Letting Players Control NPC Allies?

[Palanan]

So, I’m thinking of trying something I haven’t really done before. Right now the party is holed up in a defensible space with several NPC survivors of a recent raid. The NPCs are de facto allies and have just agreed to allow the PCs into their makeshift fortification.

There’s about to be an encounter with hostiles, and I’m thinking of allowing the players to take control of one NPC each during combat. Otherwise I’ll be running a number of hostiles plus a number of NPCs during each combat turn, and that could involve a lot of rolling back and forth on my part while the players just sit around.

Giving each of them an NPC seems like a simple way to address this, letting the players use the NPCs to best advantage and allowing me to concentrate on running the hostiles. None of the NPCs will be spellcasters, so it should just be a question of an extra roll or two for the players.

It seems pretty basic from where I’m standing, but I wanted to see if anyone has tried this and whether I’m overlooking anything. I’ll make it plain to the players up front that these NPCs aren’t permanent additions to their existing characters, just tactical allies. Is there anything else I should keep in mind?

[Thurbane]

In the party I DM for, we have 3 PCs and 1 NPC, and I routinely let the players control him. It works out fine for us.

[Diarmuid]

Our group has done this on multiple occasions, generally in "larger" combats where the party gets assistance. We recently did a fight in War of the Burning Sky where we were attached to a military unit.

To make the DM's life easier, he handed one person the infantry and said "you have 6 of these guys", another got the archers "you have 8 of these guys", someone else got the mages "you have 2 of these", and yet another got the commander.

In a previous game where the DM was converting the BG2 computer game, he would hand the NPC's to someone to run at times when he had a lot going on on his side of the screen.

TL:DR - Hasnt been an issue as a general rule at my tables

[JeenLeen]

Seems a sound plan. Kudos on explicitly stating this is for the battle only.

The only downside I can see is if the players have the NPCs act like expendable pawns with infinite morale. That is, they don't act with any sense of self-preservation and might do things like put themselves at extra risk to save the PCs.
This is likely mitigated if the situation is such that surrender or fleeing is equivalent to death or worse, and/or the NPCs realize that the PCs are their only hope (so one might essentially commit suicide to support a PC in hopes that his buddies survive.)

However, even if this is handled poorly by the PCs, it still seems like a good plan. Just don't plan on doing it again if it goes poorly. I think this is an excellent way for the players to feel like they got the benefit they should from NPC allies.

[denthor]

Do the NPC have personality?

If so make sure the players know it.

Have equipment and stats ready for each.

Remember PC's are generally better stat arrayed then they are.

Casters do not have to have more then a 15 in casting stat.

If they have time casters can regain spells if not have spell on paper so they do not cheat.

Do they scrolls wands they may not share.

Yes I am being a bit of a downer but not everyoneis helpful at the first meeting.

[Calthropstu]

...
Sounds like a fair practice.
I know I am running myself ragged playing like 10 supporting NPCs in combat.
But I know if I let the players run NPCs in combat, they won't run the characters right. They will have the dual dagger rogue/bard princess stay in the back, the ranger won't do rapid shot/many shot and the steal rogue will do backstab instead of steal. The Cleric will die, the Oracle will play smart (which she isn't supposed to) and basically the entire dynamic that I have built in order to make the PCs shine and force them to think on their feet will go out the window.

So if it's a one time thing, yeah it's a great way to keep combat flowing. If it's long term NPCs supporting the PCs yeah, best to run it yourself in my opinion.

Just don't let them do the whole "Hey, let's give the pcs all our gear" thing.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by JeenLeen
The only downside I can see is if the players have the NPCs act like expendable pawns with infinite morale. That is, they don't act with any sense of self-preservation and might do things like put themselves at extra risk to save the PCs.

This is something to keep in mind, but their backs will be up against the wall, so there’s really no option but to fight.

As for heroically saving the PCs, my players are generally experienced, and they’ll probably be more focused on using the NPCs to best tactical advantage. The guy who plays the rogue will probably be delighted that he’ll finally get a dedicated flanking buddy.


