Interrogate Your NPCs

Whys and Hows

Developing interesting non-player characters (NPCs) is a perennial problem for gamemasters everywhere.
You want to make them memorable, but developing them in great detail is wasted effort, since it is
unlikely that most of that detail will come out in play. Dozens of forum threads and other articles have
been written on the subject, and there is a lot of good advice available. This is an effort to present some of
the best of it in a single usable framework. My technique is adapted, in a heavily modified form, from an
idea that Orson Scott Card presents in his book of writing advice Characters and Viewpoint. There, he
talks about drawing stories out of a simple character concept by asking questions about it. The answers to
those questions lead to a starting situation worth using, and asking questions about what could happen in
that situation and how the character could react creates a complete arc.

As-is, this is a great technique for groups that adopt the GM-as-storyteller style of role-playing. For my
preferred game mastering style of presenting players with a situation and then improvising from their
reaction, it needs some tweaking, though. Going from concept to situation to complete arc doesn’t
provide what I need.

Over the course of six brief (non-consecutive) articles I will present a method of creating the information
that you need to improvise consistent, engaging NPC actions in play without useless chrome. By asking
the right questions, you will get at how the NPCs goals, desires and relationships are likely to affect your
PCs’ lives. This will produce most of what you need to know during play.

Before getting into the questions you should use, I want to address a few broader points, though.

Not Every NPC Needs to be Interrogated

Most of the NPCs that appear in your games aren’t really characters, they are just color, just like the
number of moons, or the grime on the cobblestones. They add flavor to the setting, and may even offer a
rumor or a bit of advice, but they do not drive the action. Even recurring characters can fall into this
category. While they are very important to creating a fun game, they do not need to be interrogated.
Instead, they can be dealt with superficially, using nothing more than an attitude, maybe an accent, and a
couple of memorable details.

The dividing line between the NPCs that should be interrogated the ones that are just color is whether an
NPC’s actions can have a (meaningful) effect on any conflict that the PCs face. If so, you should
interrogate the character. Their actions will be an important part of your games, and want to be able to
figure them out on the fly as much as possible.

Since color characters will not, as a rule, be caught up in weighty situations, there is little reason to
consider anything more than superficial details. Of course they can become relevant to the real action
over the course of a story or a campaign. They can be the inspiration for new plotlines and conflicts, or
they can get dragged more deeply into events than you originally anticipated. When this happens, you
should interrogate them like any other important player at the first opportunity.
The First (or even second) Answer Usually Isn’t the Best

One point that I will take directly from Card’s book is that the first thing that comes to mind when you try
to answer to a question should usually be discarded, or at least held in reserve. The first answer you think
of is usually rooted in stereotypes, clichés or just plain banality. These answers just scratch the surface of
your creativity, and won’t be worthy of you or your players. No answer is completely original, but you’ll
know which ones are fresh enough and which ones aren’t, especially if you have two or three ideas to
choose from.
Of course clichés and (some) stereotypes aren’t always bad. Generally they should be reserved for color
characters, or given an interesting and original(-ish) twist, though. Even better, you can get a lot of
mileage out of subverting or deconstructing them.

Why?

While the answer to a question sometimes get the job done, you will more often find yourself needing a
little more detail or a little more information to really make the NPC come alive in your imagination.
When an answer is not yet enough, just ask “why?” is that the answer, or, less frequently “to what
effect?”

It is possible to go off on an infinite regress with this, though, taking each new answer and asking “why?”
again. This may be amusing as a pastime or a parlor game, but you should not indulge in it with
characters you actually intend to play. It will just produce useless frippery and deep psychology that you
won’t use in play.

NPCs Need to be Needy

Your campaign should revolve around the actions of the PCs, even when your campaign’s world does
not. Anything that does not engage them is color — something that adds depth and texture to your game,
but has no real impact. In this spirit, any full NPC — as opposed to a character that provides color — 
should affect the PCs’ lives.

The simplest way to ensure that an NPC has an effect is to ask, “What does this NPC want from the
PCs?” If you make sure that you have a good answer for this and you play the NPC in a manner
consistent with your answer, you will almost guarantee that the NPC will affect your PCs lives. The
answer will also provide the core of the NPC’s role in the campaign, go a long way toward making the
NPC interesting to your players, and provide clear guidance when you need to improvise the NPC’s
actions. It can also drive conflict in your game.

When every NPC wants something from the PCs, and you actively play those desires, you create motion
in your game. Whether the NPCs act in a way that forces the PCs to react, or the NPC’s desires clash with
the previously established desires of the PCs, you are adding energy to the game. You are setting events
in motion.

