Who controls your npcs

[DonTadow]

In every game I've been from my hack and slash's to my straight rpgs to my diceless games ther has been one thing consistant with the dm, he always plays out the npcs, whether it is a party cohort, a familiar, or an animal companion. Unless the player had telepathy with the beast the dm was pretty much in control of the beast's actions.

Recently this has been an issue with a player in a game Im Co-dming whom wishes to live out her real life dream of owning a dog by having one in the game. I'm teaching the lead DM the way I DM, which is to avoid controversy she should control the animal unless the player does a handle animal check. Observing this method over the last few years, it prevents the player from essentially rpg'n two characters, and prevents abuse from the player.

This has worked for my game and the games I've been in but someone brought up on the board that they let their players role play their familiars, cohorts and such. I'm just curious as to what is the general consensus with this among dms.

WHo controls your npcs?

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

My players control the NPC's. I've got enough to mess with as is.

However, unless said NPC is fnatically loyal, I reserve the right to Veto any action you would have him do.

Less work for me, but I can still control the 1st level Commoner 'Trap Detectors'.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As Vraille said.

In my current Eberron campaign, my wife is playing an elven barbarian / bard who has two trained, magebred wardogs (which is one of the reasons I took an interest in your other thread). She even trained them herself, and equips them from her share of the loot.

My wife controls them in almost all aspects - including roleplaying them appropriately. They like to sing along with her when she's performing around the campfire at night. One of them - Trex - is more agressive (has the Attack trick twice and the Power Attack feat), while the other - Shilo - is tougher (Improved Natural Armor) but generally smarter.

They have a personality - something that probably wouldn't have developed as well if they were DM-controlled.

Of course, the DM has the ability to override whatever she asks her dogs to do, but he's rarely found it necessary.

 

[sniffles]

I've been in groups that did it both ways. A GM I play with regularly allowed my ranger to have a dire wolf companion, but the GM ran the wolf most of the time. This worked well for me because it was my first D&D game and I didn't know the rules. I had enough trouble remembering how to calculate what AC I hit (it was 2E). Currently, however, the same GM is running a 3.5 campaign in which my bard has a guard dog, and he allows me to run the dog because he has a GMPC to handle in addition to NPCs and monsters.

In another game with a different GM, I have a druid/ranger who has a dog companion. The GM has never given me any trouble about letting me run the companion. In the past I was just running it as a pet, with no attacks or tricks, but just yesterday the GM gave me a new character sheet for the dog, with tricks and BAB calculated. So he obviously has no problem with the dog being able to add to our combat effectiveness, and even encouraged me to take Improved Trip for the dog.

I think it's equally valid either way, although I might feel a bit frustrated if the GM ran the cohort/familiar/companion in a manner that was contrary to the way I envisioned the relationship. It's probably best discussed with the player in advance so there are no hard feelings.

 

[Stormborn]

For Animal Companions and Familars the player controls them, as I see them as class features and thus a part of the character. For companions gained through feats like Leadership, the player controls them in combat and most of the rest of the time, but I reserve the right to veto, or to add aspects to the NPCs roleplaying behavior. For non-PC focused NPCs (most of them) I control them.

On occasion, such as in a big naval battle, I have had one player run the PCs ship, while the others ran the attacking pirate galleys under my guidance as Pirate Admiral .

 

[kigmatzomat]

I with the rest: player control of familiars, animal companions, & cohorts but with DM veto. I take rare control of the npc when the player is forgetting or misrepresenting some key aspect of the character (alignment, background, nature).

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Heck, I ask the players to grab NPCs all the time. I'll pretty much let them play anybody but the BBEG. For instance, one of my players typically plays her PC's spouse, who tends to cause enough added complications that it feels like she's co-GMing.

But I'd always expect them to play cohorts and such. Less bookkeeping for me, and I don't think it's unbalancing.

Then again, is game balance always the #1 priority? This girl who's playing, do you think she's interested that much in overcoming gamist challenges? My guess is the thing she's the most jazzed about for this game is that she gets to pretend she has a dog. Taking that away (a known priority) in exchange for game balance (whose priority is unknown, and varies per game) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Just a thought.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Players always control their animal companions, familiars, etc.

For NPCs who travel with the PCs, I'll usually control them unless they're around a while and/or I don't mind showing the Players the NPC's stats. So if the local cleric is accompanying the PCs on a journey, I hand the cleric's character sheet to the players and ask for a volunteer to run them during battle.

Outside of battle its more ambigous. The Player mostly controls their animal companions, familiars, etc. Cohorts are more of a co-job, with either of us deciding on actions at any time. And, non-Cohort NPCs are only controlled by the Players during battle, so I roleplay them completely.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Player controls, but with occasional DM veto.

In your example, it sounds like the player is running the dog like it's a second PC with human intelligence (ie - it's going off to investigate things on it's own). That's the point where DM veto steps in, and the dog will return to hanging around the character and taking very little in the way of initiative.

If, otoh, the NPC in question were a cohort with a definite investigative bent, then I'd be fine having the NPC go off and investigate things, but he'd still be turning back if he thought he'd found something interesting.

 

[EdL]

Recently this has been an issue with a player in a game Im Co-dming whom wishes to live out her real life dream of owning a dog by having one in the game.

Might I suggest that you re-read what you wrote? The purpose of the game is to have fun! Why is it a real life dream of hers? And, even more importantly, why are you so willing to Scrooge her out of that dream?

Priorities, man, priorities!