How Do You Feel About NPC Party Members (A Poll)

[Maxperson]

I try very hard not to have any NPCs in the party. Not so much because I don't trust myself to be as impartial as possible, but rather because it's just one more thing I have to keep track of and I'm already tracking a lot. I tend to forget to have the NPCs do stuff and I don't like when that happens. If an NPC ever ends up in the party, it's because the players have arranged it so that one is there.

 

[Campbell]

So when someone says "party NPC" what that normally means is a member of the party, just run by the GM, not a player. That assumes that the GM is going, to some extent, 'play that character' set next to the PCs characters. I think the key issue here is the extent to which that's even possible in good faith in many system. In a case where the GM knows what's going to happen if X, it's going to affect his decision to have the NPC do X. The temptation is there to find a clue the players missed, to notice something the players didn't, in other words to keep the game chugging in the direction the GM wants it to.

Obviously, not every party NPC does the above, but I think the reason that this is a topic is that a lot of them do.

My perspective is that the GM knowing what will happen if x is the fundamental issue in such a scenario. It belies a posture towards play I would rather not see personally. The idea of an assumed trajectory to play - that there is some direction it should go in and it is up to players figure out that preordained direction is not something I'm personally up for.

I think as a GM I would prefer your posture to be one of curiosity. To wander what happen if x instead of setting it in stone. To really consider things in the moment. That's why it is so important to me personally that GMs not predecide what any particular NPC's role will be moving forward and just try to present them as people as best as they are able to.

 

[zarionofarabel]

NEVER!!!

No DMPCs, no GMPCs, no NPCs that are members of "the party" the PCs belong to, no NPCs that "adventure" alongside the PCs.

PCs are meant to be the movie stars and rock gods. The PCs are the main characters of the movie or TV show or novel or story. The PCs are unique in that regard. They may not be protagonists, or heroes, or even all that special, but they are the headliners. The emergent narrative focuses on their deeds.

NPCs are the extras, they operate as secondary characters at best. Ultimately they are not important. They may change over time, and may even feature prominently in the narrative for a time, but the story is not about them, it's about what the PCs are doing.

I refuse to participate in games where the GM has their own PCs. The GM does not need a PC, they have dozens or hundreds or even thousands of NPCs to run, they do not need their own PCs!

Players get a PC. Players focus on running their PC. GMs get oodles of NPCs to focus on, in addition to running "the world" the PCs engage in during their exploits. GMs that want to run their own PC should not GM and instead be a Player and play in a game with a different person as the GM. IMHO anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

So when someone says "party NPC" what that normally means is a member of the party, just run by the GM, not a player. That assumes that the GM is going, to some extent, 'play that character' set next to the PCs characters. I think the key issue here is the extent to which that's even possible in good faith in many system. In a case where the GM knows what's going to happen if X, it's going to affect his decision to have the NPC do X. The temptation is there to find a clue the players missed, to notice something the players didn't, in other words to keep the game chugging in the direction the GM wants it to.

Which is where dice come in: does the NPC by random chance happen to think of something useful...or, does she steer the party completely wrong, or does she just not have a clue.

It also depends on the NPC in question. Some specifically are there as plot devices and-or with their own agendae (e.g. spies, double agents, guides-who-aren't-really-guides, etc.). Others are there as friends/associates of the PCs; still others are there as employees of the PCs, i.e. henches or hirelings.

 

[Manbearcat]

NEVER!!!

No DMPCs, no GMPCs, no NPCs that are members of "the party" the PCs belong to, no NPCs that "adventure" alongside the PCs.

PCs are meant to be the movie stars and rock gods. The PCs are the main characters of the movie or TV show or novel or story. The PCs are unique in that regard. They may not be protagonists, or heroes, or even all that special, but they are the headliners. The emergent narrative focuses on their deeds.

NPCs are the extras, they operate as secondary characters at best. Ultimately they are not important. They may change over time, and may even feature prominently in the narrative for a time, but the story is not about them, it's about what the PCs are doing.

I refuse to participate in games where the GM has their own PCs. The GM does not need a PC, they have dozens or hundreds or even thousands of NPCs to run, they do not need their own PCs!

Players get a PC. Players focus on running their PC. GMs get oodles of NPCs to focus on, in addition to running "the world" the PCs engage in during their exploits. GMs that want to run their own PC should not GM and instead be a Player and play in a game with a different person as the GM. IMHO anyway.

