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

[pemerton]

other than each ability each of us has being a direct result of choices made during the build process either at char-gen or at subsequent level-ups, and that those abilities either drive or inform the mechanics used to resolve said actions, I suppose you're right...

I don't get what your point is.

If, in an AD&D game I as GM describe a burly warrior, wearing mail and carrying a shield and a mace and then stat out that NPC as AC 3, THACO 15, damage 1d6+3, and 40 hit points, what build process have I used?

What about if I tell you a dwarf as AC 3, THACO 19, damage 1d8, and 7 hp?

The build rules don't bleed through to the stats and the action resolution at all. (One contrast I can think of: in Burning Wheel a character's lifepath progressions, which is a part of the build process, informs the character's possible Circles.)

 

[Lanefan]

I don't get what your point is.

If, in an AD&D game I as GM describe a burly warrior, wearing mail and carrying a shield and a mace and then stat out that NPC as AC 3, THACO 15, damage 1d6+3, and 40 hit points, what build process have I used?

I've no idea, but you did use one.

My point is that as long as those numbers are perfectly achievable by using PC build rules, meaning that if it becomes a PC it can be reverse-engineered to suit those rules, all is good.

It's when either a) NPC rules allow for things that PCs can't achieve or b) NPC rules prevent NPCs from achieving things that PCs can, that there's a consistency problem. (easiest way to avoid this is just to use the same build rules; second-easiest way is to do what you've done in the example and just make sure that what you present could be made using PC build rules)

For example I've never liked (and haven't used in ages) the idea of NPC-only classes, which Gygax et al had as a thing in the 1e era. If a class exists in the setting, a player should in theory be allowed to play it*.

Hence, when adventurers meet an NPC Kobold Shaman all the fluff heavily indicates it's something different than the norm, but under the hood it's still just a low-level Druid using spell slots and casting times etc. just like a PC would.

* - in practice, if some stay-at-home classes e.g. Artificer simply aren't going to cut it as field adventurers there's little point writing them up in any detail until-unless someone gets hell-bent on playing one anyway, but the option should still be there.

 

[shadowoflameth]

I did a poll myself fairly recently if people like DMNPC companions in general. The response options were Like them, don't like them, depends on the party or characters, or Depends on the group. I expected many don't like them, but don't like them was actually the least popular response. Overwhelmingly, respondents said it depends and I am inclined to agree. I've done it in my games and exactly once in many years had a complaint. I took it and for the next three sessions, started with the NPC not being there. All three times, unprompted, the players unanimously agreed including the one who previously complained and decided to go out of their way to go get him. The fact that they wanted him there told me it was OK in this case.

The most common reasons I hear not to are: The NPC will meta game because he knows what the DM knows and the players don't. Answer: So do the townfolk and the boat captain and the villains. Yes it's valid if the DM makes the NPC a Mary Sue but he could make the Mayor a Mary Sue if he wants to.

Reason two is: The NPC steals the spotlight and overshadows the PCs. Answer: Don't do that. If you rescue the village girl from the goblins and untie her so she can run, but she picks up a goblin sword and slaughters eight of them before the battle's over, you just made it a different story than if she were helpless. Now the heroes have a reason to want to know her more and maybe have her around.

I think the bottom line is if the NPC being in the party helps the story and the if the players, your collaborators, want them around it's fine. If they don't, then remember you're not a director of a movie doing your script. You're the lead writer on a team making the script.

 

[corwyn77]

I did a poll myself fairly recently if people like DMNPC companions in general. The response options were Like them, don't like them, depends on the party or characters, or Depends on the group. I expected many don't like them, but don't like them was actually the least popular response. Overwhelmingly, respondents said it depends and I am inclined to agree. I've done it in my games and exactly once in many years had a complaint. I took it and for the next three sessions, started with the NPC not being there. All three times, unprompted, the players unanimously agreed including the one who previously complained and decided to go out of their way to go get him. The fact that they wanted him there told me it was OK in this case.

The most common reasons I hear not to are: The NPC will meta game because he knows what the DM knows and the players don't. Answer: So do the townfolk and the boat captain and the villains. Yes it's valid if the DM makes the NPC a Mary Sue but he could make the Mayor a Mary Sue if he wants to.

Reason two is: The NPC steals the spotlight and overshadows the PCs. Answer: Don't do that. If you rescue the village girl from the goblins and untie her so she can run, but she picks up a goblin sword and slaughters eight of them before the battle's over, you just made it a different story than if she were helpless. Now the heroes have a reason to want to know her more and maybe have her around.

Unless, of course, there were only 10 or so goblins in the village. Yeah, I think the overwhelming factor in player approval is how they are played by the gm. I've had plenty of GMPCs with no complaints - I don't use them to overshadow or lead/direct. They are there as the subject of a quest, or to fill out some party skills (usually support but occasionally combat if the party is weaker than I need them to be. Even then, the party will usually make combat decisions for them. They can provide some clues or exposition if it's appropriate for the character to know these things, or at least plausible.

 

[Fenris-77]

I will generally give characters of X type some kind of chance to evaluate NPCs of the same type. A professional warrior should be able to figure out how skilled an opponent is if they see them in action, or whatever. I'm not too precious about it. I'd call it class has a feeling about class, so any martial character is going to have some chance of figuring out how skilled a martial opponent is. The details there vary by situation.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Unless, of course, there were only 10 or so goblins in the village. Yeah, I think the overwhelming factor in player approval is how they are played by the gm. I've had plenty of GMPCs with no complaints - I don't use them to overshadow or lead/direct. They are there as the subject of a quest, or to fill out some party skills (usually support but occasionally combat if the party is weaker than I need them to be. Even then, the party will usually make combat decisions for them. They can provide some clues or exposition if it's appropriate for the character to know these things, or at least plausible.

