A DM's best friend - a Guiding NPC

[Hussar]

Let's take a moment to see how this works in play.

Here's the scenario - Homebrew setting, you have a standard fantasy party. The setting is fairly stock fantasy, nothing too out there, but, the DM does want to bring it to life. The party has traveled some distance from their home area and are entering a new town for the first time.

Now, the DM has a reasonable amount of information about this town that he wants to impart to the players - local businesses, local news, etc. And maybe a couple of quirks. Maybe in this particular town, wearing red is considered very uncouth for whatever reason.

Cue in the local guide - an NPC, possibly a beggar, young person, or whatever approaches the party and, after introducing himself, offers this bit of information about colors and then offers to help them find their way around, for a price of course.

Ok, the example is heavy handed as hell, but you get the idea. The DM now has a mouthpiece with which to impart setting details that are not apparent from simple observation. Assuming, of course, that the NPC is fairly likeable, you can attach this NPC to the party until such time as his services are no longer needed without worrying overmuch about balance issues or the like.

 

[Mark]

As far as I have RPGed over the last 35 years, I hold that PCs travel alone or with player run guides/assistants/cohorts/etc. only. They can seek out NPCs for advice but I feel that I would be meddling to have a DMPC traveling with the party. The DM's NPC becomes a PC when being a regular part of the PC party. The one exception I would make would be with non-adult, brand new players although from what I have gathered from friends of mine who have taught their kids and from my own experience teaching young players, even this is both unnecessary and creates a crutch that the young players can find hard to cast aside,

 

[Quartz]

With regard to power levels, it's sometimes good to mix it up. Sometimes the guide might be an old (high-level) adventurer looking for one last shot at some old task or to go out in a blaze of glory. Get the players good and annoyed at how the guide is outshining them, then kill the guide and change the nature of the game. Earthquakes are always good. Maybe the PCs are able to loot the guide's body. Maybe they're able to recover it.

Brucie bonus if they return the guide's body with full honours and equipment intact; plot hooks galore if they don't.

 

[MichaelK]

I'll have NPCs offer advise and information sometimes, but the players know that anything said by an NPC can be a lie or a biased opinion or the NPC may just be wrong.

I don't speak as the DM through NPCs.

If I think the PCs should know that the Forest of Blackmoore is haunted, then I'll tell the player, "your character would know, as a matter of general knowledge, that the Blackmoore forest is rumoured to be haunted and no one goes in there if they can possibly avoid it".

(There may be a Knowledge(local) check involved to get that information, depending on just how commonly it's known).

 

[Jack7]

I like a lot of the ideas and comments offered thus far.

That's what I can think up for now. What do you do with your guide type NPC's? Do you use them?

I like the idea Huss, but I think it depends very much on the function of the guide as to how the guide operates.

A Sage is one kinda guide, who can provide information, research, perhaps other contacts or even real Intel. An Indian Scout is an altogether other kind of guide, who provides in the field, hands-on experience of say a locale, or of native customs, an access point or approach vector, terrain and conditional information, etc.

There is a great difference between theoretical and academic experience (though that is not to say that a Sage is limited to mere academia, he might be a retried adventurer, let's say, who has spent his later years in research and study) in how effective a guide is, and how they operate. (Or how anyone operates for that matter.)

I'd say it also depends (operationally speaking) on other factors such as social class, profession, status, culture, race, personal ambition and expectations, etc.

I do agree that such a guide (and I have used them often, and many different kinds of them, from those who sort of idolized someone in the party, to deceptive guides planted purposely to spread disinformation, to spies, to natives hoping for reward, to party member relatives, to professional guides) can be invaluable to an adventure or a campaign depending on how they are used and what relationship they establish with the party or party members.

The guide should be less competent than the PC's. If the guide is more competent, he stops being a guide and starts being a leader and that sucks when the NPC is the leader. Choo choo! Everyone on the Plot Train. A guide who is weaker, less powerful, and possibly subservient in some way to the PC's makes a much better guide. He can offer ideas, he can offer guidance, which is what you want, but, he can't actually really affect any outcome.

