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

[zarionofarabel]

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.

I don't run modules. Among other reasons, because they are built with the "balanced party" in mind and often have parts that are virtually impossible to surmount without specific skill sets present.

In fact, some of my favorite campaigns were ones where the party was made up of a single archetype.

I also don't do the DnD thing which I have found makes it much easier to have PCs that can handle challenges outside their specialty as the rules allow for PCs to have secondary and tertiary skill sets.

In most of my campaigns the magic user can also swing a sword, warriors are able to sneak, and the scholarly priest might even be able to pick a pocket.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The character may lack the concept of level, but that's also not axiomatic.

See, the combat capabilities are linked directly to level.
In some games, most notably AD&D 1E, but it's not alone, until one has both the experience and the training, one does not level up. Given that the training cannot be taken until one is in the level prior to the one trained for, clearly level is accessible in game world to some degree... "I feel it is time I learn the Fourth Secret of the School of Defense" is equivalent to "I need to learn to be a 4th level fighter." "What belt have you earned?" is a modern real world equivalent.

That might have been true of PCs, but it was not to anything else; at most you knew what table someone was fighting on.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't run modules. Among other reasons, because they are built with the "balanced party" in mind and often have parts that are virtually impossible to surmount without specific skill sets present.

Which is fine, and presents a challenge to those who don't have said skill sets in the team.

In fact, some of my favorite campaigns were ones where the party was made up of a single archetype.

Oh, it can work, don't get me wrong; but in-character I would expect characters to learn what works well and what doesn't in terms of group or party composition as the adventures go by.

I also don't do the DnD thing which I have found makes it much easier to have PCs that can handle challenges outside their specialty as the rules allow for PCs to have secondary and tertiary skill sets.

In most of my campaigns the magic user can also swing a sword, warriors are able to sneak, and the scholarly priest might even be able to pick a pocket.

So, no such thing as niche protection.

The hazard I've always seen with this approach (and thus the reason I don't do it) is that the main reason for having adventuring parties as opposed to lone adventurers is so the characters can cover for each other's weaknesses. If each character can do a bit of everything, jack-of-all-trades like, that basic reason to form parties goes away; leaving you with a bunch of one-man bands that then often end up having to artificially or meta-contrive a reason to get together and stay together.

 

[Maxperson]

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

There are also games where the NPC is under DM control, yet still aren't dysfunctional like that. There's rather marked difference between a DMPC, which I can't stand, and an NPC of X class that is in the party for Y reason. The two are played very differently and the DM investment in the two is also very different.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Which is fine, and presents a challenge to those who don't have said skill sets in the team.

Indeed.

Oh, it can work, don't get me wrong; but in-character I would expect characters to learn what works well and what doesn't in terms of group or party composition as the adventures go by.

Or they just conquer challenges outside their skill sets by employing creative or "outside-the-box" thinking. Makes the game more fun and the story more interesting in my experience. As a bonus, at times, the party will try avenues outside their primary skill-sets despite the lower odds of success. Definitely makes games more interesting.

So, no such thing as niche protection.

The hazard I've always seen with this approach (and thus the reason I don't do it) is that the main reason for having adventuring parties as opposed to lone adventurers is so the characters can cover for each other's weaknesses. If each character can do a bit of everything, jack-of-all-trades like, that basic reason to form parties goes away; leaving you with a bunch of one-man bands that then often end up having to artificially or meta-contrive a reason to get together and stay together.

See, and I have always found the classic "balanced adventuring party" to be artificial and meta-contrived. A small band of Viking warriors out to make a name for themselves, sure. A group of scholarly mages trying to unlock the secrets of an ancient artifact, okay. A group of thieves trying to gain power and position in the city's Thieves Guild, definitely. A group of devout priests expanding their god's influence in a new region, why not.

A single thief, single warrior, single mage, and single priest all skulking around in some ruin somewhere either all trying to get rich, or worse, each with a completely different reason for doing so. Definitely artificial and meta-contrived.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I am all for hirelings and henchmen that don’t dominate the encounter and take the spotlight from the PC’s.

I have a cadre of sidekick NPCs I use in my tabletop campaigns, to fill in vacant roles, or as exposition delivery vehicles or what have you. One of my tricks is to make each of them incompetent in different ways.

