D&D 5E How Often Do You Have NPCs Join the Party?

[Celebrim]

As seldom as possible. I try to nudge my players away from recruiting NPCs into the party. I hate running party-NPCs.

In point of fact, I do as well for a lot of reason - not the least of which is the players risk deprotagonizing their own characters. I admit I'm looking forward to the game situation changing such that recruiting NPCs isn't quite as viable of a strategy. But in urban adventures, recruiting NPCs is often a rational approach if you have the resources to do so. The more removed from 'civilization' and the higher level the PC's become, the less effective recruiting NPC's is likely to be. At some point, they are going to realize that low-ish level minions are often a liability rather than an asset. I suspect they'll take some meat shields into the next stage of the adventure. I don't expect any of them to come back alive.

 

[Nebulous]

My group LOVES recruiting people if possible and then shoving them into danger first.

 

[Joe Liker]

My group LOVES recruiting people if possible and then shoving them into danger first.

I hope there are repercussions for that. This is the sort of behavior that should really come back to haunt them.

 

[Lanefan]

I hope there are repercussions for that. This is the sort of behavior that should really come back to haunt them.

Only if they:
a) consider themselves of Good alignment (not at all a given), and-or
b) foolishly try to recruit from the same place more than once or twice.

Other than that, NPC-as-crumple-zone is a perfectly valid tactic for an Evil or even Neutral party. Of course, the NPC might notice what's going on and react accordingly...

Lanefan

 

[aramis erak]

Why? They're in a medieval world. Sounds like they think they should be able to push everyone in the world around, even rulers, because they're The Heroes. I'm all for players having choice, and saying yes, and all that stuff - but the PCs still exist in a fictional world, and that world has to have a believable structure. One day, they might get to push Kings around - but they have to earn that. If they tried that in my game, I'd advise them that their character would be well aware that people don't talk to the King like that, and he won't take kindly to it. If they insist on doing so, that's up to them, but if they want to go throwing their weight around, they picked just about the worst place in the game-world to do it.

Edit: I see you quit gaming with them - so I'm not sure from your post if you're approving of their playing style. In either case, I don't see why the GM playing King John is being an "ass" simply for having a ruler give (not at all onerous or disadvantageous) orders. If you're a low-level adventurer in a medieval world, you're subject to the ruler, like it or not.

I don't approve of that style, but it's a common enough style. Especially since a 10th level fighter backed by a 10th level wizard can probably kill said king in one round, grab the crown, and wipe out the 1st levels standing guard...

It was sufficiently common a play style that it gets lampooned by Jolly Blackburn in KODT.

 

[Joe Liker]

Of course, the NPC might notice what's going on and react accordingly...

I was referring more to this. I did not presume any particular alignment. I consider alignment to be artificial nonsense, anyway.

 

[was]

Very rarely, usually just when not enough players show.

 

[Uder]

I have NPCs going in and out of play nearly all the time. Sometimes the group is forced to hang with NPCs they hate. Usually it's pretty dramatic and often hilarious.

 

[KarinsDad]

I suppose 'intelligent' PC's might do that, but the players may not actually be following the character of their PC to act treacherously or whatever you suppose the solution might be. I don't agree with your assessment that the above is contrived, but even if I granted the description, putting players in positions where the dictates of their PC's conscious doesn't allow for the most obvious solutions in their player's self-interest is part of the fun.

Who said anything about the PCs acting treacherous?

My PCs tend to often be lawful and/or good aligned. The best course of action for such PCs is to obey the orders of a king. Creating a character whose first impulse is to disobey a king and risk his life over a diplomacy roll seems contrived. Maybe fun for you as DM, but not something my PCs would typically do and it's certainly not fun to take out the time to create brand new characters, just because the DM was trying to shove something down the PCs throats that did not match with their personalities.

 

[Riley37]

Have you ever given the party an NPC ally who had the player's or PC's flaws, but even worse?

The guy who charges at prepared defensive positions, tells the king to shut up, harasses the barmaid, tries to grab all the treasure for himself, etc.

Would the PCs try to bail him out of trouble every time, or give up and let him face consequences?