RPG Concept: XPCs

[Pleh]

I dunno why, but I've been contemplating a game idea (mostly system independent) where the Player Characters are accompanied by what amounts to a small set of DMPCs. Unlike the terribly unproductive DMPCs that hog the spotlight and make the whole game revolve around their character arc and abilities, these DMPCs do literally nothing except occasionally exposit Plot as a DM mouthpiece and assist the PCs as needed and only commenting on PC actions or decisions when asked directly.

But the reason I call them XPCs is a new mechanic I've devised (if it exists elsewhere, I haven't seen it so it would be an independent production of the same idea). These DMPCs DO have mechanical abilities like the players do, but they essentially have plot armor and general non-involvement in gameplay up until the Players (not the PCs, but the Players themselves) choose to eXpend the DMPC (hence: XPC). The XPC, upon activation, uses whatever special abilities they possess in exactly the manner described by the players. Whatever the Players choose to have them do is always successful without fail, but the XPC always gets harmed (whether physically or in some other way) in doing so that either reduces their capabilities or removes them from the Party.

The idea being those Obi Wan or Gandalf moments where the Players decide rather than fighting an enemy they don't want to mess with, the XPC sacrifices themselves for the greater good. Likewise, you can make them wear red shirts and have them explore an empty meadow to force all the ninja kobolds hiding in the tall grass to reveal their presence and locations.

But not all uses of their faculties necessarily require them to die or even leave the party, I suppose. Maybe you convince one of them to perform a favor for the party that leads to their disqualification from their Guild, meaning that they can afford the Party no further favors of that kind in the future.

I don't know. I just was playing with the concept of giving players at my table a few NPC allies who could be sacked or tapped for a guaranteed boost at the NPC's expense. Maybe for systems like 3.5 it could substitute having a Cohort and Followers (which most people recognize as being brokenly powerful) to instead gain a small number of XPCs and the potential to continue to gain new ones after you expend the old ones (with odds of success being better if the last ones were "expended" on good terms rather than dying a gruesome death).

It's a very rough and unpolished concept. Any thoughts?

[Andor13]

It sounds similar to a mechanic in a computer game called Academagia which is sort of a Harry Potteresque sim game of life in a magical academy. (Currently only the first year of play is available, year 2 is supposed to be out any decade now.)

At any rate, in the game your character can build up a small clique of friends. Your friends provide some passive or active ability useful in day to day life, and they also accompany you on adventures. The adventure system in this game uses a skill system (with an absurdly large and fairly arbitrary) pool of skills and a skill+stat+roll system. At any given choice in the adventures you can expend a member of your clique to auto-pass a challenge. This doesn't kill your friends, but they have taken one for the team, and you can't do it again. (I'm not sure if there is any kind of refresh mechanic for them honestly.)

I've also seen various leadership/minion systems in games where you can expend a minion to achieve some effect, but this is usually a character resource, not a party resource.

[Anymage]

Expending NPCs carries an implicit "no good deed goes unpunished" attitude, when helping the PC at all causes something bad to happen. Less severe is a "price of power" option, where friends can provide a normal boost for being friends but can be burnt out for a greater effect.

If we assume a system where mundanely competent people can still help, it can go one of two ways. If they're meant to tag along with the party, Ars Magica's grog system works ideally. Basically, within reason, any player can step up and play them. This works well for basic bodyguard or healbot types. It avoids the spotlight problem by not giving them much in the way of spotlight hogging skills, and more importantly avoids the DMPC problem by having them be played by everybody but the DM.

If this is a game where knowing a lot of contacts can be an important and useful character shtick, I prefer it to be a system where that can be an explicit character trait. That's something D&D and similar games are weak on, unfortunately.

[Arbane]

"X" for "expendable"?

Nothing wrong with the basic idea (aside from a certain level of player cynicism it requires). The closest things to it I've seen in RPGs are Ars Magica's troupe play (one PC is the mage, the other PCs play non-magician servants, but it rotates which player's mage is on deck every session or so), and maybe Reign's Company rules, which I don't know very well, but are about using an organization to solve problems.

[Nifft]

Sounds like a neat modern variant of how we treated Hirelings back in the day, but with the excellent possibility for story engagement.

XPCs might be mission-specific with goals & aspirations that fuel their story (and sudden-yet-inevitable act of sacrifice). Then the player can write journal fiction from their perspective to "power up" the XPCs in preparation for their final tragic confrontation.

This allows you to play out tropes that would be inappropriate for long-term PCs, using XPCs as a sometimes-food.

[Blaede]

I like the way they dealt with that subject in Ars Magica :smallsmile:

[Enixon]

Dungeon World does a similar thing with Hirelings, they generally give you a bonus to certain rolls but then any bad stuff that happens as a result hits them first and takes them out of action until healed

[YohaiHorosha]

Question:

Are the players supposed to care about the xpcs?

When gandalf sacrificed himself, we were gutted. When NPCs die, if done right, the PCs should feel the same. I've killed off npcs and has players derail campaigns based on it.

How does having proverbial cannon fodder change the game for pcs? Is it supposed to make them more reckless, knowing they have ubderlings to take the hit? Or is it supposed to make them more careful, knowing their health is not at risk for their actions?

[Lapak]

Question:

Are the players supposed to care about the xpcs?

