Running NPCs as a long-term party/team member

[Wolf1066]

Any GMs out there do this or do you avoid it like the plague?

I've found it necessary from time to time to make up party/team numbers - generally to provide a necessary (to complete the campaign) skill set that only another character can bring (rather than loading up the player characters with more skill levels... aged 23 and already an expert in electronic security systems, ancient civilisations, six languages and nuclear physics - yeah, right!).

I don't find it as much fun as playing a proper character in someone else's campaign/scenario - I know everything about the scenario we're playing, which NPCs to trust, which have agendas (and what they are), where the traps are and where the "treasure" is.

This means I have to basically make the character more of a follower than an innovator - I have to take my lead from what the other players are doing, sometimes to the point where you've got to wonder if the character's intelligence is really as high as his stats suggest. Really smart at translating ancient Sumarian when asked and can quote pi to 76 decimal places if you want him to - but doesn't actually come up with any ideas, does not work things out for himself based on what the (other) NPCs are saying.

When I'm playing, I like pitting my wits against the scenario writer/GM and trying to work out as much of what's going on as I can - do my bit to further the team's objectives. I'm constantly searching for whatever subtle hints the GM is giving out and making assessments based on what my character is supposed to be good at.

I can't do that as an NPC as there are no mysteries for me.

instead, I have to walk a fine line between playing it as an utter moron and using it to reveal too much. The players can decide if they trust any given NPC and formulate opinions, as GM, I know whether they are right or not - therefore so does the "team character" I'm playing.

I have to constantly keep track of what the team NPC knows about the other characters based on what has been revealed in game - to decrease the risk of him revealing stuff not revealed - it's a pain as I know more about the player characters than the players do and it's hard to avoid dropping in something the team NPC should not know because the player has not chosen to reveal that part of their background/skills to the team as yet.

Reason why I'm ruminating on this is: the team is short a character - player not available to play - whose skills will be necessary in the campaign so I'm looking at the strong likelihood that I'm going to have to run with the foxes while hunting with the hounds.

How do other GMs handle the situation?

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

I have used permanent NPC's, but only because the party was too small for combat. I named the NPC, CB, for cardboard, and he went sideways, that is invisible, during non-combat encounters.

I would avoid a permanent NPC with a non-combat skill-set. I would either present contacts or libraries or steer the game away from areas of expertise the characters do not possess. Moreover, just let the players and their characters do their best without certain skills.

 

[Allenchan]

It might seem a little video game-y to some people, but in the current game I run (3 PCs), there are a plethora of NPCs that are available to accompany them on their journeys in my sandbox. By now they are acquainted with most of them and their personalities.

The PCs have a stack of index cards with all the NPCs names written down, and the party's own descriptions of each. For example, a barbarian the party can get to tag along with them is written "short tempered ogre-slaying cabinet-maker".

Of course, the NPCs never take the lime light (and are a level lower than the PCs), but each have their own motives for accompanying the PCs, and each offer their own unique plot hooks. For example, the PCs agreed to let one NPC accompany them because the NPC knew of a crypt and wanted to raid it. Obviously, the NPC is wanting a large portion of the wealth they'll find there.

Currently, the PCs are on a diplomatic mission into the wilderness to deal with some fey. They opted to take with them a very pacifistic cleric of a Good deity to take with them. A wise choice, and certainly better than a greedy fighter or a hot-headed barbarian, but of course the cleric might start trying to convert some fey to his God, which could create some interesting tension in its own right and spice up the plot.

There's never a "right" answer on which NPC to take, and sometimes they dont want to take one with them at all. They have flavorful personalities, serve to offer plot twists/advice, and support in combat. That's it, and its something that is made clear in the table talk around the game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You don't need to be stupid. You need to be passive or aloof, and the sort who doesn't participate in decision making or problem solving.

 

[Wolf1066]

Good point, thecasualoblivion. Aloof and/or passive would work.

