NPCs and what to do with them...

Or more precisely, what are our current options with handling NPC looting?

1) Humble NPCs

2) Vanilla

3) Liv's dialogue

Anything else possible?

is it possible to stop them looting items in a stupid way (ie as in humble NPCs) but automatically take a share (or whatever) of everything sold and also loot appropriately but in a useful way (eg Spugnoir looting scrolls but the player being able to write them to his spellbook etc)?

How far away are we from the original intentions of Troika for NPCs but without having the idiocy which forced us to use Humble NPCs?

 

The problem with divvying up the money is that money only exists to be spent. If the NPCs take an equal share and then hoard it, without using it to upgrade their equipment or otherwise spend it, it's wasted.

I was thinking that every NPC should have an (expensive) goal, or several small goals, related to what they plan to do with their loot.

For example, Mel and Fruella should want to buy the house in Nulb, which has the nice side benefit of giving you an in-game reason for blowing 500 gold on a shack.

Elmo and Otis need cash to pay off their father's massive gambling debts (or, if you believe his story, support the militia). Furnook wants to buy an interest in the brothel in Nulb. Spugnoir wants to re-furbish the Moathouse as an "Academy of Arcane Studies". And so on.

The equipment you pick out for your NPCs becomes conceptually part of their share, and their special projects give them something in-game to spend cash on, as well as opening up dialog and quest possibilities (for example, the Moathouse Respawn has to be cleared before Furnook can have his Academy; you need to do the Brothel quests before Furnook can buy partial ownership). There are a lot of pointless side quests in the game; making them precursors to NPC goals helps the story hang together.

So, is this an acceptable way to go?

 

Thanks guys. I know this is a bit of dead horse flogging but it does represent one of the few things which we've never really been able to fix 'properly'.

Going to have a think about the answers you've given me as it's obviously going to be a mix as Ted suggests.

I do like the idea of giving NPCs motivations as Old Book suggests. Just not sure how best to tie them in without it looking like its been tacked on.

 

I think we should look at side quests that already feel tacked on, then use the NPC's goals to make those quests feel more natural.

Buying the house in Nulb doesn't make much sense as it is. The PCs can sleep at the Waterside Hostel (if they haven't killed everyone yet) fairly cheaply, or back in Homlet for free. They can even sleep in the brothel (or could if that bit was unbugged). They don't really need storage space, and if they did, well, there's always the magic chest. Why spend money on a house in a town they're only in for a short time?

But, add in Fruella or Meleny, and it can make sense. Both girls are recently married. Both would love to get homes away from their fathers (Fruella because she can't stand him, Hommlet, or you, and would like to own property; Mel because she's seeking independence and would like to start a family).

The Moathouse Respawn, as cool as it absolutely is, becomes better integrated into the story if NPCs have a reason for wanting you to go out their again. Spugnoir can want his own mage's tower and eventual Arcane Academy, Ottis and Elmo can want to claim the place as a militia fort / training center in the name of Hommlet, and if they're all in the party at the same time they can argue about it. Once you clear it the second time, you can go back to the labor camp and hire workers to clean it up and get it ready.

The important thing to me is that the NPCs actually do something with their shares of loot, and that what they do makes sense in terms of the character. Carrying around a pile of cash and refusing to spend it on things you need doesn't work any better as a story element than the Humble NPCs solution.

 

Fair points.

This might be something to link in with the rebalancing project if we can get consensus on how we want NPCs to behave or even if they should be changed from Humble NPC.

 

Hope I'm not coming off as overly critical; I agree that NPCs should be their own characters, which includes getting a fair share of the loot. The problem is giving them that fair share in a way that means something in the context of the game world.

Is it possible for Merchants to check how much gold the party has, which NPCs are in the party, and what they have equipped? If so, it might be interesting to give the loot share by letting NPCs buy unusual items. For example, the party talks to the cabinet maker with Meleny in the party. He checks to see if the party has more than 3000 gold, if Meleny is in the party, and if she's wearing armor worth less than 500 GP. If all three checks pass, he could sell her a set of Masterwork Bark Armor for 500 GP. She gets her fair share of the loot in the form of an item she can use, and the party potentially gets somewhat earlier access to a nice piece of armor. She gets a dialog line at the end of the transaction commenting on her cool new armor and asking her husband how she looks.

