NPCs and emotes

Started by Soldier of Fortune, January 08, 2003, 11:53:22 PM

I was involved in a situation earlier where a PC used the emote command to more or less play out an NPCs actions. I was a little irked by it, simply because it was more or less nothing like the NPC is when controled by the staff (since they have the NPCs history file).

My question is, is it considered acceptable to take control of an NPC after an Imm has failed to animate an NPC? Its rare I don't have someone animate an NPC when I've asked for it, but when it does happen, would it be considered alright for my to control it via the emote command?

Just to note, I DO appreciate the PC making the effort to make up for the lack of animation in the NPC. Not looking to give them grief or otherwise come down on them, in case that was the impression he/she was getting from this post. Also, I am not suggesting the staff is under any obligation to animate NPCs.

Wow that could've been me posting the question. I did the exact same thing not long ago. It was very difficult because I had to come up with ways for each emote to get the NPC to "do" the action instead of me. But I rather enjoyed how it went, and it seemed the other person involved did too.

We're encouraged to interact with the NPCs and the "virtual" people around us... for instance tossing Kruth cards out into the corridor and giggling when one of them hits a guard square in the nose. Was there a "real" guard there? Heck no. But you can assume if you toss Kruth cards into a military establishment, eventually one of them WILL hit someone.

And so I think the more important question is, was your RP of the NPC something that NPC *would've* done if a GM had animated it?

I know that I include npcs and vpcs in my emotes/posts.  In my posts, I usually do a made up vpc that way I know I am not making it do anything against it's character. With npcs in my emotes, I use it in bare minimum.(as in the tavern keeper responding to something or the npc templar that ignores my question while continuing to deal with a made up situation that I made up to explain why no one responded)

I see that as continuing the role play, instead of just walking off like nothing was role played in the first place. BUT I do try to keep it realistic. Now, what you might think that npc is like, might be true but what they did might also be true. As in the npc might usually be played gruff and crude around your pc but who is to say that when you weren't around, that same npc interacted with a female pc, flirting and trying to steal a kiss. Now, you didn't see that happen so in your mind that npc is always grumpy and wouldn't sweeten up towards anyone. But in the other person's mind, that npc is a sweetie under the dirt.

See my point?

It's the same in all situations. You can't assume you know everything about every situation. People that cry "poor role play" when they get killed and think it was random with no reason, they usually are assuming though not always. They don't know what went on to bring their death. Maybe someone told lies about them. Maybe some flippant comment months earlier was made and someone was biding their time to keep suspicion from their pc. I am not saying that whomever this post was originally referring to, used that npc in a correct manner. All I am saying is, don't assume and if you think they are using it in a way that is against how that npc is, speak up IC.

The filthy, leering tavern keeper gets up on the bar, dancing around as the silly girl watches with glee.

Glancing at the filthy, leering tavern keeper as his brows rise, surprise evident in his tone, the tall, muscular man says in sirihish, "Wha the feck?! Are ya on spice o' somethin? Better hide it quick afore tha templar comes in."
color=violet]If life was like a box of chocolates we would spend all day inside being poked and eaten.[/color]

Once, I was in a clan with a PC with whom my character did not get along. The person emoted in a way that made a certain NPC that is quite central in there seem like his best friend (from the NPC's side).

It was a very flattening (Odd word, I know. Try to understand) experience to both my character and me. Made us both feel discouraged, for different reasons. That other PC basicly 'owned' the NPC. My PC's relations with that NPC never returned 'normal' afterwards.
f time conversions are giving you a head-ache, visit:

Oh, I wouldn't condone that in the least, Sandferret. If I wanted to roleplay a close friendship like that, I would use a vpc or had known that npc for a very very very long time. Even then, I probably wouldn't do that unless an imm had been animating that npc quite a bit to show a friendship building.

I am sorry someone did that to you. I can understand how that would be flattening or discouraging to you and your pc.
color=violet]If life was like a box of chocolates we would spend all day inside being poked and eaten.[/color]

I agree.  

Using NPCs like that is much like power emoting.

I guess, we should only emote to animate NPCs and VNPCs such that their actions have no direct effect on another player, unless that NPC is a someone under the authority of the person doing the emoting - a Noble's guard or something, for example.  We also never emote an NPC (other than in the above exception) in such a way as to assume we know what the NPC is thinking or feeling.  

Just as I shouldn't emote that NPC wants to ask your character out for a date, neither should I emote that he spits at you and looks at you with distaste.  
In reading that over, what I've written seems like a pretty safe guideline?  Anyone object?  *ponder*
 taste the sands.
I smell my death.
Is that the Mantis head?
Oh, fek!

I generally stay away from that sort of thing unless you are in a position of power over the NPC in question.

Heck, I make a lot of ugly, deformed, dregs of society type PCs and I have yet to gather up the courage to send out an emote about VNPCs looking at me in disgust.

There's two sides to every story, but Ferret's story sounds like the lameness fairy was sprinkling twink dust about.

It's quite acceptable for a PC to involve & lead the actions of an NPC in the absence of immortal involvement.  In fact, it's generally encouraged.

The difficulty is knowing how far to go with it.  Most of the time it doesn't *really* matter, and your judgement will suffice.  Sometimes, of course, there are things you don't know and thus can't take into account.  But, then again, the same thing happens (less often, thankfully) when STAFF use an NPC.

The smartest move is more or less as has been said.  Initially avoid making the NPC "do" things for or against anyone.  Eventually you may get or be given enough clues to play the character more thoroughly -- this is almost exclusive to clan situations, where you can also bounce things off of your clan imm to be sure what you're doing is kosher and can get to know the NPC (and vice versa) over time.  I've seen some exceptional work with PC's running NPC's.

BUT.  For the common player running around the city interacting with shopkeepers & soldiers, I'd suggest keeping it fairly nonspecific.  Or, use a "generic" soldier and alternate how that one acts to account for it being a different person every day -- one gruff, one lazy, one cheaply corrupt, one expensively corrupt, etc.  That said, mostly you're trying to avoid putting another PC in a worse situation, or avoid putting yourself in too good a situation, with regard to a given NPC.  Sticking with that is likely to keep you out of trouble, and indeed keep staff relatively pleased with the effort taken.

i]May the fleas of a thousand kanks nestle in your armpit.  -DustMight[/i]