I'd disagree with this a bit though. I've never employed a guide who the players could assume was level so and so (superior or inferior to themselves, in my setting things like class rank or level are meaningless for character and player interactions, you can't look at someone and say they are a 15th level Marine, but like in real life you could tell they were a Marine through manner, bearing, dress, habits, training, etc. - so power relationships are not level dependent) and so never established a working or authority relationship based upon those factors. To me it's perfectly fine to employ anyone of any level as a guide, using your basic definitions, because "taking over" would probably not be a major consideration of any guide. Either they'd not be interested, it wouldn't be profitable, or the idea of assuming control over the party would be non-sequitor, ineffective, or uninteresting, and therefore not part of their agenda.

(Manipulation of the party might very well be part of the agenda and I have used "guides" in this way before, even planted guides from counter-parties. You can manipulate information dispersed in such a way as accuracy and reliability is achieved almost perfectly until such time as you actually want to corrupt or misinform those you are manipulating. That's just basic espionage technique. But clever manipulation is different from direct control through the effects may sometimes be similar.)

I am using the analogy to character-level to basically discuss the idea you presented of competency since so much of the game relies upon level to associate with capability and competency. (That's a gaming issue, but it equates in many settings to a real factor in how many NPCs interact with characters, though not in mine. By that I mean it's just sorta assumed in game that competency = level to some degree or another, that really component people will be of higher level than others, though that's hardly true in the real world. In game a zero level guy is not intuitively or instantly considered "component" but in his field he might be the most competent guy in the nation. This is another way of saying the best Scout is not necessarily the best Captain, but in game terms it is hard for many to imagine the first level guy as being as competent as the adventurer who is level 12. But believe me it does happen that sometimes the recruit is more competent than his Captain. He may just not have the rank or the age or even the drive of the Captain.) But as to the general idea of competency I think that just also depends on what the guide wants and what his real objectives are, which may have nothing to do with direct control or influence over the party at all. He may be very competent in one way or another or may even be the most competent guy around without any interest or motivation of any kind for leadership of, or outstripping the party members.

I'm not sure though that he shouldn't affect outcome, at least sometimes. I think I know what you're saying, but I'm using outcome in a very wide sense, and I'm not sure you are.

Though I think if a guide (or any NPC) from outside were to try and "take control" of the party, or to split it, or redirect party objectives, or assume a position of undue authority or influence, then that would make an interesting sub-plot all by itself. How would the party react either cohesively and as a team, or in a splintered or confused fashion to such pressures? It would be an interesting situation for them to deal with and for them to decide how to address. The role play implications would be strong.

Anyway I like your idea, or rather your basic formulation or formal statement of the idea. this is an old technique I'm sure many have used in many different ways but I think that by addressing it openly you give some people new ideas.

What shouldn't a DM do with them?

I don't think it's wise to use them too often, to solve really difficult questions for the PCs, or to divulge too much information, especially not too easily. I wouldn't use them to "give information" to the PCs if the players would do better to obtain vital information in a different or more challenging way. I like guides as guides, but not necessarily straight-answer men, calculators, or problem-solvers.

 

[MercuryCrash]

Krunk

I agree completely on all three points. One of my favorite NPC guides was Krunk the Orc. The characters were in search of bandits when they came across one, Krunk, sitting on a rock fighting the evil past his conscious made him aware of. The characters didn't kill him and instead they befriended him. He initially helped them rid the area of his fellow raiders, though not actually fighting his previous pals, he later became a heavy hitter of the group from time to time. He left the group though, he met up with the party from time to time to bring information and once when a character died he interviewed and brought the player's new character to the party. He wasn't the smartest though he was definitely a source to help the game along.

 

[Hussar]

Though I think if a guide (or any NPC) from outside were to try and "take control" of the party, or to split it, or redirect party objectives, or assume a position of undue authority or influence, then that would make an interesting sub-plot all by itself. How would the party react either cohesively and as a team, or in a splintered or confused fashion to such pressures? It would be an interesting situation for them to deal with and for them to decide how to address. The role play implications would be strong.