There are games where Cohorts/Hirelings/Companions are “PC Assets” (under player control) and not the sort of dysfunctional GMPC you’re envisioning.

 

[Lanefan]

NEVER!!!

No DMPCs, no GMPCs, no NPCs that are members of "the party" the PCs belong to, no NPCs that "adventure" alongside the PCs.

Good thing we don't play in the same game, then; as my second* go-to option if the party is lacking something is to simply recruit an adventuring NPC to join us and fill that gap.

* - my first go-to option is for someone to roll up another PC to fill the gap and play two at once, but it seems many people frown on that sort of thing these days...

Players get a PC. Players focus on running their PC. GMs get oodles of NPCs to focus on, in addition to running "the world" the PCs engage in during their exploits. GMs that want to run their own PC should not GM and instead be a Player and play in a game with a different person as the GM. IMHO anyway.

This assumes - not always correctly - that one is in a situation where such can easily be done.

 

[zarionofarabel]

There are games where Cohorts/Hirelings/Companions are “PC Assets” (under player control) and not the sort of dysfunctional GMPC you’re envisioning.

Never said their wasn't games that operate different than mine, that's a good thing as people like different things, like sushi, many people like it, I won't touch the stuff.

I often have PCs hire NPCs to perform tasks for them. However, the things these NPCs do either happens "off screen" or "in the background" of a scene. Even when those NPCs are involved in combat, they die spectacularly as part of the description of what is happening around the PCs, without any mechanical engagement.

 

[pemerton]

In a case where the GM knows what's going to happen if X, it's going to affect his decision to have the NPC do X. The temptation is there to find a clue the players missed, to notice something the players didn't, in other words to keep the game chugging in the direction the GM wants it to.

My perspective is that the GM knowing what will happen if x is the fundamental issue in such a scenario. It belies a posture towards play I would rather not see personally. The idea of an assumed trajectory to play - that there is some direction it should go in and it is up to players figure out that preordained direction is not something I'm personally up for.

It's almost as if there is quite a bit of play where an important element of play is the players learning the GM's conception of the fiction!

 

[zarionofarabel]

Good thing we don't play in the same game, then; as my second* go-to option if the party is lacking something is to simply recruit an adventuring NPC to join us and fill that gap.

I just run games where the party couldn't lack something because their are no specific niches the PCs need to fill. I also allow the party to completely lack certain skills. If the party doesn't have any members that can pick locks, then they aren't going to enter the castle by picking the lock on the gate, they will have to find a different way in.

* - my first go-to option is for someone to roll up another PC to fill the gap and play two at once, but it seems many people frown on that sort of thing these days...

This assumes - not always correctly - that one is in a situation where such can easily be done.

Everyone does it their own way. I have just never seen it done well. One side of the screen or the other, not both, it never works, or at least I have never seen it work well.

 

[Lanefan]

I just run games where the party couldn't lack something because their are no specific niches the PCs need to fill. I also allow the party to completely lack certain skills. If the party doesn't have any members that can pick locks, then they aren't going to enter the castle by picking the lock on the gate, they will have to find a different way in.

In character, it only makes sense to have a well-rounded skill set in the party. A lockpicker-trapfinder-scout is an obvious skillset any party is going to need - or will soon enough realize it needs after any time in the field; and so if it looks like we're about to set off without such a person then dammit, I'm going to go and recruit one.

Same if on preparing to leave it becomes obvious that a party I'm in doesn't have a front line, I'm going to go and recruit a warrior or two to join us; be it as henches or as full party members...even more so if we've already tried the no-fighter approach before and got our butts kicked.

This allows players to play what they want to play, e.g. if everyone wants to play mages or rogues or other backline types they can, and not be or feel forced to play something just because we need it; while still putting a more complete party into the field.

Also, what do you do when running a module that for whatever reason gives the party an NPC adventurer, be it as a rescued prisoner, a plot device, a spy, or whatever? I-3 Pharaoh's Tomb expects the party to find and take in (two? three? I forget how many) adventuring NPCs during the course of the adventure as they explore their way through the pyramid. WGA-4 Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun expects the party to rescue and take in an NPC adventurer who very much has his own agenda. This sort of thing is common.