This afternoon I had a few chuckles imagining playing the character as having a quirky sense of humour and thus all his "suggestions" for what they do are based on cliched and appallingly stupid TV/movie plot devices that would never work in real life, like "how about we just wander all over town and trust the baddies to reveal the location of their extremely well-hidden base by shooting at us when we pass close by" or "let's just go up to all the suspects one at a time and say 'the jig is up, we know everything' - the guilty one will assume we do know and either spill his guts or try to shoot us... either way we've got him" or "let's dress up in overalls and tell the guards that we're here to fix the aircon in the boss's office... they'll let us in" - and have him finish up with "it always works for James Bond/Arnold Schwarznegger/Nancy Drew".

Then I had a few more chuckles thinking about how I'd react to someone saying to me, "the jig is up, I know everything":

"Oh, you poor dear, your brain must feel like it's bursting. Would you like to sit down and rest?"

"Excellent! So tell me, were we created or did we evolve?" (or "who really killed JFK?" "what is the square root of pi?" etc)



He's the team's techie in case the team needs things repaired, modified or manufactured on the spot or locks need to be bypassed etc, and he's also the one who has all the persuasion and information gathering bonuses.

What he finds out can be purely handled by rolling the dice and seeing if the other NPCs feel inclined to unburden their souls to the team or help them out etc - I needn't concern myself with the fact that he (as me) knows exactly what would convince the other NPCs (also me) to respond favourably, just make the straight skill roll with no roleplaying. If the rest of the team suggest bribery or exchange of services, then I can modify accordingly. Likewise, him discovering what's wrong with their vehicle and fixing it would just be a matter of skill rolls.

He's also fairly competent with a firearm when it comes down to a scrap, which means they'll have four combatants rather than just three if things get sticky - and I'll let the rest of the team decide whether to stand and fight or head for the tall timber - his initiative base is lower than that of other party members, anyway so the likelihood of him reacting first to a situation is very slim (and there's always the "he's waiting to see what the other side is doing before he acts" gambit if he does get first action).

 

[Dausuul]

Any GMs out there do this or do you avoid it like the plague?

Avoid avoid avoid. Hell no. No way. As a DM I've got plenty to do without trying to keep track of a player character as well, and the usual attractions of being a PC are, as you say, lacking when one is also the DM.

If there aren't enough players or they're missing crucial skills, I'll give them henchmen or something.

(My party insists on having an NPC bard along to record their exploits, but I don't really run the bard. It's a standing joke that he's like Vaarsuvius's familiar in Order of the Stick, before V's recent enlightenment--he pops into existence when people remember him, even though in theory he's been there all along. He doesn't even have a stat sheet.)

 

[TheYeti1775]

I have in the past.
But usually it is a Fighter/Rogue class for the NPC that the party lacks.

In 1E, we had lots of NPC's as many of the modules dictated having multitudes of party members and henchmen/hirelings with you.

 

[Piratecat]

I usually use NPC party members. In 4e I've kept them to a really subsidiary role (the kobold manservant who handles transportation), but I love them. The trick is using a much-abbreviated character sheet.

 

[SkidAce]

Almost always. And the players enjoy them. Part of it is a sense of immersion in the world, they get to choose who comes and goes. However normally they stick with one favorite. Like Harlequin (Quin) Plato. Bard, who indeed was a philosophical jester.

Stick with what that character would know and a sentence or two on motivation and you are good, no DM/NPC conflicts to worry about.

 

[Shades of Green]

You don't need to be stupid. You need to be passive or aloof, and the sort who doesn't participate in decision making or problem solving.

Quoted for truth. I have quite an experience with adding NPCs to the PCs' adventuring party, and the key to a successful permanent NPC is letting the PCs take the lead and make the decisions. Sure, the NPC might have an agenda and/or a subplot and always has a personality, but these should be mostly in the background, not the foreground. The foreground ALWAYS belongs to the players and their PCs.

I'm currently planning a Traveller campaign with only one player (my spouse); she will have at her command a whole starship with several NPC crewmembers. Sure, they'll have their personalities and their agendas, not to mention their expertises, but she'll be the captain and have command authority.