The proper role of supporting NPCs?

[pemerton]

In my current campaign the most significant high-level PCs are gods. Gods can both (i) be assumed to take a very long-term view which means that what is a crisis for the PCs may not be a crisis for the gods, and (ii) be assumed to be bound by complex sets of obligations and metaphysical constraints that don't apply to the PCs. Because of this I've found they work OK as plot instigators/providers of background support, without actually being able to do everything themselves.

The favourite NPCs of the PCs in my game are an exiled god and a dead god. Both were able to break the rules and offer more direct help/information, which is what made them favourite. But the fact that one was exiled and the other dead again made it easy to explain why they couldn't do the whole job themselves.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

If say a goblin tribe is massacring farmers in the eastern provinces, then a powerful wizard could simply teleport the party there. And if he can do that, maybe help with scrying as well? And maybe scry first, teleport there second, fireball the lot of them third?

All of these cost time - time he doesn't necessarily have.

"I've heard some reports of a goblin tribe in the province of Asfalah attacking local farms. Look into it, discover the causes, and put a stop to it if possible. If it's just a minor population boom, you should be able to handle it. If it's beyond your ability to cope with, report back to me.

Here are the components for two Linked Portal rituals, as well as the sigils for the local wizards' guild - the guildmaster owes me some significant favors, so don't take lip from him. Good luck! Now excuse me, I've heard some disturbing reports from the Underdark that I need to look into..."

After all, lives are at stake.

Lives are always at stake. The question is where his powers are the most useful. Out there in a frontier situation to deal with a situation lower-level adventurers could deal with? Or investigating the schemes of some of his truly powerful enemies which might threaten the entire kingdom?

He can't be everywhere at once.

And doesn't he have asisstants who can handle red tape for a day or two?

He has assistants. So do corporate executives and heads of government. But assistants can't really make the high-level decisions for them - which resources to spend, what to protect, where to make a difference.

Once the PCs are past the beginner levels, and the scope of their adventures is widening, then it gets harder and harder to justify NPC inaction.

Who says they are being inactive? They are providing the PCs with resources and information. It's just that the crisis the PCs are dealing with right now is unlikely to be the only crisis at hand. And which crisis is the more serious one is often only discovered when it is too late.

That's why I prefer not to show players that ruler X is a high-level whatever. Less "but as a paladin he cannot let those people die! And he has a wizard friend who could help too!" arguments - which are often perfectly in-character. The NPCs can be tied up in red tape too, but I'd rather not enter discussions whether or not threat X should be enough for the hero NPC to change his daily schedule or not.

As it happens, these complaints echoes the complaints of military grunts throughout the ages. "General X spends all his time and resources on unit Y! Why doesn't he spend it on our unit? Can't he see that we are much more important?"

But of course, none of the people on the frontline have enough knowledge to see the big picture. The same is true for PCs who haven't reached the level of the NPC yet.

 

[Fenes]

As it happens, these complaints echoes the complaints of military grunts throughout the ages. "General X spends all his time and resources on unit Y! Why doesn't he spend it on our unit? Can't he see that we are much more important?"

But of course, none of the people on the frontline have enough knowledge to see the big picture. The same is true for PCs who haven't reached the level of the NPC yet.

I am not talking about assigning ressources, nor small problems. I am talking about mid-level heroic problems - like an entire town threatened - which challenge a mid-level PC, but which a high-level NPC could deal with in an hour with SBT (Scry Buff Teleport).

If I present an NPC as high level, then once my PCs reach the "Middle tier", to use 4E terminology, they'd be asking themselves why said NPC won't interfere with the latest crisis. And if that crisis is just one among many, still, then they'll feel insignificant still.

Or to pull it around: Why exactly do you need to have a high-level NPC known as being high-level anyway? What does it help your game if the players know that Ruler X is a Paladin of 18th level, instead "a paladin"?

What exactly does it add to the game?

 

[Parlan]

During times where no demon invasions occur, the NPC will still do the best to nip them in the bud. But he can't do that all by himselves because there are just too many hints and potential threats out there - and he really can't spend a couple of days or even weeks chasing down a particular lead. That's where other, less powerful people come in - such as the player characters.

