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

[The Green Hermit]

Thing is, I play with some pretty stubborn people who aren't always willing to compromise.

In our crew, if we had a single-veto system it's be a nightmare; as one or two players in particular often prefer the party all be heroic quasi-Paladinic types while other players often want to be anti-heroes or tricksters and decidedly un-Paladinic.

Hidden character aspects can be a blast, depending what you're hiding and why.

Bill and Ted? (if that's a movie reference it's lost on me as I've never seen it)

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure is a must see movie if you haven't seen it. It was Keanu Reeve's first major role and has held up amazingly well.

 

[pemerton]

I don't believe in (and am in fact rather hard-line opposed to) the consistency-breaking 4e-5e school of thought that has NPCs and PCs be mechanically different.

<snip>

If your party goes and recruits an NPC Thief then (ideally) that Thief is going to be rolled up just like any other played character.

I also generally agree that NPCs following the same rules as PCs is a better option. It has more immersion and verisimilitude.

Are you two talking about PC build rules, or action resolution rules?

In 4e D&D PCs and NPCs use the same action resolution rules for combat. There are no action resolution rules for NPCs in non-combat, unless they are played as if they were PC participants in a skill challenge.

The build rules obviously are quite different.

But given that build rules are a purely metagame device, I'm not sure how they would affect immersion or verisimilitude?

 

[Lanefan]

Are you two talking about PC build rules, or action resolution rules?

In 4e D&D PCs and NPCs use the same action resolution rules for combat. There are no action resolution rules for NPCs in non-combat, unless they are played as if they were PC participants in a skill challenge.

The build rules obviously are quite different.

But given that build rules are a purely metagame device, I'm not sure how they would affect immersion or verisimilitude?

Build rules, at least in my case; and yes it does affect immersion and-or verisimilitude when my PC Thief operates differently* than that NPC Thief over there due to having been "built" differently, even if our class, levels, etc. are the same. Even more so if that NPC Thief over there suddenly becomes my PC Thief because the first one got killed.

On a broader view, the way I see it is that every levelled NPC out there is in theory a PC waiting for a player. That way, when the party goes into town to recruit some new blood nothing changes about the characters they recruit other than they get players attached.

* - doesn't matter whether it's mechanically operating better than me, worse than me, or just different than me - my point is that if the two characters suddenly switched roles and the NPC became my PC while my PC became an NPC absolutely no mechanical changes should need to be made to either one.

 

[pemerton]

Build rules, at least in my case; and yes it does affect immersion and-or verisimilitude when my PC Thief operates differently* than that NPC Thief over there due to having been "built" differently, even if our class, levels, etc. are the same.

Are you talking about build rules or action resolution? If the build rules are different - as in 4e - then there is no such thing as class, levels etc are the same because those are features of build rules!

And in 4e a NPC "thief" operates the same as a PC one in combat - s/he has an attack bonus, an AC, skill bonuses etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Are you talking about build rules or action resolution? If the build rules are different - as in 4e - then there is no such thing as class, levels etc are the same because those are features of build rules!

Did I not say, as the first two words of the very thing you quoted, "build rules"?

This is because build rules drive and determine everything that follows. If class, levels, etc. cannot be the same then...

And in 4e a NPC "thief" operates the same as a PC one in combat - s/he has an attack bonus, an AC, skill bonuses etc.

...it only follows that none of this can be the same either. The question isn't whether or not the NPC Thief has an attack bonus, it's whether the NPC's attack bonus is the same as that of my PC Thief assuming all other things (e.g. level, stats, magic) are equal.

The easiest way to make sure all these things are the same is to build the characters the same to start with.

If you've got an NPC Thief in a 4e party - let's say lowish level for simplicity - and you turn it over to me as a PC because my original PC died and there's no way to get anything new in, how many things about it will mechanically change? Do I-as-player have to go back and rebuild it from scratch?

 

[Thondor]

Are you two talking about PC build rules, or action resolution rules?

In 4e D&D PCs and NPCs use the same action resolution rules for combat. There are no action resolution rules for NPCs in non-combat, unless they are played as if they were PC participants in a skill challenge.

The build rules obviously are quite different.

