exists too. How distinct are "won't strike a lady" and all attack powers "don't affect targets identified as ladies"?

 

I think a lot depends on the people sitting around the table. I've known players to write character backgrounds carefully killing off anyone they might have an emotional connection with so the GM can't use it against them. The same players would avoid DNPC's. In either case, the result is some loner with no ties to anyone - which makes for a less rich character.

 

The reverse issue also exists - a well developed background is given a cursory scan by the GM who shrugs, moves on with the game and never uses any of those elements in game. The expectation Complications come up in game is much clearer.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

I think the shift to more competent DNPCs has its roots in the idea that historically women are portrayed as helpless and in need of rescuing. That stereotype doesn't sit well today. But I think there is also a feeling that if the DNPC is too incompetent they can come off looking like a fool, and that undermines the emotional pull the hero might have toward that individual. Who wants to rescue some idiot that keeps ending up in dangerous situations? Shouldn't we just let natural selection take its due? Granted that can have a lot to do with how well the NPC is played and the nature of the dangers, but players want to like their DNPCs and that is easier to do if the DNPC's can be respected, which often means being competent.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

To me the DNPCness being used just means the attachment for them drives the story. They don't have to rescued or sometimes even be in it.

 

One time my players went really out of the way to not get a NPC involved because his son was the bad guy and they knew how much pain it caused him even though he was the man for the job.

 

Another time they helped out Hera with something Athena would normally do ( yes some of then really do have the goddess Athena as a DNPC) which was as a hinted earlier really hard. They didn't want to let Athena down ( and they were really flattered to be asked)

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

On the other hand' date=' don't cry foul when that "True Blue Hero" decides it's OK to backstab the baddie in this one specific instance, or the Code vs Killing boy scout decides that this particular villain forfeited his right to live. No mechanics means just that.[/quote']

 

Apologies if this comes off sounding harsher than I mean, but I play with a better class of players than that.

[Christopher]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

Apologies if this comes off sounding harsher than I mean' date=' but I play with a better class of players than that.[/quote']

Same here.

[sinanju]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

The difficulty grappling with this is the extent to which the (D)NPC will be a help rather than a hindrance. If they will be more hindrance then help, they are DNPC's (although more helpful means less points), while NPC's who are more helpful than hindrance end up as Followers or Contacts. Maybe we should be able to buy Followers who are also Complications as DNPC's, segregating the extent to which they are helpful from the extent to which they create complications.

 

I think there is too much focus on having a few big Complications. If you aren't fixated on that DNPC generating 20 or 25 points of Complications, you can create a fleshed out DNPC who is competent and has useful skills, worth 5 or 10 points, who will add much more to the campaign. Depending on how you run your game, other players may never figure out this is "Mighty Man's DNPC" rather than an interesting, recurring NPC in the campaign.

 

Personally, I often tend to describe NPC friends, family, lovers, etc. in the character background but NOT take them as DNPCs because I don't find "Lois is in trouble, it must be Tuesday" a very interesting plot hook. I'll happily interact with them, but I don't want to spend much (if any) game time rescuing them.

 

Ditto for Secret Identity. My character may often HAVE a secret identity, but I don't take it as a Complication because I don't want it to be an issue in the game. Somehow, my PC manages to make it to interviews, dates, get his job done, etc. without much undue difficulty.

 

When the GM allows it, I mostly take Psych Limitations to describe my character's personality, along with a few Social Limitations. I was very glad that 6E drastically reduced the recommended number of Complications, and I wouldn't mind a game where you didn't take any. Or didn't get points for them, at least. I'd still use the Psychs to describe my character, but that's it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

On the other hand' date=' don't cry foul when that "True Blue Hero" decides it's OK to backstab the baddie in this one specific instance, or the Code vs Killing boy scout decides that this particular villain forfeited his right to live. No mechanics means just that.[/quote']

 

Apologies if this comes off sounding harsher than I mean' date=' but I play with a better class of players than that.[/quote']

 

Same here.

 

I've seen a lot of disputes over just how absolute certain Psych limitations and other complications or limitations are. If a character has taken a "Total Commitment" psych, the GM has every right to enforce what that means, by the books. And we've all probably heard, if not experienced, the GM who sees any hook as a challenge to screw the character over in any way possible. "Player vs GM" games have never held any appeal to me, nor has PvP. Our gaming group is more collaborative than competitive, at least within the RPG arena.

 

It doesn't have to be as blatant as "this trait is disregarded whenever it becomes inconvenient, either. The GM has crafted a cunning moral dilemma expecting some PC's to conclude that killing this opponent is necessary, and others to regard this as an unacceptable action. Then the drama he envisions is punctured when the True Blue Boyscout Hero decides that, in this one instance, under these circumstances, it is warranted, and he will take no action to prevent it. Anticlimax much like the lucky hit that 1 shot KO's the Big Bad who was expected to provide an exciting and dramatic combat encounter.

 

In our games, I rarely see an "ego roll" to overcome a psych - the player defined the psych from the character's personality, so he doesn't play against it. At the same time, I see issues arise in play where complications add to the game, but not where they simply screw over the character.* But, with no mechanic awarding the character a bonus, enforcing a penalty is not appropriate.

 

Funny...here we play with a better class of player, so we don't need mechanics to encourage role playing, yet we also have threads going on where bonuses for role playing are defended as appropriate or even essential to encourage role playing. Different group of posters, though (I don't see CC on the most recent thread, and Christopher raises an interesting point against bonuses in game for player skills and knowledges).

 

* This actually speaks against susceptibilities and vulnerabilities. Practically, these come up in game only by causing extra damage to the character, often removing him from the game for a time (ie he's KO'd) instead of providing role playing opportunities. Very much of that can make the game much less fun, unlike the "role playing hook" complications. There are exceptions - we had a character Vulnerable to PRE attacks from pretty women, for example. But it wasn't all that common either.

 

Is there a lot of difference in play between 2x STUN from fire attacks and "deathly afraid of fire attacks"? Both result in a lot of attack avoidance.

 

The two are somewhat related - basically, both question the use of in-game mechanics to encourage role playing.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

Re: Total psych limits, I think the problem is not "how strictly to enforce," but "should this character have a Total limit?" IMO, Total psych limits are handed out/used *way* too much. The classic case being the Total CvK, wherein you will regularly have entire teams, every member of which has one. Characters should only take a Total psych limit if they are supposed to be absolute, unwavering fanatics in that sense. Anything less should be represented with a Strong or weaker limit.

 

( Btw, I'm of the opinion that no campaign justifies mandatory Total CvK. A campaign in which its expected that no one, or at least no hero, will ever kill anyone? Is a campaign in which no hero should *ever* be put in a situation wherein there is a significant need to kill anyone. In which case, its not a character limit, its a campaign condition. )

[Christopher]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

( Btw' date=' I'm of the opinion that no campaign justifies mandatory Total CvK. A campaign in which its expected that no one, or at least no hero, will ever kill anyone? Is a campaign in which no hero should *ever* be put in a situation wherein there is a significant need to kill anyone. In which case, its not a character limit, its a campaign condition. )[/quote']

Strictly speaking having the CvK Complciation has nothign to do with the character position towards deadly force.

It's about his conviction being an issue in the game.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Restricting/Redefining DNPC

 

Strictly speaking having the CvK Complciation has nothign to do with the character position towards deadly force.

It's about his conviction being an issue in the game.

 

Exactly. And in a silver age game? An unwillingness to kill *won't be an issue in the game.* Hence why it shouldn't even really be a valid limit for such a game.