My problem with this tho is that I'm still being a flunky to an NPC: I'm doing the low-level crap he doesn't want to do.

That's not "heroic".

I *already* get to spend days and weeks chasing down leads for more powerful people. I those people my bosses.

For a couple hours a week *I* want to be the powerful person.

That makes me think of a situation where NPCs might be cool: if the PCs decide what threat they want to handle, and the NPCs handle the other. That would allow you to offer the players choices and prevent railroading, but keep the focus on them.

 

[Fenes]

My problem with this tho is that I'm still being a flunky to an NPC: I'm doing the low-level crap he doesn't want to do.

That's not "heroic".

I *already* get to spend days and weeks chasing down leads for more powerful people. I those people my bosses.

For a couple hours a week *I* want to be the powerful person.

That makes me think of a situation where NPCs might be cool: if the PCs decide what threat they want to handle, and the NPCs handle the other. That would allow you to offer the players choices and prevent railroading, but keep the focus on them.

My current PCs have a lot of guards and similar "followers" which take care of a number of "mundane" situations, such as observing locations or shadowing people, gather information, guard something or someone, or handle minor problems.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I am not talking about assigning ressources, nor small problems. I am talking about mid-level heroic problems - like an entire town threatened - which challenge a mid-level PC, but which a high-level NPC could deal with in an hour with SBT (Scry Buff Teleport).

Could he really?

Could he figure out why the goblins are being aggressive, where they come from, and find out all their secret hiding places in an hour?

Or is it more likely that he will only get rid of the really obvious threats, since he doesn't have the time to do an in-depth investigation?

Some things are better delegated.

Or to pull it around: Why exactly do you need to have a high-level NPC known as being high-level anyway? What does it help your game if the players know that Ruler X is a Paladin of 18th level, instead "a paladin"?

What exactly does it add to the game?

So you have an explanation why the kingdom isn't overrun by the truly dangerous threats that the PCs would be incapable of dealing with at their level... and so that you can get rid of them in a particularly gruesome and spectacular fashion once the PCs reach higher levels and to show them that things are getting really serious.

My problem with this tho is that I'm still being a flunky to an NPC: I'm doing the low-level crap he doesn't want to do.

That's not "heroic".

Then there is no heroism in war at all.

For a couple hours a week *I* want to be the powerful person.

Then start the campaign at a higher level.

Or assume that they start off in a distant frontier region far away from the capital which few powerful people pay attention to. Which often seems like the "default" assumption for the start of a campaign anyway.

 

[Fenes]

So you have an explanation why the kingdom isn't overrun by the truly dangerous threats that the PCs would be incapable of dealing with at their level... and so that you can get rid of them in a particularly gruesome and spectacular fashion once the PCs reach higher levels and to show them that things are getting really serious.

Do you really play it like that? Whenever your players finish an adventure, you overshadow it with "and while you were dealing with the goblin threat to Noonecarestown, UberPaladin held back the hordes of hellgate and ArchWizardBob defeated the invasion from NecroCountry. Good job, folks, you did as well as the other three groups of heroes-in-training active in your area"?

Wouldn't it be simpler to not place the spotlight on such threats until the players can deal with it? That is, if you want to have the focus on the player characters' deeds.

I really don't see a reason why I'd want to rub the noses of my players and PCs into the statblocks of the NPCs. It also feels a bit forced if there are countless threats of the realm, held back by the NPCs (or solved) until the players can deal with threats of that level.

What does it add to the game? If there are no threats known that require high-levels to keep in check for the PCs you do not need an excuse for holding the threats in check either. It looks to me like you're caught in some loop: You want high-level NPCs known as high level so you can explain why threat X hasn't wrecked the country, but you have no reason other than "Keeps my NPCs busy" in the first place for having the high-level threats before the party is ready.

The threats can already be going on, just not known about yet, if you want a build up of such challenges, until the party discovers them.

 

[S'mon]

For a couple hours a week *I* want to be the powerful person.

I agree entirely - that's why in my current game I made the PCs the powerful people, right from 1st level. There essentially are no powerful adventurer-type NPCs in the setting. Good King Thongar was - once. Now he's an old man, with 3d8 hit dice and no Feats. Friendly spellcasters are, as far as is known, restricted to 1st & 2nd level spells, and lack many PC capabilities.