But given that build rules are a purely metagame device, I'm not sure how they would affect immersion or verisimilitude?

Both are relevant. If action resolution is identical - more immersion/verisimilitude than if not. If build rules are also the same then even more verisimilitude/immersion.
It is also a question of what your rules are meant to represent. The base assumption in the discussion thus far is "adventuring people in a D&D style game" -- why should someone who is just like the PCs operate differently mechanically then said PCs? If they do use different mechanics, then there is an unnecessary breaking of the world into artificial segments.

I am ok with games that do things differently if they have different base assumptions, if your game is trying to simulate the narrative of a TV show, then go ahead and have separate mechanics for the "stars of the show" and the bit characters.

One of the reasons I find Dungeon World really jarring is that it doesn't seem to have a different assumption like above but has different resolution mechanics for enemies and PCs. i.e. Mechanically an Orc doesn't really attack a PC (no one rolls for the orc) the PCs can only fail to avoid getting damaged by the Orc.
What happens if the PCs capture the Orc and convince it to fight for them? Damned if I know.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Both are relevant. If action resolution is identical - more immersion/verisimilitude than if not. If build rules are also the same then even more verisimilitude/immersion.

The problem with this is that this requires a player to be able to see those differences from where he sits. Since usually the differences were simplifications or narrowings of similar PC rules, they normally weren't. I'd argue that the majority of 4e NPC types that looked like PC types in general would be difficult or impossible to tell from a purely player facing position in play weren't built the same way; you'd just notice, at most, that some tricks you might have with a similar character they never used.

I'll go as far as to say that with most of them, it interferring with immersion would require you to both know the difference from some non-in-play source, and to be allowing such metagame knowledge to color your views. You're certainly not doing it from any purely IC cues.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm fine with them. I don't know what else to say (?)

Earlier in the thread, some have commented that NPCs can be used to fulfill roles (i.e. pilot, medic) which the PCs do not cover. Likewise, hirelings, mercenaries, and retainers are fine by me. None of these things bother me as a player; in fact, I would say that I lean toward playstyles which embrace such concepts.
(Related note: some of my biggest issues with D&D 3.5 stem from realizing that the leadership feat granted me a bunch of followers who were largely worthless against anything of appropriate CR. It lead to weird playstyles in which followers were used to craft and support the PCs more like a modern SF team, rather than feeling like fantasy. Later editions have been better-ish, but sometimes it causes "problems" in D&D and systems with the typical linear progression and encounter building.)

Sometimes (as others have mentioned) "GMPCs" can be an issue. But I think that is something else from the topic at hand. I think there are ways for a GM to run characters without hogging the spotlight or taking away from the game, but it requires keeping character knowledge and GM knowledge separate. It's one of the reasons I am against fudging. In that case, it's the same as the GM handling any other character in the game world; this one simply happens to be an ally.

 

[Thondor]

The problem with this is that this requires a player to be able to see those differences from where he sits. Since usually the differences were simplifications or narrowings of similar PC rules, they normally weren't. I'd argue that the majority of 4e NPC types that looked like PC types in general would be difficult or impossible to tell from a purely player facing position in play weren't built the same way; you'd just notice, at most, that some tricks you might have with a similar character they never used.

I'll go as far as to say that with most of them, it interferring with immersion would require you to both know the difference from some non-in-play source, and to be allowing such metagame knowledge to color your views. You're certainly not doing it from any purely IC cues.

This depends largely on your goals -- and how complex a system you are running to begin with. Yeah you don't need to know exactly how Kratos the indomitable got a +10 to attack, but if you say he is a level 5 fighter, you should have an idea of how he could get there.

@Lanefan has made the point repeatedly that if for some reason you need to hand control of an NPC to a character, that character should look like a PC in terms of how they were built. I agree that this is the ideal situation, and this should be something you can do without a lot of hassle.

 

[pemerton]

It is also a question of what your rules are meant to represent. The base assumption in the discussion thus far is "adventuring people in a D&D style game" -- why should someone who is just like the PCs operate differently mechanically then said PCs? If they do use different mechanics, then there is an unnecessary breaking of the world into artificial segments.

