Running NPCs as a long-term party/team member

[Wolfwood2]

Permanent NPCs aren't there to solve problems for the PCs, they're there to creation complications for the PCs. Sometimes they may be the solution to the problem, as in, "We need somebody with the engineering skill so let's cart around this NPC engineer," but they don't solve problems.

I find them useful because they can make poor decisions and stupid calls that, while perfectly realistic, few players would make for their own PC.

 

[Rechan]

I've had success with this in the past. Be it the PCs' mascot/spy (an imp bound to the party), or filling a role the PCs lacked (a true lycanthrope fighter/ranger). The latter proved very useful, because she became a romantic interest for a PC.

If no one plays a leader in my next 4e game, they'll have a companion character artificer with them, who's there just to heal.

I find them useful because they can make poor decisions and stupid calls that, while perfectly realistic, few players would make for their own PC.

But not constantly.

An NPC who is the one that accidentally sets off traps, ruins negotiations or otherwise is the bumbling Gilligan that is the fly in the PC's ointment for the DM's machinations would lead to the PCs stringing the NPC up by their thumbs.

 

[coyote6]

I use them from time to time, though I discovered that in 3.5e, at high levels, they can become PITA to run.

For one D&D game, none of the PCs was a rogue, and they wanted to recruit someone to handle traps. So, I sketched out several would-be adventurers, and let them do interviews, and decide which one to take. I included an obnoxious guy, some young wannabes (that were clearly 1st or 2nd level -- much lower than the PCs, who were around 8th level, IIRC), a hulking half-orc whom they'd previously talked to when looking for muscle*, a sly type that would've eventually tried to double-cross them, and a surly dwarven trapfinder that demanded a full share & had a list of things she didn't do ("Undead, constructs, cooking").

*Approximate transcript of interview:
[sblock]PC1: "I though this guy was a barbarian?"
PC2: "Krusk, how would you deal with a crossbow trap?"
NPC: "KRUSK SMASH!"
PC2: "How about a glyph of warding?"
NPC: "KRUSK SMASH."
PC1: "Right, barbarian."
NPC: "Krusk also cook good. Krusk have many hidden facets."

Really, I was rooting for them to hire Krusk.[/sblock]

(Edit: to answer the comment, they went with the surly dwarf; I think they finally judged her the most competent traphandler they could trust. Krusk was sorely tempting, though, for at least a few of the players. )

 

[David Howery]

I can remember back in 1E days, that my gaming group by and large hated to run clerics (they couldn't fight as well as fighters, couldn't sling spells as well as mages, and just generally had to stay out of harm's way so they could heal everyone after the battles). So, we had an endless line of NPC clerics accompanying our party (all of them named Fred, naturally). In spite of their complete lack of desire to engage in combat or take any share of the treasure, they still managed to die horrible deaths time after time...

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

Yep, pretty much. Back in the days of 2e, a couple of groups showed up where nobody particularly wanted to play a cleric for the sake of healing. So they got NPC clerics, generally of the stoic variety with creeds that were entirely compatible with how the PCs wanted to do things. They fit neatly into the midpoint area between "useless sack of stats" and "stealing the PCs' thunder."

One of them wound up being the target of a couple of PCs' romantic attentions, sparking a completely unplanned love triangle that eventually got resolved, with the "winner" falling completely in love and fighting valkyries in Limbo to win back the NPC's soul so that he could be resurrected from the dead. That's pretty much set me in the "it can be an entirely positive thing if you play it right" camp.

 

[kigmatzomat]

doable, but difficult

As a GM you have to avoid having any real attachment to the NPCs to avoid winding up with the dreaded GMPC. You must avoid having plots where the NPC is the key or focal point, unless you are removing the NPC from the game. Remember, NPCs should be sidekicks, not full fledged heroes. Once you make an NPC a hero in their own right, they should either be in the hands of a PC or not a part of the party.

I prefer having the NPCs be foreigners or from non-standard races so that they are justifiably ignorant of many things. I've found that actually promotes immersion by forcing the players to understand the world well enough to explain it back to the NPC. Plus, an ignorant PC can ask the leading questions like "how will the noble/mayor/guild/city watch react?" which can get the players to think about how people respond within the setting.

I occasionally, at the start of a campaign, have the NPCs take the side of the more reckless PCs and push the dumb ideas to the next level. Whenever I do that, I try to have the NPC be the only one caught in the inevitable consequences, thus becoming an object lesson. The severity of that lesson depends upon the foolishness suggested by the players.

 

[Seonaid]

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.

I'm in a similar situation, but in D&D. I have one constant NPC companion (my character's twin) who definitely has her own motivations and preferences, but she never makes decisions or goes against my plans. It works out pretty well. She's mostly there for combat support (as I love combat), and I run her during combat.

They fit neatly into the midpoint area between "useless sack of stats" and "stealing the PCs' thunder."

Exactly.


Edit: Plot-wise, she pretty much knows only what I know, but if there's something to Spot or Sense Motive and my character misses it, she'll point it out to me if she makes the roll. She is the same level as me. She does like kigmatzomat said as well: asks leading questions which help progress the plot.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Agree it is a fine line, and the thickness of the line caries from groups to group. If you need an npc to fill a gap, that makes total sense. If you have an interesting character that makes the game more interesting, that can be good. What irritates me as a player is when the GM uses the opportunity to create a superpowerful character that steals the parties thunder; or worse, a character that can't under any circumstances be killed.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I've always found there's a few aspects of the game:

1. Combat
2. Interacting with NPCs
3. Solving tricky problems
4. Social interactions between the PCs


#4 is the big reason I prefer to run a character as a DM. I find #4 to be a big part of the game, and as a DM I'm generally left out unless I'm running an NPC who is a member of the party.

4E has actually made running an NPC both easier and more difficult. Its easier because there really aren't any limits on what you can run as a DM. In earlier editions and other games, you had to avoid "problem solving" classes like Rogues and Wizards, as these can result in you playing the game for your players. In 4E the non-combat problem solving load is spread out between all classes, and I'm running characters I've never dreamed of running from the DM's seat. Ritual users are a small problem, solved by putting the use of Rituals into the hands of one of the players. Its more difficult because more than in earlier editions it adds to the DM's load. You not only add the NPC, you are adding one monster to each fight to balance the extra character, and it can become a lot to juggle.

 

[Seonaid]

In earlier editions and other games, you had to avoid "problem solving" classes like Rogues and Wizards, as these can result in you playing the game for your players. In 4E the non-combat problem solving load is spread out between all classes, and I'm running characters I've never dreamed of running from the DM's seat. Ritual users are a small problem, solved by putting the use of Rituals into the hands of one of the players. Its more difficult because more than in earlier editions it adds to the DM's load. You not only add the NPC, you are adding one monster to each fight to balance the extra character, and it can become a lot to juggle.

Maybe I'm being dense or a jerk, but isn't part of being a good GM to not allow the "problem solving" NPCs to take over? i.e., by not proposing problems the PCs can't solve mostly on their own?