You are also leaving the players free to react in any manner they see fit. When you answer this question,
you will establish an agenda for the NPC, not a plot or a series of set pieces. No matter how the PCs react
to the NPC’s wishes, play can continue running smoothly with the NPCs pursuing their agenda in the
most appropriate way. The NPC is not relegated to limbo if the PCs say “no” — or anything else — 
unexpectedly, either. The NPC can continue pursuing her agenda without interruption.
When an NPC wants something from the PCs, it also helps to draw the players into the game. Regardless
of whether they decide to help the NPC or not, the NPC chose them, or is reacting to their efforts. There
is an implicit message that they are competent, and even important, which always feels good.

When the NPCs maintain their agenda, but must adjust their plans to account for the PCs’ actions, it
establishes that the PCs are having an effect on the world around them. This encourages the players to be
more proactive. Whether this is more fun for them or not is a matter of taste, but proactive PCs make the
job of GMing easier. Suddenly, the burden of providing momentum to the game is shared among all of
the players, taking some of the load off of your shoulders.

The fun in any role-playing game comes from drawing the PCs into a conflict, and then watching them
PCs fight to return to safety or normality. You can even look at the iconic dungeon crawl as a struggle
between characters that want to become rich and powerful on the one hand, and the monsters that stand in
the way of the treasure that will get them there on the other. With that in mind it shouldn’t be too hard to
understand that NPCs are useful tools for drawing the PCs into conflict. I would even say that the line
between a real NPC and a color character is whether the character plays, or can play, a meaningful role in
a conflict that involves the PCs.

Therefore, when you decide what an NPC wants from your PCs, you should choose desires that create
conflict for the PCs. If the PCs have established goals that they are pursuing, the NPCs should be
pursuing agendas that will oppose the PCs goals, coincidentally make it harder for the PCs to achieve
their goals, or lead the NPCs to aid to the PCs. When the PCs do not have established goals, the NPCs’
agendas should draw the PCs into conflict.

The potential conflicts have to be interesting enough to the players that they are drawn into them, of
course. Not every character with an agenda needs to be a full-fledged NPC, either. Every RPG bartender
wants PCs to spend large amounts of money in his tavern. Unless the PCs are likely to end up in an
interesting conflict because of the bartender’s desire — putting the PCs in the bar may serve as a good
backdrop for introducing other elements of the story — the bartender’s desire is color, not an element that
drives conflict.

Just as a final note, “I want to be left alone,” and similar agendas can be interesting, but only if other
events are likely to cause the PCs to come into conflict with it. If the PCs never encounter the loner, there
is no conflict. If the PCs have decided that they need information that only the antisocial NPC has,
however, you have conflicting agendas, and a possible source of fun.

Why and To What End?

Typically, it is a good idea to go a little beyond just what the NPC wants from the PCs. While the
campaign revolves around the PCs, going beyond what the PCs will experience just a little bit can create
depth, and can help you handle situations where the players leave the reservation, so to speak.

Asking “Why?” the NPC wants what she does from the PCs will typically give you the NPC’s broader
agenda. Knowing this can help you develop allies and enemies for the PCs, give the PCs ways of striking
back at an NPC that has upset them, and provide avenues for future sessions.

Asking “Why?” again about the NPC’s larger objectives is generally a waste of time unless you want to
play a true melodrama, though. It usually leads to psychological analysis and answers like “her daddy
didn’t love her enough.” If a complicated plan is part of the NPC’s concept — say your average
megalomaniacal villain, for instance — the first iteration may just scratch the surface, and going further is
a good idea.

Asking “To what end?” will typically lead to the same things that asking “Why?” does.

No matter how intelligent or organized you are, it is impossible to prepare for what your players will do
during a game. If you think of, and prepare for, 100 possible responses, the players will find the 101st in
five seconds flat. When that happens, you will either have to force them back within the confines of your
preparation, or you have to be ready to improvise. This series is aimed at preparing for the latter. What
you need is enough preparation that you have a good mental grasp on the NPC without preparing more
than you can easily keep track of.

Instead of wasting hours preparing for a hundred alternatives that won’t happen, how does preparing for
just two key ones sound?

Once you know what the NPC wants from the PCs, you should ask

 What will the NPC do if the PCs give him what he wants?
 What will the NPC do if the PCs say no (implicitly or explicitly) to what the NPC wants?

Once you have these two down you can

 deal quickly with the two most likely scenarios

 quickly improvise responses to the vast majority of likely scenarios, which will be variations and
permutations of these two cases, although it may need a little practice like any other skill does
 leave your players free to react how they want (since you are prepared to improvise) rather
than following your prepared plot

You should also be able to remember the answers for the most important NPCs without looking them up.
Try that when you try to prepare for every possibility.

Why and To What End?

Asking “why?” to the answers to these questions will usually lead back to the NPC’s agenda, the same
way that “What Does the NPC Want from the PCs?” does. Occasionally you may be able to anchor some
of the NPC’s quirks in concrete actions, though, so don’t forget about asking, just don’t expect much.

“To What End?” will lead back to the NPC’s larger agenda even more often than “why?” does.