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

[aramis erak]

In no way does that tell you his level. It tells you his fighting capability. Level does not exist in the game world.

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.

As is "What Rating do you hold" in the US Navy... and isn't actually tied directly to rank. I know that if I see a guy with a wrench and propeller and a single chevron, he's passed the standards to establish that he can do a certain range of aviation frame and skin repairs, and system installs/uninstalls/swaps. He may hold a higher rating than his insignia correspond do - asking him his rating will reveal that. (A buddy of mine was rated as a AKC, but only held the rank of PO2, so his worn badge was AK2. Yes, I've seen his DD214 and seen the AKC rating. My Grandfather was rated an SN1 during WW2, but didn't have the time nor boards to be promoted to PO1, so he wore SN2 until he outprocessed.

The concept of levels isn't something that exists only as a metagame; it exists in many administrative systems.
For yet another, more concrete, example. An apprentice electrician is a fetch and tote, and follow directions as given. A journeyman is able to work with indirect supervision. A master electrician is capable of unsupervised work, and of supervising apprentices. In those unions that still have them, a grand master electrician is one who scrutinizes the journeymen for admission to the ranks of master electricians.

 

[CleverNickName]

Eh, I try to avoid them in all honesty. If an NPC joins the party, it's usually only for one or two scenes: just long enough to guide them to the entrance of the dungeon, deliver an important message, or whatever. They're usually gone by the end of the gaming session.

I have a longstanding rule regarding mercenaries, bodyguards, scouts, and other NPC hirelings: If your character decides to hire someone to join the party, I'll hand you the hireling's character sheet. They are now your responsibility to run for the duration of their employment: you will play them as your own character, and their share of any treasure/XP (or funeral costs!) will all come out of their employer's share unless the group unanimously agrees otherwise.

So we don't get a lot of hirelings at my table.

 

[Sithlord]

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

 

[Manbearcat]

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

That’s so weird. I’m the exact opposite.

The moment the players in my game start to use their PCs to cut in on my “exposition dump” or “find the plot” NPC time, I either go asymmetric warfare and start getting really passive aggressive or ill just go with the nuclear option, reach across the table and smack the protagonism right out of their ungrateful faces. The nerve of these guys.

I should probably post more about this in some of the GMing threads as these techniques can really help tables that are struggling to figure out the balance.

 

[Campbell]

My answer is anarchy.

Only half kidding here. In general I'm not super fond of the concept of "the party" or deciding who gets to belong to it. I like games that treat players' characters as individual protagonists where who can be allies and enemies of each other is more conditional. That being said I view the PCs as the main characters so their interests and objectives should be the focus of play. Like if the game were a TV show they would be on the marquee. Not necessarily the most powerful, but the most important (in terms of focus).

Also NPCs are characters with their own desires and objectives. I never really place them in the hands of the other players unless there are special rules for that stuff built in.

 

[Fenris-77]

This thread isn't about NPCs generally, but about NPC party members specifcally. So think a DM run party character in a 5E game.

 

[pemerton]

This thread isn't about NPCs generally, but about NPC party members specifcally. So think a DM run party character in a 5E game.

But it is in General, not D&D. So @Campbell's reply is apposite.

In general I'm not super fond of the concept of "the party" or deciding who gets to belong to it. I like games that treat players' characters as individual protagonists where who can be allies and enemies of each other is more conditional.

<snip>

Also NPCs are characters with their own desires and objectives. I never really place them in the hands of the other players unless there are special rules for that stuff built in.

My games have more "party" dynamic than I suspect you would enjoy. (Or at least more than you would prefer.)

In our Traveller game, for instance, the "party" is the ship's owner, crew and hangers-on. The owner pays salary to the crew; the hangers-on pay for their travel. These characters are of three main types: PCs in the fullest sense; semi-PCs in the sense that they belong primarily to a player rather than the GM, but are not main characters; and NPCs who are still associated with a player position but over whom I can easily assert control for GM purposes.

Separate from all these are NPCs who are not associated with the ship. Though these characters bleed fairly easily into the third of the above three categories! We haven't yet had bleed the other way, though in-principle it would be entirely permissible.

 

[Fenris-77]

That was an example. My point was it's party NPCs we're talking about, not NPCs in general.

 

[Campbell]

Within the context of adventure gaming (which should not necessarily be the default context for all play discussions) or other games where players are part of some formal organized group I am of the mind that players fundamentally have a right to decide what their posture their characters take towards any given NPC (enemy, ally, or otherwise). That might include travelling with them and fighting side by side. Regardless the NPC should not be used as a mouthpiece or plot device. They should be a character with their own agenda and desires. They should also not be the focus of play. The important decisions still need to be in the players' hands (in my opinion).

My previous reply was mostly that ideally there would be no mandated party structure for NPCs to belong to or not.

 

[Fenris-77]

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.