NPCs as Party Members

[Quickbeam]

I tried to post earlier today, but the server thwarted my efforts...so please forgive any redundancies .

Over the years I've DMed, NPC's have been handled differently within each campaign according to the needs and wants of the party...and my own story devices. Sometimes I've played NPC's which I created especially for that group, usually to fill a niche. Other times I've played NPC's that joined the party within given adventures like Erky Timbers (Sunless Citadel) or Tenaris Glimmerdawn (RttToEE), until they moved on or were slain. Most often, though, I leave the group to its own wits and abilities while I run the game and keep a close eye on the various story arcs and plot designs.

When I have played NPC's it is almost exclusively in a supporting role (like your referenced "Suggestor") and never as a tool to heavyhandedly move things in a specific direction. Also, I'm careful to avoid using NPC's who are more powerful than the players, unless the NPC's are intended to be teachers under whom a given character is training.

 

[Darkness]

My players tend to persuade quite a few NPCs into joining them - also, I view characters (whether PCs or NPCs) as people, and wouldn't draw a line between "PCs" and "NPCs" or what either is "allowed" to do. (Which is doubly appropriate since quite a few of our PCs tend, in the long run, to become worse enemies - but not necessarily worse people - to the PC party than the actual villains of the campaign could ever be... )

So I do whatever seems right and let them run with it - or not, depending on the NPC, the situation, and the PCs (e.g., a female NPC wizard once left the PC party after one of the PCs looted a couple graves too many ).

NPCs almost always add lots of fun to a game, too - so you don't see me complaining about my players' "recruitment drives," either...

 

[Creamsteak]

Just a quick response: I hate it when I play with a DM that gives the players a tag-along of any kind. It never turns out good with me playing, since I'm tough on all of the other players (most of the time) about "getting into shape" and "think through the problem" and other quick quip-like suggestions. When I do it to the NPC, the DM tends to have the most trouble looking at it as IC interaction.

Also, I don't want an extra character to work through a problem. Anyone can find the solution themselves given the desire and thoughts. And: I don't like the feeling of 'intervention' that an attached NPC has with group cohesiveness...

 

[Xarlen]

For the longest time, I kept getting/losing players until I had 2 people in my group. 2! A cleric and a wizard. So, I inserted a tank fighter/ranger to help them out, because they were about to get into a combat intensive plot.

Well, the fighter/ranger became a faceted part of the group, because the cleric fell in love with her. Throughout the adventure that followed (An intensive one at that), I had one NPC per 'phase' of it. Once they needed a trapmaster to get through an abandoned thieves guild, a paladin to lead them through some sewers against the evil priests, a cleric of the main temple to the city, etc.

Then I got a 3rd player, and a Co-Gm.

And then I lost that player, and the Co-Gm became a player... And the NPC fighter/ranger is *still* with them.

I've had the chance to take a 4th player into my group twice, and decided not to. I'm attached to that NPC, as is the party (She's a love interest to the Cleric), and the party would be too 'big' for me. I can barely manage NPCs and keep my party NPC from falling into the background.

Of course, I've been only GMing for a year and a quarter, and this is my first Gmed game...

 

[Darkness]

Just a quick response: I hate it when I play with a DM that gives the players a tag-along of any kind. It never turns out good with me playing, since I'm tough on all of the other players (most of the time) about "getting into shape" and "think through the problem" and other quick quip-like suggestions. When I do it to the NPC, the DM tends to have the most trouble looking at it as IC interaction.

Sounds like you have a problem with bad DMs rather than with NPCs, actually...

 

[Crothian]

The way I do it is introdiuce NPCs and if the group wnats them to be along they do. However, I leave this up to the group as sometime they don't a DM controled character along for whatever reason. Personally, I think it can work great, but sometimes it really slows down the game when the DM has a hard time running the NPC and the badguys at the same time.

 

[nopantsyet]

I only introduce an NPC who I anticipate the party might want along if there is a specific practical purpose to it. Like they need a guide through unfamiliar lands or they need someone who can vouch for them at their destination. I know some DMs are able to run a campaign and include full-time NPCs and have it really add to the game, but for me I tend to forget about the NPC. I ran a whole battle forgetting about an NPC completely until the last round! (When thankfully he was still at full HP and could finish off the final baddie and help out with the unconsicous and dying characters.)

Of course, he got killed the following battle and the players were scrambling to remember everything he had said because they had expected him to guide them *and* make an introduction at the destination.

Oh yeah--and to read since the PCs are all illiterate! Now they've got his journal of notes and can't figure out what the funny symbols mean!

 

[gunter uxbridge]

I have made a habit of including an NPC in the group for a variety of reasons. It is great to have one for people who stop by for a one shot game and you don't want to change the dynamic of the group. I have used them (particularly priests) to fill voids in the party makeup. I also don't hesitate to pull them for the group if need be.

The last campaign we had included a priest of Kelemvor named Rosen. It wasn't too long before the PCs changed his name to Jozan (since that was the last campsign's NPC.) Then they just started calling him "healing potion." It got kind of insulting for him, so I had him split from the group about halfway through the campaign. Seeing was their "walking cure lite wound spell" was no longer at arms reach, their combat style became MUCH more conservative.

I never used the NPC to point out overlooked plot hooks or steer the PCs in the right direction. I used them a lot for devils advocate points of view and just to lend a starter to a dead end.

The NPCs always worked out really well and I will include one in the next campaign. Its a great technique that my PCs have never had a problem with.

 

[Aquila]

In my current campaign I'm finding myself almost forced to introduce an NPC Arcane spellcaster due to my group of players' determination to make the most ineffective characters possible. I had been adverse to doing this, as I'm dealing with a group of players with a knack for creative solutions to the problems I pose for them. Luckily because they need an arcane spellcaster I'm just going to give them a low level wizard who's spent all his time studying and has no idea what adventuring is all about (and will need to be protected).

My ideal solution would be just adding another player to my group, but actually finding one has made that solution tough.

 

[Voobaha]

Uses for a reoccurring NPC

I think reoccurring NPCs can still be fun in the game, especially if you can get the PCs to like and care about them. In one game I ran, the NPC sidekick of the PCs was pretty much an honest, brave, loyal follower who helped rescue some of the PCs when they were in heaps of trouble.

He turned out to be the source of a plot when he suddenly decided to pack up and leave citing "personal reasons" that he refused to talk about. He also refused help from the PCs because he didn't want them to get hurt. It was obvious the NPC was troubled about something. The PCs liked the NPC so much that they followed him in the hopes of helping him. It turns out the guy had a past they never suspected: long lost relatives, an old flame and a nemesis. The PCs got more into figuring out who this NPC really was and helping him out--it was good for several sessions.