Examples - the 1st level PCs in the 1st adventure I ran:

Tal, Rogue - a talented star in the King's Pathfinders, the elite royal scots

Uric, Fighter - dwarf champion of the Iron Hills, renowned for his strength and battle skills

Calen Oakenbrow, Druid - half-elf powerful wielder of the ancient magics of the Old Faith

Krask Bloodeye, Spirit Shaman - a Trosk barbarian, powerful in magic and lore, advisor to King Thongar

By contrast, the PC's NPC equivalents would be competent but overshadowed by the PCs. Taking Uric the Dwarf Champion as an example, with ATT +5/d8+4 and 11 hp as F1 he obviously outclasses the typical dwarf (hd 1d8 ATT+1/d8), but he also outclasses even Thongar's Royal Knights (hd 2d8 ATT+3/d8+1).

BTW it seems to me that you can avoid having the PCs disrupt the setting if you establish that the PCs are the big cheeses, right from the start. There's really no need to have high-level NPCs overshadowing the PCs. Let them be the heroes.

 

[billd91]

I'm cool with a throw away line like:
DM: "You hear rumors that [Some Organization for Good] is also trying to defeat the [Horrible Icky Badness] over in [Distant Town/Kingdom/Continent], but they haven't had much success yet either. Now what do you want to do?"

So as a DM, I try to keep all of the NPCs out of the limelight as much as possible. They might have a library they PCs can use, or can answer a discrete question the PCs have, but generally, I want the PCs to use their own skills discover the location of the McGuffin, solve the mystery etc.

And generally, that is the case. The PCs have the limelight on all of the adventures I have planned out and toss the hooks out for. But I may also brainstorm up some other things going on around the campaign, some of which may lead to guest appearances of other heroes in transit to their own adventure sites. But the fundamental difference between groups is, the PCs have all my attention with my adventures. The NPCs do other things.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Although they have never been linked via the rules age and higher levels are generally associated in players minds. If an NPC is really old then "logically" he should be very high level. If an NPC is very high level then it's typical to expect him to be older than the next character of the same or lower level. The rules regarding aging amount to a point or two of reduced ability score. There is nothing like real world effects of aging such as slowed movement and reactions, reduced physical stamina, diminished mental capacity or even dementia.

Because the game applies none of these real-world limitations for age, and makes no formal association between age and character level you end up with the idea that characters (PC or NPC) will be fully capable and willing to adventure right up until the day they die of old age - and then it's not a death that comes of complications from advanced age but simply reaching a hard-coded limit. Like the character Roy in Blade Runner EVERY character can and will kick ass right up until their odometer ticks from 999,999 to 000,000 instead of 1,000,000.

The acceptable role for an NPC is what the _DM_ gives them - never EVER what the setting gives them. The setting cannot know, and therefore cannot CARE what level your PC's are, nor what they actually are going to do. If the PLAYERS are having their characters defer to Elminster or another older, higher level NPC to save the world when the DM's adventure is intended for the _PC's_ to save the world, then the DM has erred in presenting that NPC or that adventure.

Personally, I believe it is a signficant design error for a setting to have NPC's like Elminster who are presented as being highly involved in world events, higher level than the PC's (indeed being quasi-deity in the case of Elminster), AND ACCESSABLE by the PC's (either by design or by simply failing to instruct the DM NOT to allow the PC's to be overshadowed unnecessarily). It places the NPC in the position of the default go-to guy - NOT the PC's which is the position the NPC's should occupy. The only time the PC's should be deferring to NPC's for ASSISTANCE much less simply giving over responsibility and control of events is when the PC's are unquestionably outmatched. Otherwise when the PC's face threats and hardships then the _PC's_ should be stepping up - whether they think Elminster is older and more capable or not - and leaving them in the position of having nothing to do but saying afterwards, "Job well done. I'm going to have tea now. Care to join me?"

The game is about what the PC's do - not about what the NPC's do. It is when settings provide NPC's who are ORIENTED to overshadow the PC's, and when DM's fail to voluntarily LIMIT those NPC's when running his game regardless of what the setting says that you run into trouble.