<snip>

One of the reasons I find Dungeon World really jarring is that it doesn't seem to have a different assumption like above but has different resolution mechanics for enemies and PCs. i.e. Mechanically an Orc doesn't really attack a PC (no one rolls for the orc) the PCs can only fail to avoid getting damaged by the Orc.
What happens if the PCs capture the Orc and convince it to fight for them? Damned if I know.

I don't know Dungeon World all that well, but I assume that a captured Orc fighting with the PCs would be similar to a gang in Apocalypse World.

Yeah you don't need to know exactly how Kratos the indomitable got a +10 to attack, but if you say he is a level 5 fighter, you should have an idea of how he could get there.

build rules drive and determine everything that follows. If class, levels, etc. cannot be the same then...

...it only follows that none of this can be the same either. The question isn't whether or not the NPC Thief has an attack bonus, it's whether the NPC's attack bonus is the same as that of my PC Thief assuming all other things (e.g. level, stats, magic) are equal.

"Level" and "class" are purely metagame devices. They are components of a set of rules for building player characters.

In a system that uses a different metagame device to build NPCs, it doesn't make sense to ask what their class or level are, any more than it makes sense to ask what the "class" of an AD&D wyvern is. (The only version of D&D to use "classes" for all GM-controlled personae is 3E.)

If you've got an NPC Thief in a 4e party - let's say lowish level for simplicity - and you turn it over to me as a PC because my original PC died and there's no way to get anything new in, how many things about it will mechanically change? Do I-as-player have to go back and rebuild it from scratch?

if for some reason you need to hand control of an NPC to a character, that character should look like a PC in terms of how they were built. I agree that this is the ideal situation, and this should be something you can do without a lot of hassle.

In AD&D it can easily happen that a being under the GM's control - eg a horse or mule or ogre or gelatinous cube - can move to player control (via capture or taming or a Charm spell or sundry other means). But in AD&D very few beings under the GM's control are created using mechanical build rules that emulate the player character build rules. Even when it comes to a being of a PC-eligible race, they do not need to have a class and level (see eg the Dwarf, Elf, Men etc entries in the Monster Manual) and even if the GM does choose to build them in that fashion s/he is allowed to stipulate ability scores without having regard to the rules that govern PC build (see eg Gygax's DMG p 11: "You should, of course, set the ability scores of
those NPCs you will use as parts of the milieu, particularly those of high level and power. Scores for high level NPC's must be high - how else could these figures have risen so high?").

Here are the rules from Classic Traveller (from Book 1, p 8 and Book 3, p 22, 1977 edition) for when the players have their PCs hire a NPC:

Sometimes (often) players will encounter people not manipulated by an actual player. They may be thugs or assailants. They may be potential hirelings or employers. In any case, their skills and abilities should be determined using the character generation procedure, and noted for the effects they may have on play.

For example, a starship captain may be looking for a crew for his ship, in which case, the referee would generate characters until one occurs with the required skill (such as navigation, medical, etc.). Generally, the first appropriate character to be generated would present himself for employment, and if not accepted or considered suitable, an appropriate delay would occur before another presents himself. As an alternative, the referee might simply generate a character and assign him the required skill, plus perhaps 1 or 2 more.

When travellers require employees, for any purpose, they must find them in the course of their activities. This may require advertising, visiting union hiring halls, or active efforts in barrooms or clubs. Hiring is done by stating a requirement to the referee, who indicates persons presenting themselves for employment. The interview consists of generating the person's characteristics and experience.
​

These rules contemplate that NPCs may be generated using the PC-build rules, or may just be created by referee stipulation.

RuneQuest is a well-known FRPG which was one of the first to use the same mechanical framework for specifying all beings in the game system, so that they all feed into action resolution in the same way. But it does not require that all beings under the GM's control be generated using the PC build framework.

Personally I don't regard it as a very important desideratum of a RPG that a GM-controlled entity should be easily amenable to slotting into the player-side features of the game such as (eg) balanced character building, clear process for character advancement, etc. As I said the only version of D&D to attempt this is 3E, and it generated a lot of complexity (eg ECL rules) and weaknesses in design (eg undead with too few hit points because of their lack of a CON score).