Great idea here: npc in-depth description comes only AFTER a flash description, a kind-of 'first-sight impression'! And this should always be present in the npc description!
The more I think about your idea, the larger is the update I need to add in my supplement Personæ (the NPC roster of my game)! I will start by adding this concept to this post… then I think the change for my book will come easier than now! Thanks again!
Thanks for the post (and the blog, that I very recently discovered!) I like your idea of keeping NPCs simple, at least at first, I think it is the way to go. Build them when it's relevant.
That said, I'll push back a bit against the "physical details are unimportant". To the contrary, I think a physical detail is probably the most important aspect of as 2D NPC, since it's all the PCs will see. Something that can suggest something deeper is great ("overequipped with weapons" fits that bill), but even a simple "bright blue eyes" works ("hard blue eyes" or "sad blue eyes" would be even better). It's not necessarily important, but it helps the GM portray a real world by having concrete facts about the world. Not every NPC should get a list of "standard" description, though, becvause the point is not to fully describe them, just to help the GM describe the person quickly and prompt their imagination if more is needed.
I'll be glad to read more of your thoughts. Take care!
I totally agree that the GM's role is to create a believable world, and I think some concrete details are necessary for that. I try my best to make sure that all the concrete physical descriptors are relevant to the NPC's vibe, otherwise my players will just forget anything that seems arbitrary or random.
Like if "bright blue eyes" points to her enthusiasm, I'd totally include it. But for an old wizard, I might instead describe his chest-long greying beard as the only detail rather than his eye color. I just want to include as few details as possible - only enough for my players to imagine the NPC in their minds.
Loved this piece. Descriptions are fine, but the real magic is in transference. It's not what you say about the NPC, it's what the players feel in their presence.
Every character starts flat until the moment they do something. Until silence becomes menace. Until a casual glance holds too long.
That’s when the NPC cuts through the fog and becomes real.
Keep it punchy. Keep it emotional. The goal isn’t clarity, it’s reaction.
Make the players lean in, or shift uncomfortably in their chairs. That’s when you know it landed.
Great article, looking forward to more
Thank you! Got one coming next week about how I do random NPCs…
Great idea here: npc in-depth description comes only AFTER a flash description, a kind-of 'first-sight impression'! And this should always be present in the npc description!
I appreciate it! And I think the shorter character description actually makes it more memorable for players, not less.
The more I think about your idea, the larger is the update I need to add in my supplement Personæ (the NPC roster of my game)! I will start by adding this concept to this post… then I think the change for my book will come easier than now! Thanks again!
https://viviiix.substack.com/p/character-profiling-process-in-four
Thanks for the great post about NPCs. Definitely changed my thoughts on NPCs. Making them simpler until later if needed that is awesome advice.
Thanks! Yeah, and I think it can also save you time as the GM. You don't need to prep everything for an NPC's first appearance.
You're welcome. That helps the GM not get so burned out on things that may never hit the table at least regarding NPCs.
Thanks for the post (and the blog, that I very recently discovered!) I like your idea of keeping NPCs simple, at least at first, I think it is the way to go. Build them when it's relevant.
That said, I'll push back a bit against the "physical details are unimportant". To the contrary, I think a physical detail is probably the most important aspect of as 2D NPC, since it's all the PCs will see. Something that can suggest something deeper is great ("overequipped with weapons" fits that bill), but even a simple "bright blue eyes" works ("hard blue eyes" or "sad blue eyes" would be even better). It's not necessarily important, but it helps the GM portray a real world by having concrete facts about the world. Not every NPC should get a list of "standard" description, though, becvause the point is not to fully describe them, just to help the GM describe the person quickly and prompt their imagination if more is needed.
I'll be glad to read more of your thoughts. Take care!
I totally agree that the GM's role is to create a believable world, and I think some concrete details are necessary for that. I try my best to make sure that all the concrete physical descriptors are relevant to the NPC's vibe, otherwise my players will just forget anything that seems arbitrary or random.
Like if "bright blue eyes" points to her enthusiasm, I'd totally include it. But for an old wizard, I might instead describe his chest-long greying beard as the only detail rather than his eye color. I just want to include as few details as possible - only enough for my players to imagine the NPC in their minds.
Loved this piece. Descriptions are fine, but the real magic is in transference. It's not what you say about the NPC, it's what the players feel in their presence.
Every character starts flat until the moment they do something. Until silence becomes menace. Until a casual glance holds too long.
That’s when the NPC cuts through the fog and becomes real.
Keep it punchy. Keep it emotional. The goal isn’t clarity, it’s reaction.
Make the players lean in, or shift uncomfortably in their chairs. That’s when you know it landed.