Agree. A common occurrence at my table; NPCs turn, player x is in trouble nearby, in character, 'do you want some help there x?' Answer, 'no I got this.' NPC 'As you wish.' If the warrior princess kills 8 of 10 goblins by herself, I wonder how they captured her. I may actually use that.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is going to depend VERY much on the game being played.

In some games, there is either no actual mechanical heft to NPC allies/party members, no discernible mechanical heft to NPC allies/party members, opaque/inconsistent mechanical heft to NPC allies/party members (because its all GM-facing). They may just be "party members" in name only, when in reality, they're the means by the GM to "cue/flag the plot" to the players via exposition/info dump or nudge. Or they're the GM's way of secretly deploying Force to balance combat encounters in a system with wildly swingy results.

In those games...my guess is that if players actually feel one way or another about those NPCs, its likely that they don't feel great about them!

Then there are games where Cohorts/Hirelings/Companions have significant mechanical and thematic heft...and this is overt/table-facing.

In those games (Dungeon World for instance)...I'm certain players feel very pleased with the system and fiction interaction with those NPCs. For instance, I'm certain that @darkbard and his wife are happy with their enormous stable of NPC companions in their DW game:

Bjornson the Frost Giant (RIP)
Frida the Earth Elemental
Dirk the debaucherous (but ever stalwart!) Guide
Memna's Thorn (Rose the Paladin Prodigy)
Marwat and Baati (Sherpas, Porters, and Donkey)

All of these characters have life, dramatic needs, compulsions, complications, and mechanical heft.

 

[darkbard]

This is going to depend VERY much on the game being played.

[...]

Then there are games where Cohorts/Hirelings/Companions have significant mechanical and thematic heft...and this is overt/table-facing.

In those games (Dungeon World for instance)...I'm certain players feel very pleased with the system and fiction interaction with those NPCs. For instance, I'm certain that @darkbard and his wife are happy with their enormous stable of NPC companions in their DW game:

Bjornson the Frost Giant (RIP)
Frida the Earth Elemental
Dirk the debaucherous (but ever stalwart!) Guide
Memna's Thorn (Rose the Paladin Prodigy)
Marwat and Baati (Sherpas, Porters, and Donkey)

All of these characters have life, dramatic needs, compulsions, complications, and mechanical heft.

Could not agree more: it certainly can depend on the game and style! As @Manbearcat notes, the NPCs mentioned above are integral to the game, so much so that we (the PCs) regularly endanger ourselves and dedicate limited resources to ensure their survival and success.

In a 4E game I GMed for my wife that was built around protagonist and player-facing flags, a kinsman of her drow Cleric, who was shunted into the Shadowfell as part of the inciting incident to play, became the driving force to the game's trajectory.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

NPCs make the game world go round. Sometimes they have distant relationships with the PCs. Sometimes they have close and recurring relationships that may include being regular members of the adventuring party.

In the (Pathfinder 1e) game I run for my wife there are 3 regular NPCs in the party. They're there thanks to the Leadership feat but they were hanging around anyway. We just used the feat to "formalise" the thing, rules-wise. And they're vital to the game. They give aid in the combat bits but they also give my wife regular NPCs to interact with, people to talk to other than herself. And since some 75% of our game time is interacting with NPCs that's a good thing.

In fact, we have a large cast of recurring NPCs. Some of them even help with adventuring from time to time. Like their friend Alfred the Pugnacious (gnome illusionist and all round charmless jerk) who has occasionally helped them by teleporting them across the continent and similar utility spell casting. He is also a vital member of their pub trivia team.

It all makes for a rich, enjoyable world to play in.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Strange question... I mean, aren't NPC's the majority of the worlds population? Why wouldn't NPC's be joining, hanging out with, or hired by the PC's from time to time? Hmmm...

Anyway, and obviously, I have "no problem with" (?) NPC's being with a group. I mean...I am seriously struggling to imagine a game without NPC's being "part of the picture". The only time NPC's aren't with the PC's are with the PC's specifically go out of their way to be "loners" and whatnot. Otherwise they usually have various hangers-on following them around town, or ostlers offering to tend their horses on their journey to the next town, or outright guardsmen offering mercenary services to guard their camp or their goods when in town. Frequently one or more of these NPC's will be 'with' the PC's at any given moment in the game....even when they are wandering in a dungeon (torch bearers, gear porters, etc).

As for "GMPC's"....I have no problem with it if everyone at the table understand that the game is to be "shared" as far as world creation and GM'ing "turns". Each GM then has a PC in the group, but for us, the table rule is that ANY Player can over-rule the GM when it comes to deciding what the GMPC does or doesn't do. For example, if the GM says his Fighter wouldn't attack unarmed thugs...but the PC with the GMPC is going to, that Player can 'over rule' the GM and say "Well, if I'm attacking...YOU'RE attacking"...and the GMPC attacks. Period. That seems to kill off any semblance of "favouritism" by the GM. "Oh, look at that, a magical +3 Bec de Corbin! And my PC Fighter is specialized in it! Huh...what's the chances! I guess I get it then...." ... "Nope! Screw that! We're selling it for top coin and buying those horses we need!".

^_^

Paul L. Ming