Originally Posted by denthor
If they have time casters can regain spells if not have spell on paper so they do not cheat.

As I mentioned in the OP, none of these NPCs will be casters.


Originally Posted by calthropstu
Just don't let them do the whole "Hey, let's give the pcs all our gear" thing.

Heh. Thanks for reminding me of this one. :smallsmile:

I’ve specified they can control movements and attacks during combat, and that they can coordinate with their primary characters, but that’s it. The NPCs have their own personalities, and they’ll be vocal as required.

[Jay R]

Let them run the PCs, but maintain a veto over things the PC wouldn't do.

Player 1: The NPC gives me his magic shield.
DM: No, he doesn't. He won't do anything that a real person in that situation wouldn't do.

Player 2: My NPC runs towards the orc horde, distracting them while I prepare a spell.
DM: When you suggest this to him, he says, "Don't be ridiculous. That's suicide."

Many players will run the NPCs fairly. But be ready for the ones who won't. If you make it clear that you will veto ridiculous actions, you will get far fewer ridiculous actions, and probably won't need to veto anything.

[Doctor Awkward]

So, I’m thinking of trying something I haven’t really done before. Right now the party is holed up in a defensible space with several NPC survivors of a recent raid. The NPCs are de facto allies and have just agreed to allow the PCs into their makeshift fortification.

There’s about to be an encounter with hostiles, and I’m thinking of allowing the players to take control of one NPC each during combat. Otherwise I’ll be running a number of hostiles plus a number of NPCs during each combat turn, and that could involve a lot of rolling back and forth on my part while the players just sit around.

Giving each of them an NPC seems like a simple way to address this, letting the players use the NPCs to best advantage and allowing me to concentrate on running the hostiles. None of the NPCs will be spellcasters, so it should just be a question of an extra roll or two for the players.

It seems pretty basic from where I’m standing, but I wanted to see if anyone has tried this and whether I’m overlooking anything. I’ll make it plain to the players up front that these NPCs aren’t permanent additions to their existing characters, just tactical allies. Is there anything else I should keep in mind?


I've tried this in the past, and have not had much success with it at my table.

The issue that comes about is that my players are not generally interested in the actions of any characters outside of the party. Especially if those characters are significantly inferior to them mechanically, or too far outside of the mechanical zone of what the player is comfortable running. One time, a player of mine was running a warlock that focused on various Eldritch Blast shapes and debuffing invocations during combat. Due to the nature of the story an NPC bard insisted on coming with the group, but was two levels lower than the rest of the party and the warlock player actually volunteered to run her in combat. After he had her Inspire Courage in the first round and noted that most of her spell selection wasn't going to be of much help, all he could do with her was plink away with the composite shortbow (usually ineffectively) for every round after that. He would quite often forget about taking the NPC's turn when it would come around to him in combat and I, of course, was running a whole team of enemies and naturally forgot to remind him.

So while it's a reasonable idea that I'm sure has met with great success, I would put forth that how successful it will be really depends on your players and will vary from table to table.

[Vaern]

Having a character with Leadership, I tend to use NPCs cautiously. I mainly use the horde of level 1 followers for skill purposes - craft skills, knowledges, and profession (sailor) to crew my ship. I have a few level 1 soldiers that I mainly use to operate the ship's ballistae and to stand guard when the main party travels inland, but I avoid putting them at direct risk of being killed. There's also a level 3 rogue who stays with us for lockpicking, but he stays out of direct danger as well and disappears immediately if things start to get sketchy. I basically play the cohort the same way that I would cautiously play my own character if I was three levels under the rest of the party (having been recently reincarnated).

My DM is constantly looking for any reason to give me a penalty to my Leadership score, so I need to make use of my NPCs sparingly. If you want to make sure your players behave and prevent them from using the NPCs as meat shields, tell them that they'll gain a bad reputation and suffer the same kinds of penalties that they would if they actually had Leadership. If their actions or orders directly result in the death of their NPC companions, then people are not going to want to work with them. It'll be harder for them to find help from NPCs, even if they're willing to pay.