NPCs as Party Members

[Skade]

I've been Dming for about ten years, and in that time I have gotten into the habit of having an NPC along for the ride in the campaign. My players took to calling them Suggestors, partially in jest. At first hey were usually of somewhat higher level, though never used as a means of saving the gruop, and almost never used to show off that the DM (me) had a kewler character. They got the name Suggestor because now and then they would propose an idea when the group got stuck, and an hour of debate had passed. This habit really began because I usually had pretty small groups, and the NPC filled a niche the players could not.

I guess my question is, is this a bad habit, and one I should break? I am looking for a new gaming group, and would like some opinions before I start a new campaign.

thanks,
Skade

 

[Voobaha]

I think NPCs, especially colorful characters and those that fill a missing party niche are fun to have in a game.

IMHO, the game should still mostly focus on the PCs. NPCs shouldn't be much better than the PCs or really lead the party. I wouldn't play a "GM character" as a PC. You should let the NPC generally be slightly weaker and a follower of the party.

As for making suggestions, that's fine. I wouldn't make a habit of it, or the players will come to rely on the NPC character to "save them" when they get stuck. At best, have the NPC give them a hint, but not answer. Base the hint on the NPCs personality: for example, would the dumb barbarian really know how to operate a scrying device? Have him make a faulty suggestion once in awhile so the players don't rely on him to save the day. At best, he might suggest something like: "I dunno. Maybe we should ask that sage guy, he's pretty smart." or ... "I dunno. Say, this calls for a frosty mug o' ale to stir the ole' brain pan. Whaddya say we order a few..." etc. etc.

Really, just keep the focus of the game on the players. They should always be the main characters in the story, not the NPC. The NPC shouldn't be "your" character. It's one of many NPCs that adds color and depth to the story. He should serve the needs of your story to make the game more fun for your players, and not dominate the game.

Just my 2 cents worth

 

[Skade]

Thanks for the input. Nice to know I have not been totally off.

I think for the most part I now run the NPC as you suggest. It's usually a bard, or priest they end up with, and their suggestions are usually pretty well colored by their personality. The last NPC was a Sun elf harper Mage named Rhaegar with a pretty shady past. All of his best contacts required dragging the paladin to various taverns, brothels, and opium dens.

Since I tend to do spotlight episodes where a character gets the focus of the plot the NPC does sometimes get the spotlight for an episode or two, but I try really hard to limit them.

if nothing else, I have never been afraid of killing my own characters Actually, Rhaegar was downed more than anybody in that last campaign...

 

[Balrog]

I have been tackling this problem IMC for the last 6 months. The PCs are an average of 6th or 7th level, and there is an NPC in the party that has been part of the group since 1st level. For story reasons, he just hasn't left. He got killed once, but most of the party felt enough loyalty to him as a fellow party member that they chipped in to get him raised.

IMHO, there isnt any difference between PCs and NPCs in a given group, strictly speaking from a storytellers point-of-view. In metagame terms, yes, the PCs should be more substantial and dynamic characters than any NPCs that are with the party. The DM has to take care not to blur the line between DM Knowledge and NPC Knowledge. I try as much as possible to let the PCs work out their own discussions with little, if any, input from the NPC I am running. Of course, they have lately been testing my ability to run the NPC cleric and not give out too many hints and suggestions through him.

The bottom line is I try to give any NPCs that are in the group secondary roles, either as peripheral characters or as cohorts. It gets boring for the PCs if Joe NPC is constantly taking center stage and being the hero. Occasionally, yes, if the circumstances warrant it, this particular NPC may rise to the occasion and be the hero. but I try to keep him in a secondary role. That is not to say though that he doesnt pull his weight, because nothing would irk my PCs more than an NPC along for the EXP ride.

 

[s/LaSH]

I've occasionally run NPCs along with the party IMC, but the sojourn was either short-term or the NPCs became PCs (each player in my group now has two PCs). It's kinda weird. I think the PCs should indeed be the focus, and NPCs performing important tasks isn't a good idea, but an NPC that fills a vital role is also important, just so long as they don't get the spotlight.

There was this one time where I had a high-level NPC along with a low-level party, but because I only had two players I was able to do something special for the final showdown with the high-level villain: I gave the hero NPC to one, the villain NPC to the other, and let them go at it. It was fun, gave the players a taste of high level powers, and an awesome fight to boot.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Personally, I hate it when DM's bring their personal PC/NPC along for the ride with a party. In my experience, it detracts from the game, as the DM is trying to run the game (and monsters, and NPCs ...) as well as be a player. To much metagaming occurs.

I don't mind the occasional NPC that joins a party for a short period, for something adventure-specific, or as a hired hand, but definitely not long-term. When I DM, the NPCs are secondary to the players, and I refuse to play one as an additional PC.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I agree with Olgar. I don't like tag-alongs, even if they do fill a "niche".

Let's say you don't have a rogue PC in your party. If you just add an NPC to open traps for you, what fun is that? It doesn't add anything to the game.

NPC's should not be permanent features of the game.

 

[maddman75]

It depends on the game, of course.

Normally, I wouldn't do this, as I've already got enough to worry about. But in my current game, the group kept Erky Timbers in the group after completing the Sunless Citadel. They want Erky along, so I play him. Plus they gave him a magic morning star, so he's not complaining!

 

[scadgrad]

it's always worked for our group

I've used DM-controled NPCs for around 20+ years & my players seem to enjoy it & even miss those characters when their gone.

A couple of things to avoid is having DM-controled uber characters. It's a mistake to have NPCs who are above the power level of the party. The PCs should never feel that one of the NPCs is more important than themselves. Also, the NPCs shouldn't be flawless or immortal. Depending on the situation the NPC's info can be just as flawed as that of the players. One of the hallmarks of good drama is to create interesting characters & then do horrible things to them. NPCs can fill this role perfectly.

IOC NPCs rarely fill a much-needed niche in the party makeup. As has been previously stated, that's just boring. They are instead 'fluffy bits' meant to add character & flavor to the setting (a detailed and expansive homebrew setting). Usually they are a way for the DM to shed some light on a particular element of the setting that has been ignored for whatever reason.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Ask your players if they enjoy having NPC's along for the ride. You should always get constant input from players to see if they're having fun or not. If it works for the game, then do it. Obviously, it's been working for you because you've been DMing that way for 10 years.

Personally, I don't like having NPC's accompanying PC's too much. That creates more work for the DM because you have to not only play opponents but allies at the same time. I don't like to take over all of the roleplaying like that. Also, I try to leave all decision-making to the players and avoid making suggestions. This is because I feel that they should feel as empowered as possible.