IME, if I tried to strongarm the party with an NPC, no matter how good the idea was, or how much in their own self interest the NPC's idea was, they'd refuse to do it. They'd bite off their own noses to spite their faces if the NPC tried to openly force them to do something.

But, I could see the guide NPC chucking out an idea and then seeing where the players go with it. Very much a soft sell.

If I think the PCs should know that the Forest of Blackmoore is haunted, then I'll tell the player, "your character would know, as a matter of general knowledge, that the Blackmoore forest is rumoured to be haunted and no one goes in there if they can possibly avoid it".

Oh sure. I've done the same. The problem with this is, there are times when player backgrounds really don't lend themselves to knowing something. And again, I'm not really interested in using the Guide as a plot hook. The Guide's role is more setting exposition. A means by which the DM can get his setting material into the hands of the players without just telling them or infodumping.

 

[MichaelK]

The Guide's role is more setting exposition. A means by which the DM can get his setting material into the hands of the players without just telling them or infodumping.

Oh I do that as well, not necessarily through any one NPC but through anyone they meet.

The difference is if I say something to the players as the DM I'll never lie (unless they're subject to an illusion, etc) but if an NPC says something they can never rely upon it 100%.

So if I need them to know, it's best if I say it.

But if it's just to add some flavour to the setting and I don't mind the information being dubious then I'd rather them learn it through chatting with an NPC.

 

[Jack7]

IME, if I tried to strongarm the party with an NPC, no matter how good the idea was, or how much in their own self interest the NPC's idea was, they'd refuse to do it. They'd bite off their own noses to spite their faces if the NPC tried to openly force them to do something.

But, I could see the guide NPC chucking out an idea and then seeing where the players go with it. Very much a soft sell.

That's exactly what I mean. Part of the fun of that role play experince would be to see how they react and counter-react to such a situation. Would some try and see what the NPC is really up to, would some resent the interference and try and immediate counter-reaction, would some wonder if this NPC action were a DM led affair or really the actions of an NPC with their own agenda, etc?

As a player and as a character being played it would be an interesting situation to try and figure out exactly what is going on and why, and to try and figure out exactly how it should be resolved.

If it were me doing that though and the NPC had good reason to try and split the party or manipulate them or assume power then that would be the last thing I would try and make it appear I was doing. I'd go about it over a long period of time and circuitously.

They'd have to figure out what I was doing for themselves and they'd have to figure out how to counter-act it for themselves. But I think it would be a really interesting role play situation.

The Guide's role is more setting exposition. A means by which the DM can get his setting material into the hands of the players without just telling them or infodumping.

I agree completely here because if you think about it most fantasy settings just aren't designed like the modern world, to have the means of info-collection or dumping of modern technology. Almost everything not a written record would be personality filtered, and even written material would likely not be "fact-checked" in the modern sense. As a matter of fact the very idea of facts would be very loosely developed in fantasy settings. Making individuals with first-hand experience and guides and experts even far more valuable than they are today. Because they would be primary, not secondary sources.

But because of that very reason to me they would be as much plot hook as living exposition source. It would be hard to separate hook and exposition (like you would in a film let's say) because individuals with first hand experience who could act as guides would be such valuable information sources. You don't have the internet or data banks or even easily accessed libraries so living information sources would be extremely valuable and each individual would have their own particular agenda and way of personally filtering the information they wished to pass along.

And I think that situation would make a very interesting story element as well.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I do the much of the above with what I call "contacts". These are NPCs that the players can use at any time, they are family, friends, class mates, lovers, etc. that the players build in thier off time. I have a house rule for just how many a player can have and as long as the player has a "free" slot can pull them out of their hat if they need something (as long ast they are in a city).

In game the players will say, I will go talk with Bob, an old class mate from the wizard school, he has a shop here, maybe he would know something.