Yeah, I like this concept but this is where I see it being a tricky line to walk. If the XPCs are done well enough to be liked, my group would be extremely-bordering-on-absolutely unwilling to expend them; if they are not that well liked then they are probably being viewed as annoying DM adjuncts in the standard DMPC vein. Some groups will be happy to walk the middle and treat them as 'liked but expendendable,' but it is going to vary from group to group. Gandalf I see more as a DM-enforced spend to save the party from a TPK.

[Pleh]

Question:

Are the players supposed to care about the xpcs?

Up to the players. I'd recommend leaving them nameless red shirts until they decide to grow attached and name them. Then the XPCs can retain value as expository pieces.

[YohaiHorosha]

Up to the players. I'd recommend leaving them nameless red shirts until they decide to grow attached and name them. Then the XPCs can retain value as expository pieces.

Metaconversation about roleplaying
1) what's the story
2) what's at stake
3) how do player characters interact with the world

Generally, npcs help build the story, generate some sense of what's at stake, and give characters ways to interact with the world.

As i read it (and i may be wrong), the nameless red shirt xpc doesnt add to the story (they're nameless, what story function do they serve?), don't add to the stakes (they're meant to die...and don't even have names), and don't really affect how the characters interact with the world. They're essentially stat boosters.

So why bother with the concept? (From a game design perspective).

[Pleh]

Metaconversation about roleplaying
1) what's the story
2) what's at stake
3) how do player characters interact with the world

Generally, npcs help build the story, generate some sense of what's at stake, and give characters ways to interact with the world.

As i read it (and i may be wrong), the nameless red shirt xpc doesnt add to the story (they're nameless, what story function do they serve?), don't add to the stakes (they're meant to die...and don't even have names), and don't really affect how the characters interact with the world. They're essentially stat boosters.

So why bother with the concept? (From a game design perspective).

Because TTRPGs were born out of War Games and many people still play them that way. Some people play games where the PCs themselves are considered expendable.

I like a solid story arc in a game as much as the next guy, but it's a very narrow view of gaming to only consider the ones that focus exclusively on the narrative themes.

NPCs are a great tool for building story and generating a sense of drama. But that doesn't preclude that sometimes they are throwaway characters.

Why can't the Players enjoy that luxury as much as the DM?

[DonEsteban]

In Night's Black Agents, where player characters are spies, there is a similar mechanic called network contacts. Contacts don't usually travel with PCs, but they are NPCs who get a certain pool of points. Points can be spent to gain gear, information or other resources. Pools can sometimes be refilled, but when a contact has spent all her pool point, she is considered "burned". She has left too many traces and
will likely be killed or turned by the opposition. It helps that contacts are created by the players, so they should care more about them than about any random NPC. And of course contacts have names! :)

It's generally a very good idea if players agree to not abuse it.

[wumpus]

Question:

Are the players supposed to care about the xpcs?

When gandalf sacrificed himself, we were gutted. When NPCs die, if done right, the PCs should feel the same. I've killed off npcs and has players derail campaigns based on it.

How does having proverbial cannon fodder change the game for pcs? Is it supposed to make them more reckless, knowing they have ubderlings to take the hit? Or is it supposed to make them more careful, knowing their health is not at risk for their actions?

Depends if they are actually expended (like red shirts) or simply owe the players "one favor" and when it is called they are free to go. In a high-magic game they would be a character you could only summon once (probably break this string to summon the XPC). In a low-magic game they would have to follow you, mimicking what would be a powerful single-use item in a high-magic game.

Gandalf is a poor example as he makes a great "noob herder" for beginning players, and then either (the Hobbit) leaves when they are ready to stand on their own or (LOTR) sacrifices himself in an amazing fashion. Either way, a great example of a good use of a DMPC and should be under control of the DM, not the players (if the players can control him, they don't need him anymore).

[rsnull]

I think your idea is just awesome but add some more spice to it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Take a look at how Planet Mercenary handles each PC's squad of Grunts.

(Will post more tonight from home.)

[JeenLeen]

I really like the idea.

In my eyes, mechanically, this is creating a new resource for the players: a limited-use tool, which in this case happened to be an NPC.
Thus, it's okay if the players view them as expendable or even if the PCs in-game view them as expendable.

To me, the only downside is that it might take a certain extended suspension of disbelief. If the PCs burn through a lot of NPCs, why do more keep coming? (If you do a Guildhall thing, you could have a Reputation meter. If you go through NPCs too fast, it takes a hit, but losing a few each major mission doesn't hurt your Rep.) Why do NPCs not help except for important scenes?

One thing you could do to alleviate the last question is say that the NPCs are handling some inconsequential enemies during fights. In-character, there's a few goblins or something that the NPCs are handling. Metagame-wise, the players and GM both admit those goblins wouldn't've been there if the NPCs were all-gone, but it creates some verisimilitude. Or--to take it in a different direction--maybe the goblins would be there, but be an extra annoyance: something like having any NPCs gives a passive boon in that minor annoyances are taken care of during big fights, but if all are expended the PCs have to deal with a few low-hitting enemies. (How much this matters could differ a lot from system to system.)

This could also be a useful way to have an NPC whose job is to be the finder & disarmer of traps, if no PCs want to be rogues (in a system like D&D 3.5 where trapfinding is kinda hard to get). You could have it be that, for minor uses of skills, the NPCs can do it without any loss. They just fail to find the stronger traps and the traps hit the PCs, or they disarm it in a crippling way and that's that expense of that NPC.