Player-controlled "NPCs"?

[Nightgaun7]

For whatever reason, your players have some backup. Maybe it's a higher-level paladin helping them take on a vampire, maybe there're a half-dozen town guards helping track down some bandits, maybe the players are even in command of a small army.

The way I've done this in the past is I run them as the GM and the players can interact with them but not control them. But I was wondering if anyone had played with or ran NPCs that the players got to essentially have as secondary characters, and if so how many of them there were and how it went. If there are fewer NPCs than there are players, how would you divvy up who gets to control them?

It gives players a little more to do, and you can mix up roles so your fighter player can do something at range or vice versa, and it can let the GM set up bigger things and spend more time on running the enemies. But it can also bog things down and take the focus off the PCs.

[DragonBaneDM]

I've done this in a number of ways!

The first was during a large scale battle where the party split up to man various fronts, making skill checks that counted towards a large-scale skill challenge and fighting in combats alongside various NPCs from the town they were defending. These NPCs were controlled by the party members who were across town fighting on a different front.

I also given my players NPCs to control briefly who were torn to shreds by the bad guys, instilling a deep hatred in the organization that was at hand and creating a driving a sense to destroy them for the rest of that adventure.

[theMycon]

I do not recommend using real PCs. Everyone running two real PCs will slow the game down. PCs take time to figure out, and actions take time to plan & execute. And unless you carefully make each one, you will way more than double the number of gimmicks and tricks available to a clever player.

If it's one, and only one "PC class" NPC, ask if you really need the DMPC in the fight, and if you do, run it yourself. FWIW, the DMG (I or II?) suggests that you re-skin a monster, subtract the XP value of the helper from the XP value of the battle, and then divide by number of PCs. I find this less fun but more practical than a proper DMPC.

If the players have a small army, minions* are the way to go. Although having them run 3 or 4 PCs might instill some respect for how hard DMing a battle actually is, keeping track of all their options is not something the average player can do (and you still have to keep track of them to make sure they're doing it right). Two or three types of minions still gives them a number of new tactical options and a significant power boost, without overwhelming them. And they don't mind them dying.

If they each have a companion PC**, that works out well for short bursts. Don't let the players have 'em long enough to get attached, or you'll never be rid of a companion.



*My group has done "durable" minions for a few years; a non-crit bloodies them and if they crit they deal double damage. There's a consensus this works better from everybody but the defender.

**The full rules are in DMG 2, but basically "pick a class. This companion has 1 at will, encounter, and utility from it, dependent on the level. No items, no feats, standard defenses and a once-per-round feature based on the role."

[TurboGhast]

Worse comes to worse, I have DMed a game where an extra party member that the entire team jointly controlled was added so that we had a healer.
It works quite well, since the character is healing optimized.

[DragonBaneDM]

I think I misunderstood the original post, because I'm with Mycon here. The NPCs I've used in the past have always been built with monster math. They'd have the effects that came from PC powers, but with their damage, HP, defenses, and to hit adjusted to make sense for a monster of their role/level.

To balance the encounter, I'd just subtract the XP the ally NPC is worth from the encounter's total XP to find the new XP. XP is a fun word to type. XP XP XP.

[obryn]

The easier the NPC the better, IMO. I give the players control over them, but they are built like monsters - at best!

For example, I'm running the Zeitgeist campaign path right now, and the party hired a Dwarf Sniper. He was dirt-simple - he always acted at Initiative 8. He had a speed, hit points, and defenses. And every round he just dealt 10 damage to a target within 20 squares. Easy peasy - no rolling whatsoever.

Back when I was running Dark Sun, they had a Dwarf 'Knight' who - again - just dealt arbitrary damage and pushed on his turn, or more dealt more than that on an OA.

I always make it clear, though, that even if the players are in control of the NPC right at that moment, I can steal that control back if it's vital they act according to their character. They are not PCs; they are NPCs the players are helping with.

[Nightgaun7]

Just to be clear, I'm not asking about how to stat NPCs or balance them or anything.

I'm interested in, for example, having one PC controlled by a party - who gets to control him? Does he rotate every turn, can they pass control amongst themselves? What if you have three extra characters and 5 players (probably best to avoid this in the first place but w/e)? Or 3 players and 9 characters? Should everything be divided evenly, should the twin-strike-erry-day Ranger get more of them than the others because he has the most downtime between turns, or will the others feel it's unfair? Stuff like that.

[Tegu8788]

I would say, just ask. Let the players decide, who can handle the extra complexity, who wants to try something more. My default is to use them sparingly, and either as healbots or specific skill uses. I also try to get my NPCs out of their mind as a combat resource as quickly as I can.

But that is me,mans every DM is different.

[Gavran]

I would say, just ask. Let the players decide, who can handle the extra complexity, who wants to try something more. My default is to use them sparingly, and either as healbots or specific skill uses. I also try to get my NPCs out of their mind as a combat resource as quickly as I can.

