PDA

View Full Version : Npc control?



Aeromyre
2010-06-22, 01:32 PM
Just curious, what do you as DMs do or as players what do your DMs do?
Do the players have complete control of the NPCs, seeing everything on their character sheets? Or do the DMs keep them behind the screen secretly?
As a player I've had control of 3 NPCs, but that was just the DM and myself. As a DM I typpically don't put NPCs into a party as large as 5, but soon there will occationally will be.
So tell me what your group does

gbprime
2010-06-22, 01:38 PM
I typically have one NPC per group. That lets me as the DM participate in roleplay conversation, and I generally run the NPC in combat as well.

Any cohort is the responsibility of the owning PC to run, but I usually insist that such an NPC isn't a complete bot, and has an agenda/personality/goal outside of combat.

Aeromyre
2010-06-22, 01:45 PM
I typically have one NPC per group. That lets me as the DM participate in roleplay conversation, and I generally run the NPC in combat as well.

Any cohort is the responsibility of the owning PC to run, but I usually insist that such an NPC isn't a complete bot, and has an agenda/personality/goal outside of combat.

Yeah that's pretty much what i expected most people would say

valadil
2010-06-22, 02:33 PM
My PCs rarely have combat pets if that's what you mean. I suppose when I've given them an ally I've let a PC fully control it. But most of the time I'd prefer to avoid cluttering up the battlefield with extra people.

Mauther
2010-06-22, 02:37 PM
I avoid NPCs in the party as much as possible, but when they are necesary I as the DM both build them and run them. Otherwise they aren't NPCs, its just an auxillary PC. I do my best to keep them as combat auxillaries (bards, support wiz, or healing cleric) and I try my best to keep them out of the roleplay, certainly where it comes to decision making.

Aeromyre
2010-06-22, 02:43 PM
My PCs rarely have combat pets if that's what you mean. I suppose when I've given them an ally I've let a PC fully control it. But most of the time I'd prefer to avoid cluttering up the battlefield with extra people.

I feel the same way


I avoid NPCs in the party as much as possible, but when they are necesary I as the DM both build them and run them. Otherwise they aren't NPCs, its just an auxillary PC. I do my best to keep them as combat auxillaries (bards, support wiz, or healing cleric) and I try my best to keep them out of the roleplay, certainly where it comes to decision making.

I don't like to have so many people on the battlefield as well, but i feel sometimes it's nessisary to have a NPC in the party who can progress the story.
I DM a Chaotic Party so this is somewhat of a good way if I have control of at least the NPC's roleplaying, then I can take the story in certain way.
NPCs are no less people then PCs and have their own agendas and imputs, realisticly no person would be completely passive like that.

Choco
2010-06-22, 02:45 PM
I let players control their cohorts, but play the followers and other hirelings/allies myself (except for Thrallherds, who can play their entire army, what with them being completely under the thrallherd's controll and all). Animal companions and familiars are also under player control.

A DM I am playing under though controls all characters that are not the PC's, including cohorts (once again thrallherds are the exception here). I actually like that way better.

Riffington
2010-06-22, 02:54 PM
It depends how many players you have.
Lots of players: avoid them, they clutter the game more.
Medium number: what gbprime said.
Small number: let the players play each others' henchmen. that way they have unique personalities and are an important part of the story, helping flesh it out.

valadil
2010-06-22, 02:54 PM
I actually kinda like giving out NPCs in social scenes.

For instance, a couple of my PCs in my thieves guild game were trying to make contacts at a bar. The people they wanted to meet were playing poker. I let the PCs who were sitting out be the other people at the table.

Why not? Otherwise they would have been bored. With them there they had something to do. It was a RP friendly group, so they didn't mind playing up random goons and thugs when the situation called for it.

Jorda75
2010-06-22, 02:56 PM
I've always assumed control over any cohorts above animal intelligence and even then sometimes I refuse to have the companion follow some commands if I feel it's against their nature.

I take it upon myself to take the role of all NPC's when I'm the DM and have yet to have a player "run" an NPC for me. In almost all circumstances I have the player issue a command or request to the NPC and then the NPC will respond (usually in their favor if they're allies). The only exception are summoned monsters and those magically compelled to do what the caster wants, assuming they get no saving throw to resist and the like.

Knaight
2010-06-22, 02:56 PM
I control all NPCs, but occasions where they are with the party are rare, and temporary. Either they leave, or more likely they get killed. Of course, I don't need to have someone there to drag the story where I want it because there isn't a spot I want it and I can improvise well enough to react to anything the PCs do.

nedz
2010-06-22, 03:01 PM
I assign lots of NPCs to the party dependant upon the mission, but thats really part of my current campaign setup. (The PCs are part of an army).