In my family game, there's a dwarf protection warrior sidekick, since the PCs don't have anyone who can wear heavy armor and take a decent hit, but he's a morose alcoholic trying to die in battle, because he believes he has lost all his honor. So half the time, the PCs have to grab him by the collar when he tries to charge headfirst into any encounter and start attacking.

The NPCs can't take the spotlight because they're not as good as the PCs, mechanically or intellectually.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A single thief, single warrior, single mage, and single priest all skulking around in some ruin somewhere either all trying to get rich, or worse, each with a completely different reason for doing so. Definitely artificial and meta-contrived.

Except, in a world where magic is real, the gods grant miracles to clerics and adventurers are a thing, military colleges and the like would have long ago figured out the value of a balanced party and what the "ideal" balance would be.

No one on Earth scoffs at the idea of military units having a mix of different specialists who carry different equipment and have different roles. It's not "contrived" to have an infantry unit with a medic, a communications specialist and a bomb-disposal expert. Two of my friends from college were Marine reservists who were called up to be attached to Army infantry units specifically because of their bomb-disposal training.

 

[aramis erak]

That might have been true of PCs, but it was not to anything else; at most you knew what table someone was fighting on.

One knows one's own Armor, and how often they should get hit, at least if one is proficient.
Likewise, the training rules aren't just a PC thing; they are there to limit PC growth, but they are done by NPCs, and the NPC has to figure out the relative skill to be able to teach the student the new material.

Every ability is testable.

 

[Campbell]

So, no such thing as niche protection.

The hazard I've always seen with this approach (and thus the reason I don't do it) is that the main reason for having adventuring parties as opposed to lone adventurers is so the characters can cover for each other's weaknesses. If each character can do a bit of everything, jack-of-all-trades like, that basic reason to form parties goes away; leaving you with a bunch of one-man bands that then often end up having to artificially or meta-contrive a reason to get together and stay together.

I have never really been a fan of games that go out of their way to enforce niche protection. I have always preferred more pulp style broadly capable characters. In my experience the different connections, expertise, and organic skillsets (in more flexible games) that characters bring to the table tend to build in niches anyway. You tend to end up needing help because going it alone is often untenable or because you need the connections someone else brings to the table.

I have also never been much of a fan of spotlight balance / power fantasy in the sense of we're talking so now it's the Bard's turn or we're fighting so now it's the fighters' turn. As much as possible I like having most characters be somewhat competent in the sort of conflicts the game is centered on. I want everyone to participate in social encounters, combat encounters, and other stuff.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Except, in a world where magic is real, the gods grant miracles to clerics and adventurers are a thing, military colleges and the like would have long ago figured out the value of a balanced party and what the "ideal" balance would be.

Depends heavily on how magic works. The singular wizard that can lay waste to all the world's armies is not unusual. As for D&D style magic and worlds, they often completely ignore the fact of magic existing in order to keep society working in a fashion similar to medieval Europe. I highly doubt a world that had D&D style magic would resemble anything from Earth's past.

No one on Earth scoffs at the idea of military units having a mix of different specialists who carry different equipment and have different roles. It's not "contrived" to have an infantry unit with a medic, a communications specialist and a bomb-disposal expert. Two of my friends from college were Marine reservists who were called up to be attached to Army infantry units specifically because of their bomb-disposal training.

I find this to be a poor analogy as it ignores the primary role/skill-set of each character. In this example each character is a Soldier with a feat that represents a secondary skill specialty. A Soldier with the Bomb-Disposal Feat, a Soldier with the Communications Feat, a Soldier with the Medic Feat. They are all Soldiers first. This is why the army uses Army Medics and not EMT trained at a local college, at least not without ensuring they pass Basic Training first. Civilians in a firefight are usually a liability, not an asset.

I have always found the "balanced party" thing to be artificial and contrived. I think it comes from the fact that the majority of my RPG experience is with games other than D&D. I find the rigidly defined skill-sets of D&D classes to be extremely artificial and contrived, the "balanced party" is merely an extension of that. PCs with broader skill sets make both more sense and feel more organic and realistic to me. The idea that studying magic means you can't also learn to fight with a sword is just silly. IMHO anyway.