But that is me,mans every DM is different.

I tend to agree. Some players will get annoyed if the NPCs don't act in the tactical manner of their preference. Other players don't care. Some players would enjoy the extra turns, other players might dislike controlling a character they did not make. Ask for volunteers, let them divvy it up however (and whenever) they choose (or control them by consensus if your players aren't likely to argue or otherwise slow things down a lot.) If nobody volunteers, then you control them, but also IMO make an effort to ditch (not necessarily kill, but provide other objectives or "off-screen" opponents for, perhaps*) them ASAP because as you know I am not a fan of playing chess against myself. :p

[Tegu8788]

The only time I intentionally give my players an NPC is under these two conditions. Often in this order.

1) I want them to face and defeat a massively stronger enemy. The monster and NPC crash into another room while the PCs hold off mobs and do skills to allow the off screen fight to happen. Not a common type of fight, but occasionally it's fun.

B) I want to impress just how powerful a new foe is. Super powered NPC ally comes with, leads the charge, and gets one-shot.

[Nightgaun7]

I tend to agree. Some players will get annoyed if the NPCs don't act in the tactical manner of their preference. Other players don't care. Some players would enjoy the extra turns, other players might dislike controlling a character they did not make. Ask for volunteers, let them divvy it up however (and whenever) they choose (or control them by consensus if your players aren't likely to argue or otherwise slow things down a lot.) If nobody volunteers, then you control them, but also IMO make an effort to ditch (not necessarily kill, but provide other objectives or "off-screen" opponents for, perhaps*) them ASAP because as you know I am not a fan of playing chess against myself. :p

I don't really feel like it's playing chess against myself, because I tend to have a personality and simple "program" for the NPCs so they don't really take any thought to run.

Mainly I just wanted feedback from players because I am working on a adventure "module" and there are some things where if the PCs are not built to handle certain obstacles they will have a hard time making progress, and I wanted to put in a couple of NPCs in case whoever runs it wants to scale back the difficulty. If your players like a brutal slugfest you can leave them out, but if the group you've got is less tactically-minded or just doesn't like combat you can ease their way. And so I wanted to figure out how I could make this as broadly applicable as possible. I can run it without a second thought, but I know some other GMs who would find the extra load tough to deal with.

Personally I love NPC allies as a player, as long as they are NPCs and not GMPCs-that-do-everything-better-than-you.

[Tegu8788]

Now, I'm going to preface this with several statements, I welcome you to review them if I start sounding aggressive to you.

I don't know your table, but from my experience, which is not as great as it could be, that method is normally not a positive one. I also, with a few exceptions here, not had good DMs, who mostly used allied NPCs to jerk us around. I'm not saying what you're doing is bad or wrong, but, I'd consider this.

I don't think that method is a good idea. I totally get the idea, having an NPC able to fill a role the party lacks makes designing encounters much easier. If you have a list of prepared role fillers, it's simply to make balanced and well designed encounters that let each character shine. All good intentions.


But I'd be cautious about using this method for games not under your control. For one, if some party decides to play a bunch of strikers and then hire the controller, defender, and leader, that would imbalance things. Or if there is a a decent defender and they can hire a better one, that player will understandably be upset.

This sounds like a unquie skill you've got, which is awesome. But to write for the general audience, I fear the kind of balancing act you'd need to provide for a green DM, would end up being more complex than you may realize. It brings a ton of variables to a table, and overly complex modules are, well, overly complex. From my perspective, it sounds like running the module with this concept would be tougher than me making up one of my own.

I'm also not trying to write modules, say hat off to you. And I've had particular difficulty with the few modules I've seen. Partially my players being allergic to plot, and part my desire to spice stuff up.

[Gavran]

I don't really feel like it's playing chess against myself, because I tend to have a personality and simple "program" for the NPCs so they don't really take any thought to run.

I remember this, also. :p 's why I said IMO.

But the fact that it's for a module only makes that more valid, really. If were to DM I think I'd prefer encounters balanced without the NPCs and optional distractions for them.

[Nightgaun7]

I remember this, also. :p 's why I said IMO.

But the fact that it's for a module only makes that more valid, really. If were to DM I think I'd prefer encounters balanced without the NPCs and optional distractions for them.

Well like I said above, the NPCs are optional and will only be included as an "easy mode". I'll be including a few other ways to scale things back as well, for GMs who don't want to deal with them. But I figured I'd ask around and see how other people handled them and see what I needed to account for. It's easy to design something I can use - it's hard to design if for someone else.

[Laserlight]

I do not recommend using real PCs. Everyone running two real PCs will slow the game down. PCs take time to figure out, and actions take time to plan & execute.

Some people are faster than others. I've run three PCs for a session and was still faster than one of the other players with one. As the module writer, though, bear in mind that in some groups, the slow guy will want to be the one who runs the extra NPCs. :-\