Whilst I often run them for the initial RP, I always farm them out for combat.
I do not have DMPCs in the traditional sense, though I will overrule the player on the rare occasion that they try to have the NPC do something out of character or if the plot requires it.

Frankly I have enough to do since my combats tend to be fairly large.

Its also good for a player to have something to do if their character is incapacitated, in fact the NPCs often get passed around in this instance.

casper
2010-06-22, 03:18 PM
In our D&D group player can control NPC just as much as his character can. So typically all NPCs are fully controlled by DM. But, for example, in a campaign we running now one of the players is playing a wizard/mindbender/<maybe something else, i don't know exactly>, who can really take full control over NPC's mind. So that player actually "plays" all that characters.

Jarawara
2010-06-22, 03:41 PM
In the old days, it was commonplace for the party to hire lots of henchmen, which were basically full-classed NPC characters. Hirelings were also used on occasion, packbearers and 0-level guards and such. Many times the NPC's outnumbered the PC's.

Of course, in the *really* old days, the DM had a rule on PC's hiring NPC's - you had to be at least 2nd level, and every level thereafter you could hire another. It was generally best in his games to hire as many as you were legally allowed to do, so by 6th level you'd have 5 NPC henchmen. But they also leveled... as since they were 'people' too, they could also hire henchmen using the same rules.

Therefore, a PC of 6th level would have 5 henchmen, the highest of which would probably be 5th level, who would have 4 henchmen, (the others having less) the highest of those might be 3rd to 4th level, thus having 2-3 henchmen of their own, some of which might have henchmen of their own...

The party size (5 players) was roughly around 70+ characters. :smallcool:

*~*

In my current gaming style, I have on average 2-12 NPC's in the party at any time, unless one PC is off doing a solo-run, in which case the NPC's number 1-4. Most of the time they are there for the roleplay, but in combat they are marginally effective and can serve to keep some of the baddies off the PC's so they can do their stuff to the key enemies.

The NPC's come and go, but it serve's the PC's interests to keep them alive - they then serve as 'allies on-call' whenever situations get hot.

I often have limited control over who stays the longest and who comes and goes. I have intentions for them when I introduce them, but I react to events just like any person would, and roleplay them appropriately. It might make them leave early, or might make a 'cameo appearance' last far longer than intended. And also... sometimes stuff just happens.

I prepared one NPC to act as 'tragic sacrifice' - he would die early, heroically or otherwise, to demonstrate to the players that they have to protect their friends or watch them die. Instead, the NPC survived, campaigned with the party for close to 8 years, and now is well on his way to becoming the next BBEG. Meanwhile I prepared another NPC who would be 'faithful buddy and sidekick'... and then the storyline led him away and he's effectively retired now.

Generally, I prefer the players to play the NPC's in combat, though I handle the roleplay for the most part. Sometimes the players take over an NPC for limited sessions - for times when the party splits and there's not enough PC's to go around. But currently the players seem to prefer to handle only their own PC's and they let me handle the NPC's myself.

The only downside of having so many NPC's is that some of them fall to the background. We have a long-running joke about Elrood, who has been known to go on adventures with the party but never actually says anything or does anything. Kinda like that guy from The Gamers. But most of the time I remember to give everyone lip service.

Most of the time, each NPC is 'tied' to a PC, and thus they become the responder to whenever that PC is talking. If Harod is talking, Leayas would logically respond, or maybe Tugov. If Jaran is talking, it's his lieutenants Thocul or Hiln, or maybe Issac. For Miranda, it would be Jarath. For Allis, it's Chegrin, Cetra, or Jonich. Livia, the newest PC, usually only have Athan to play against, but since she and Miranda are best buddies, it's the four of them as a group. Livia also gets alot of scenes with her mother, which is odd since her mom's died the day Livia was introduced as a character, but hey, these things seem commonplace in D&D. :smallwink:

Umael
2010-06-22, 03:52 PM
As GM, I tend not to have any NPCs tag along with the group because I don't want to influence their decisions. Now if there are regular NPCs with whom they interact, that's something else.

Also, I am more likely to give the players NPCs to play if one of the PCs goes wandering off by himself (or herself). Saves me a bunch of work and keeps the other players involved.

Ormur
2010-06-22, 08:10 PM
The only NPC travelling with the players in my campaigns are temporary hirelings/companions/prisoners invariably discreetly played by the DM that usually don't take much part in combat or role playing and the ever present host of cohorts and class features.

I let the player in my campaign play his healer cohort because she was deliberately added to make up for the mechanical and role playing restrictions of his character and she doesn't really do anything fun in combat anyway. Now she just hit 6th level and got her own unicorn mount and I drew the line at letting the player play his character's cohort's mount. Thus I get to play Pinky the celestial unicorn.

I liked the suggestion of letting other players play non-plot essential NPC's if the party splits up though. I could hand out a piece of paper with a level, personality and agenda and let them do the rest.