 

Not overly critical at all Old Book. I totally agree that we should be aiming to making NPCs as independant as possible (others may disagree with that) and Humble NPCs was a workaround born out of despair.

The fundamentals of what you're asking is 'yes, it can be done'. At least the checks up to the point of purchase - I don't know whether or not you can 'force' a purchase via scripting. I've never tried to do it but I'd imagine it could be done - although it would be to the frustration of many players I fear as the money would come from the party's funds...

Something like that would involve a lot of work though and a better workaround may be the answer, if such a workaround exists. There is too much opportunity for things to go wrong in a check X <= Y type situation. (eg You go to the trader to sell in order to raise money for a couple of ressurections, but Meleny goes and buys a new suits of armour because you've now exceeded the threshhold for her to buy new armour...)

 

Also, that would give some background to NPCs.

There are many NPCs, but few are popular choices. For example, Wicked the rogue you rescue on the Temple, it's at that point, useless and boring. Same for Morgan, even if the "aye matey" talk could be fun, he's boring too.

Take Ronald as example (which it's not an original character), he has a good reason to keep looting and save money.
Furnok actually has a purpose, a silly one but still valid.

Bertram (both of them) could have the same motivations as Old Book suggest for meleny (Lot of fun for dialogues there, for meleny and Bertram), Wicked as his name implies could have a completely twisted purpose of buying better equipment just for revenge and killing (after all, he ask for equipment to "add some chaos"), Morgan could want to save for a boat or a small ship (or a "members pass" for Tolub's crew), Serena may want to pay his debt to you just for honor, etc etc.

Indeed, a great idea, guys :yes:

 

Just to be clear, sure, the money would come from the party's funds. That money would conceptually be the NPC's "share". It's a case of mechanics versus story. Mechanically, giving every NPC X GP per encounter is fair payment; story wise, it makes no more sense than Humble NPCs (which I agree is flawed); the NPC never does anything with that money, even when they themselves desperately need healing, new scrolls, better weapons, or whatever. Forced purchases or long term spending or quest goals might not be, mechanically, a fair share of the loot; from a story point of view, on the other hand, they work pretty well as payment for the NPC.

I agree that this is a risk. What about letting the Player have the option of refusing to buy the item for the NPC? Brother Smith offers to sell Fruella a masterwork steel shield; the Party leader turns it down. Fruella then has a dialog bitterly complaining that she's not getting her fair share of the loot. Not a perfect solution, but it makes more sense than what we have now.

 

re. NPC levelling - definitely in agreement with Gaear.

re. NPCs money - just wondering whether it was possible to split off money (if the payment was in shares) so that it could only be used to buy something for the NPC.

It's a murky area, which is why a thread like this is good for trying to nail little thought stuff.

 

Npc leveling: i agree with Gaear too :yes: (tho some of the inocuous NPC should be at player's disposal, like Serena's sister, Morgan the pirate, or Taki)

Also, without players leveling characters, since the classes can't be seen, they can be cheated and give them some "spicy" ability (Elmo could have the extra feat improved unarmed strike being a drunk and all, for example)

Or, since Prestige classes are something that players always ask, and it would be difficult (and in some cases impossible) to do, we could cheat some charcters and give them some abilities to emulate that, effectively having prestige classes restricted to NPCs, which will add to the players interest in recruting NPCs (for example, the assassin would be really easy to do, the Blackguard too, and the Shadowdancer)

 

I seem to recall Liv or someone mentioning that the levelup.tab for NPCs doesn't have enough room in it for all the feats, skills, spells etc the NPC takes as they level up, which results in their levelups eventually becoming broken.

Please don't. I spent several months of my life making all the monsters and NPCs in the game as rules compliant as possible. Going back and making them uncompliant again would make me cry.

 

*GLUP*

i forgot about that. Indeed, it would be shitting on your work. Sorry :blush: