Need help. DM loves his NPC's too much (PC's are becoming marginalized).

[Spo]

I am roughly into the 7th session of a homebrew where the DM has introduced some overpowered NPC's to accompany the PC's. In sessions 4 - 6, the PC's were introduced to a "guide" (the description given was that he looked like the monster-fied Mountain from Game of Thrones) that was to lead us to a place where they could destroy an evil artifact. During this quest which took place in a magical tower, the NPC joined in each fight and several times delivered the killing blow.

Could we have won without the NPC's help? For about half the fights definitely not. This NPC was not only the meat shield, but was dishing out major damage which the DM took great delight in relating to us. It was sometimes like the DM was playing with himself and we were just set pieces. Even when we faced monsters that we could take, the NPC jumped right in and did the loin's share of the combat damage.

When it came time to destroy the relic, the NPC revealed he was evil and started using the relic. Fight ensued where each PC lasted maybe one round with him (although he did non-lethal damage). We are knocked out, guide uses item to destroy the town we came from, leaves and now have a major villain to contend with in the future.

I do not mind the final fight with the Mountain because that creates a story hook for future adventures. But the events leading up to the boss fight don't sit well with me because the PC's actions were inconsequential.

I present this background because last session, DM introduced us to another NPC (described as a large Warforge). In our only combat last session against a group of 12 unmodified goblins (PC party was 6 lvl 6 members - ranger, warlock, paladin, barbarian, rogue, druid), Warforge took out 3 of them with magic missiles in the first round. Think combat lasted 1 1/2 rounds total.

I don't want to play second fiddle to another DM NPC. I like the players in this group (friendly and mature) so prefer not to leave it. The DM is young (college age) but don't know him that well - only having met him while playing AL once with him before he started this homebrew.

What should I do? How do I communicate with him about my thoughts regarding his play style. I would rather face life-threatening challenges and lose a PC that be babysat throughout the adventure. One weakness I see is that he doesn't have a good sense of an appropriate CR for us and maybe his NPC affords him the luxury of not having to worry about it too hard. Or perhaps he truly loves his NPC's and wants to play with them in the adventure he created.

Help

[Chad.e.clark]

Have you played many other campaigns with the DM? They may be oblivious to how you feel. Just be up front with them about your concerns.

If they are not aware of what they are doing, great! Now they can adjust the campaign to be more inline with player expectations and the DM will have more engaged players!

If they are aware of what is happeneing and plan on continuing following the same style for the remainder of the campaign, great! You can start finding another table before investing any more time and energy!

As long as you approach him as a level-headed adult, there should be no worry about any over-reactions: if there are any, that means it is best to remove yourself from the equation, because the game won't be worth the stress.

[Unoriginal]

I am roughly into the 7th session of a homebrew where the DM has introduced some overpowered NPC's to accompany the PC's. In sessions 4 - 6, the PC's were introduced to a "guide" (the description given was that he looked like the monster-fied Mountain from Game of Thrones) that was to lead us to a place where they could destroy an evil artifact. During this quest which took place in a magical tower, the NPC joined in each fight and several times delivered the killing blow.

Could we have won without the NPC's help? For about half the fights definitely not. This NPC was not only the meat shield, but was dishing out major damage which the DM took great delight in relating to us. It was sometimes like the DM was playing with himself and we were just set pieces. Even when we faced monsters that we could take, the NPC jumped right in and did the loin's share of the combat damage.

When it came time to destroy the relic, the NPC revealed he was evil and started using the relic. Fight ensued where each PC lasted maybe one round with him (although he did non-lethal damage). We are knocked out, guide uses item to destroy the town we came from, leaves and now have a major villain to contend with in the future.

I do not mind the final fight with the Mountain because that creates a story hook for future adventures. But the events leading up to the boss fight don't sit well with me because the PC's actions were inconsequential.

I present this background because last session, DM introduced us to another NPC (described as a large Warforge). In our only combat last session against a group of 12 unmodified goblins (PC party was 6 lvl 6 members - ranger, warlock, paladin, barbarian, rogue, druid), Warforge took out 3 of them with magic missiles in the first round. Think combat lasted 1 1/2 rounds total.

I don't want to play second fiddle to another DM NPC. I like the players in this group (friendly and mature) so prefer not to leave it. The DM is young (college age) but don't know him that well - only having met him while playing AL once with him before he started this homebrew.

What should I do? How do I communicate with him about my thoughts regarding his play style. I would rather face life-threatening challenges and lose a PC that be babysat throughout the adventure. One weakness I see is that he doesn't have a good sense of an appropriate CR for us and maybe his NPC affords him the luxury of not having to worry about it too hard. Or perhaps he truly loves his NPC's and wants to play with them in the adventure he created.

Help

Have you tried explaining to the DM how you feel and why in a calm, respectful manner, like the way you told us about it?

[rahimka]

The best approach is to be direct, respectful, and empathetic and try to use "I statements" to express your feelings/concerns without making accusations about FAULT.

That is to say, be clear that you aren't coming AT him, you are coming TO him as a friend, as a player, etc to let him know that this was bothering you (and why) and to try to understand where he is coming from, so that you can to address the issue TOGETHER, resolve/improve it, and make sure EVERYBODY keeps having fun and enjoying the game

[KorvinStarmast]

Time to get together as a group and play Risk.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I agree with what everyone else has said. In my experience it hasn't been an issue when I've just talked about stuff like this with a level head (this goes for most all of life too btw). But if it is an issue to him then definitely better to leave now. If he says he'll change and doesn't, it's worth talking to him again and making sure he understands which of the things he's doing that makes the game less fun. Don't just assume he's disregarded your advice if you don't see the change perfectly and immediately. That stuff can be hard to move away from if it's been your playstyle for a long time.

Also check with your other party members. It's probably bothering them too, but I'd check just to be sure. Some people enjoy that sort of game I imagine. But if they agree with you then you can talk to him all together. Just don't make it seem like you're all ganging up on him and telling him how much of a bad job he's done.

[Malifice]

What should I do?

Politely request the DM retire all DMPCs from the game permanently, and roughly scale his encounters for the PCs appropriately using the guidelines in the DMG.

If he refuses, politely explain you'll quit the game if he doesnt do so.

If he still refuses, wish him luck with his campaign and find a different group.

Preferably chat with the other players as well before hand, so they're also on board with the above request, and refusal to play in the game if he doesnt agree to stop. If all players express dissatistfaction he's faced with two options; conform or find a new group to enact his powertripping nonsense on.

Dont make it a hollow threat either- if he refuses despute the above request you guys need to all quit the game and find a different DM, leaving him with no-one to belittle, steal the limelight from and show off.. err... I mean 'DM' for.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I've made this mistake before too as a DM. I've only actually gotten to play D&D 4 times in my life, even though I'm utterly obsessed with it. Only once was I a PC and not a DM. Because none of my friends knew what D&D was before I forced them to play, I always had to DM and teach them as they play.

I wanted to play to though, and so I made a cool Bard NPC that was trying to save the same kid as the party. Simply because I was more familiar with the game, I did much better than the PCs in combat. I realized I was in error when I "stole" a players kill and he expressed frustration.
I turned it around by making the NPC a smug ass hole, a real Gary Oak type. The next session that NPC was kidnapped like an idiot and the party had to go out and save him. They fought an epic battle while he was helpless, naked in a cage. The players gave that NPC unrelenting hell all the way back to town.

I tell you that story to give you this advice: Talk to him openly, like DrowPirate said open communication is best in most aspects of life, but maybe offer to DM a one shot if you feel comfortable with that. Depending how often you play, he will probably be thrilled to also have more time to prepare. Dms love to tell stories, and we love to world build, but sometimes we want the chance to play too.

TL;DR offer to run a one shot for your DM, let him scratch that itch outside of your usual story.

[HappyDaze]

Politely request the DM retire all DMPCs from the game permanently, and roughly scale his encounters for the PCs appropriately using the guidelines in the DMG.

If he refuses, politely explain you'll quit the game if he doesnt do so.

If he still refuses, wish him luck with his campaign and find a different group.

Preferably chat with the other players as well before hand, so they're also on board with the above request, and refusal to play in the game if he doesnt agree to stop. If all players express dissatistfaction he's faced with two options; conform or find a new group to enact his powertripping nonsense on.

Dont make it a hollow threat either- if he refuses despute the above request you guys need to all quit the game and find a different DM, leaving him with no-one to belittle, steal the limelight from and show off.. err... I mean 'DM' for.

I'd recommend talking to the DM 1:1 before plotting a grass roots uprising. Really, talking to the DM after making a strategic plan to disrupt the game in this manner is incredibly childish.

[Malifice]

I'd recommend talking to the DM 1:1 before plotting a grass roots uprising. Really, talking to the DM after making a strategic plan to disrupt the game in this manner is incredibly childish.

Im not suggesting 'plotting' anything.

Step 1: Chat to the other players about the problem and see if they share your concerns.
Step 2: Reach an agreement with the other players that either the DM stops doing what he's doing or you all agree to stop playing in that game.
Step 3: Polite discussion with the DM asking him to stop.
Step 4: If he refuses, politely explain to him that he either stops, or the campaign does, and everyone agrees to find a different DM.
Step 5: Find a different DM. One that isnt a powertripping, limelight stealing, inflexible DM who clearly doesnt understand what DMing is all about (i.e. the players are the protagonists, not you).

[Trustypeaches]

Im not suggesting 'plotting' anything.

Step 1: Chat to the other players about the problem and see if they share your concerns.
Step 2: Reach an agreement with the other players that either the DM stops doing what he's doing or you all agree to stop playing in that game.
Step 3: Polite discussion with the DM asking him to stop.
Step 4: If he refuses, politely explain to him that he either stops, or the campaign does, and everyone agrees to find a different DM.
Step 5: Find a different DM. One that isnt a powertripping, limelight stealing, inflexible DM who clearly doesnt understand what DMing is all about (i.e. the players are the protagonists, not you).I think Step 2 is the problem here, or where you might be assuming much about the situation.

Talking to other players about putting the DM in a “change or we quit” situation is an unnecessary escalation if you haven’t even talked to the DM about it first, yikes

[Malifice]

I think Step 2 is the problem here, or where you might be assuming much about the situation.

Talking to other players about putting the DM in a “change or we quit” situation is an unnecessary escalation if you haven’t even talked to the DM about it first, yikes

I disagree. A united front from the players as a group is better than a lone player voicing her concerns.

A DM might brush off a single player (and the OP doesnt want to leave the group remember). He cant brush off the whole group, and if he does the campaign ends (he has none left to play in his campaign).

[Trustypeaches]

I disagree. A united front from the players as a group is better than a lone player voicing her concerns.

A DM might brush off a single player (and the OP doesnt want to leave the group remember). He cant brush off the whole group, and if he does the campaign ends (he has none left to play in his campaign).It's fine to get the other players on your side but starting the conversation with "change or we quit" is aggressive and unnecessary.

[AHF]

I think Step 2 is the problem here, or where you might be assuming much about the situation.

Talking to other players about putting the DM in a “change or we quit” situation is an unnecessary escalation if you haven’t even talked to the DM about it first, yikes


I disagree. A united front from the players as a group is better than a lone player voicing her concerns.

A DM might brush off a single player (and the OP doesnt want to leave the group remember). He cant brush off the whole group, and if he does the campaign ends (he has none left to play in his campaign).

Taking to the other players and understanding what they want and seeing if there is consensus in desire for a change is fine. IMO, starting with a “change or we all quit” approach is the wrong way to go. Give the DM a chance to respond, process, etc. and only if he won’t be reasonable should you or the group draw a line in the sand. Everybody wants a good time and if there is some compelling reason the DM is doing this then here him out and do him the same consideration of considering his view that you would want him to do when you talk with him.

98% of these scenarios can be addressed by a reasonable discussion.

[CTurbo]

I like using NPCs too, but I try to use them as major plot points and not just to help the party. Players don't want to be overshadowed by a DM controlled NPC so 9 times out of 10, I make them a few levels lower than the group like when my group had to safely escort a young princess(Bard) on a long journey to her father's kingdom. She had a 22 Cha but was otherwise 3 levels lower than the party and wore no armor. The one time I did use a NPC more powerful than the group was when the group chose to accompany a Paladin on his quest. He was a couple levels above them, used mainly buffing/debuffing spells, and was meant to sacrifice himself in the finale in order for the party to carry on. I feel like it was a success.

But yes as others have said, always talk to your DM about your concerns.

[HappyDaze]

Im not suggesting 'plotting' anything.

Step 1: Chat to the other players about the problem and see if they share your concerns.
Step 2: Reach an agreement with the other players that either the DM stops doing what he's doing or you all agree to stop playing in that game.
Step 3: Polite discussion with the DM asking him to stop.
Step 4: If he refuses, politely explain to him that he either stops, or the campaign does, and everyone agrees to find a different DM.
Step 5: Find a different DM. One that isnt a powertripping, limelight stealing, inflexible DM who clearly doesnt understand what DMing is all about (i.e. the players are the protagonists, not you).

As a player, if a fellow player comes to me trying your Step 2 before he's tried Step 3, I'm going to tell him to talk to the DM first. If he pushes it, I'm likely to ask the DM to boot that player from the game because the behavior lacks integrity.

[Malifice]

It's fine to get the other players on your side but starting the conversation with "change or we quit" is aggressive and unnecessary.

I didn't say start the conversation with change or we quit.

Read what I said again.

First you all politely ask him to change.

Then (if that doesnt work) comes the ultimatum.

[Astofel]

Ask the DM why he wants to be a DM. If his answer is something like 'I want to put you guys through this really cool story I wrote' then he's probably not going to change. If his answer is something else, he's more likely to listen to you about this. There's a decent chance he might not even want to be a DM and his cool NPCs are there because he really just wants to play the game, in which case the only solution that keeps everyone having fun is for someone who actually wants to DM to stand up and do it. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and do the job, but if you can't do the job without also trying to be the customer you're probably not cut out for it.

[Reynaert]

... did the loin's share of the combat damage.

Bwahaha I love this typo :D Gives all kinds of mental images. ^^

[Dark Schneider]

Seems that someone wants to bright, childish. You have to only tell that you don't like to play with NPC at side, that is not your style. Maybe a temporary exception if the adventure claims it, but not like a player. This is, do not base the adventure on those NPC's, but could accompany players for some "quests" and then return to their places (to town, or go off).

[DrowPiratRobrts]

...the NPC jumped right in and did the loin's share of the combat damage...


Bwahaha I love this typo :D Gives all kinds of mental images. ^^

So I’m not the only one that saw this and adopted it as a new expression?

[Sigreid]

I would start by saying "the way this is going, I feel like an extra in the NPC's movie and that's taking a lot of the fun out of the game for me".

[Legendairy]

I agree to an extent with Malifice here. Talk to the party and reach a consensus, if you talk to them first and they all enjoy the style of having the DMPC being in the spotlight then it’s probably time to start looking for another group. If you are all on the same page then approach the DM and express your concerns as a unified body. Give him a chance and make it so he doesn’t feel attacked, if things don’t change, well hopefully one of your group wants to be DM or you have plenty in your area (not the case where I’m from...roll20 and the like is always an option).

Also, to the OP. the first few sessions with the “Mountain” turning on you, it seems to me that you were supposed to be inconsequencial. He was building up this NPC to show you all how tough it was and how hard the road would be. Kind of like a video game. That to me is fine, the warforged that kills low hp goblins with a magic missile also doesn’t seem to crazy, yet. So an up front conversation voicing the groups thoughts on over powered DMPC’s might be a good place to start. What if the dm is receptive and dials back the warforged or has him be more behind the scenes. Again give the guy a chance AFTER discussing your possible concerns with him and the group as a whole.

[Legendairy]

So I’m not the only one that saw this and adopted it as a new expression?

Nope I caught it too, and I was trying to figure out what that share would entail. Definitely will be using it in the future.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Nope I caught it too, and I was trying to figure out what that share would entail. Definitely will be using it in the future.

“Feast your eyes on my loinshare of the fighting!”

[Keravath]

As everyone else has said, the only way to fix it is to talk to the DM.

The DM may be using this tactic to ensure that the plot they WANT to have happen occurs. By having a powerful NPC in the party the DM makes sure the players can't survive the encounters without them and thus forces the party to follow the plot line or die. In addition, if the NPC is central to the plot line it also makes it more difficult for the players to go off script and do something unexpected.

In your case, the powerful NPC was clearly a scripted bad guy who was using the party to obtain some item. However, the NPC was made so strong that 1) They were pretty much able to deal with most encounters on their own and 2) was able to engage the entire party at once, defeat them and walk away with the item they wanted. This doesn't make much sense since if they were that powerful they didn't need the party. However, by making them that powerful the DM forces their plot line down the players throats so to speak.

The bottom line is that this kind of play style isn't fun usually when the NPC overshadows the capabilities of the entire party. What is the point?

So .. have a chat ... explain that having extra powerful NPCs that drive the plot just isn't much fun since they so overshadow the players abilities and see if the DM recognizes the problem and is willing to make some changes.

I've run into a wide range of DMs over the years ... some will take this type of comment in stride, realize that there is an issue and make some adjustments ... however, that isn't the majority of DMs I have met. Some are likely to get defensive depending on how good they think they are. The biggest factor in how they will react is likely maturity, age and experience ... a younger, newer DM might react very differently from an experienced DM who has done a number of campaigns and is trying something different. Also, sometimes, if the DM never gets to play they introduce NPCs that they enjoy running which can become a problem since a DM should never get personally attached to an NPC.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I've run into a wide range of DMs over the years ... some will take this type of comment in stride, realize that there is an issue and make some adjustments ... however, that isn't the majority of DMs I have met. Some are likely to get defensive depending on how good they think they are. The biggest factor in how they will react is likely maturity, age and experience ... a younger, newer DM might react very differently from an experienced DM who has done a number of campaigns and is trying something different. Also, sometimes, if the DM never gets to play they introduce NPCs that they enjoy running which can become a problem since a DM should never get personally attached to an NPC.

That hasn't been my experience with DMs, but I consider myself very lucky. I assume what you've described is fairly common based on many of the players I've played with (meta-gamey hyper-optimized etc.). There's nothing wrong with many of these things in small quantities in a player, but in a DM I feel like they become more glaring and exagerated. I also agree that DMs shouldn't get too attached to NPCs. I'd say it's fine to be emotionally invested in them, just so long as you aren't metagaming to save them or anything. Metagaming is typically way worse from the DM's side of the screen since there's literally no recourse for the players most of the time. Same thing with stealing the lime light. If a player steals my thunder a little too much that can be okay, because at the end of the day he/she is my teammate and I hope our team does some awesome things. But if the DM does that even to a fraction of what my fellow player did, it all of the sudden makes me feel like I couldn't have impacted the story even if I'd tried. This is a different kind of feeling than when the player steal my thunder, not just a difference in degree.

It's a sign of maturity and experience when DMs start to realize that it's actually way more fun to focus on playing all the different NPCs well to help create the story rather than just focusing on playing a PNPC. As I said though, that can take time for a DM to change even after being confronted. And we've almost all done it at some point. So if he seems to respond well I want to encourage you to be patient with him when he inevitably doesn't change perfectly over night. These habbits take time more often than not, and changing them might bring up other problems sometimes (unbalanced encounters either way for instance). But that's okay. It's all a growth experience for everyone in the end. I hope you all stick with it and have many amazing sessions ahead of you!

[Corpsecandle717]

Presenting an ultimatum is always bad when you're attempting to maintain a friendly relationship. It attempts to establish control and dictate the flow of a relationship. It's perfectly reasonable to not want to continue in the game but, "Do it my way or I quit," isn't going to get you what you want in the long term(a fun RL drama free game). Speak up, let the DM know your concerns and feel free to talk with some other players and see how they feel. If DM decides to continue with their little Mary Sue characters, politely exit the game.

[Mad_Saulot]

How often do you play?

When is your next game, I'd be interested to know how this turns out.

[GlenSmash!]

I would start by saying "the way this is going, I feel like an extra in the NPC's movie and that's taking a lot of the fun out of the game for me".

This seems like the perfect one sentence to describe the situation. It also seems non-confrontational.

[HappyDaze]

Presenting an ultimatum is always bad when you're attempting to maintain a friendly relationship. It attempts to establish control and dictate the flow of a relationship. It's perfectly reasonable to not want to continue in the game but, "Do it my way or I quit," isn't going to get you what you want in the long term(a fun RL drama free game). Speak up, let the DM know your concerns and feel free to talk with some other players and see how they feel. If DM decides to continue with their little Mary Sue characters, politely exit the game.

Agreed. As a DM presented with such a situation, I'd listen to the group and then work with them to find a solution. Then I'd return my own ultimatum that we can play under those more agreeable terms but only after the jerk that pushed the first ultimatum is out of the game. I play with friends, and the guy that pulled that kind of crap just revoked that status.

[Trustypeaches]

I didn't say start the conversation with change or we quit.

Read what I said again.

First you all politely ask him to change.

Then (if that doesnt work) comes the ultimatum.
Reread what you said

Step 2: Reach an agreement with the other players that either the DM stops doing what he's doing or you all agree to stop playing in that game.

Just because you didn't start the conversation with the DM with "change or we quit" doesn't mean that you aren't escalating the situation far more than necessary by immediately preparing for that contingency. If I found out that all my players had already agreed to quit over a problem before even bringing it to my attention, that'd be really jarring and hurtful even if they didn't end up pushing that ultimatem.

[Ganymede]

Meh, Ezmerelda delivered multiple killing blows when my players were running through Curse of Strahd. It wasn't because I was favoring her, it was more that the party was a huge hot mess.

[Malifice]

Reread what you said

Step 2: Reach an agreement with the other players that either the DM stops doing what he's doing or you all agree to stop playing in that game.

Just because you didn't start the conversation with the DM with "change or we quit" doesn't mean that you aren't escalating the situation far more than necessary by immediately preparing for that contingency. If I found out that all my players had already agreed to quit over a problem before even bringing it to my attention, that'd be really jarring and hurtful even if they didn't end up pushing that ultimatem.

Thats your end game, not your starting point. It's just that all the players need to be on board for it to work.

Like, before you all quit the game, you have a polite and mature chat with the DM.

If that doesnt work, then no game is better than a bad game, and the players (as one) pose the ultimatum.

If he refuses to budge despite that, they find another DM.

[Tawmis]

I would start by saying "the way this is going, I feel like an extra in the NPC's movie and that's taking a lot of the fun out of the game for me".

This is perfection.

The players should be the stars of the show/campaign. The NPCs should be nothing more than guides, and provide minimal assistance.

Someone mentioned it before in the thread, that the DM should also scale the encounters accordingly to the players.

I rarely, rarely, rarely have a traveling NPC with the party that isn't more than just a guide (no actual class to them).

If I do include an NPC that will partake in combat, it's strictly because we're a few players down due to prior engagements or whatever - so I might throw in a fighter, if that's what's needed, or a cleric, etc - but they're solely there as a "just in case" knowing that the party is headed for the main boss that's taken over the mining community's mine.

Those NPCs only take action if the tides are turning against the heroes. So for example, even though there's a fighter in the group that's an NPC, I won't have them roll actual combat unless the party gets some really bad rolls and needs a nudge (to win) the scaled back encounter; or I might not roll, but reduce the creatures hit points by 1 or 2 points each round, to account for the fighter "attacking."

And I've never let the NPC take the killing blow.

As others said - talk to the other players. Maybe they know him, or this is the kind of game they're looking for. (It'd seem odd, but people...)
If they feel the same way, ask them if it's okay that you include their concern with the way the DM runs his games.
If so, express your concern to the DM.
If they're not okay (may not want to stir up "drama" or whatever), then still express your concern.
If the DM is not willing to work with you, I'd recommend finding another game - because it's a game - and you should be enjoying yourself.

One habit I've picked up as a DM is asking for feedback every session when it's over - what did I do right? What did I do wrong? What would you like to see more of?

[Corpsecandle717]

Thats your end game, not your starting point. It's just that all the players need to be on board for it to work.

Like, before you all quit the game, you have a polite and mature chat with the DM.

If that doesnt work, then no game is better than a bad game, and the players (as one) pose the ultimatum.

If he refuses to budge despite that, they find another DM.

This is pretty much guaranteed to ruin the game long term, even if the DM agrees in the short term. By issuing the ultimatum in this way you've seemingly "ganged" up on the DM and it takes an incredibly mature individual to get over something like that. if this managed to work in the short term I would expect the DM to eventually leave the game him/herself or escalate somehow.

[Willie the Duck]

If he refuses to budge despite that, they find another DM.

You have advocated a hardline negotiating practice for DM's before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23607510&postcount=9), what if he follows that advice?

[MadBear]

You have advocated a hardline negotiating practice for DM's before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23607510&postcount=9), what if he follows that advice?

they'll be no group seems to logically follow.

[mephnick]

Every DM has made this mistake at one point or another. Of course, I made it before there were hundreds of internet videos telling me not to.

I wonder if it's easier or harder to be a new DM these days? You've got a ton of advice to look up at will, but it seems like there's a lot more pressure to immediately do things "right" when there's a bunch of nerds screaming at you from their Youtube channels.

[Sigreid]

Every DM has made this mistake at one point or another. Of course, I made it before there were hundreds of internet videos telling me not to.

I wonder if it's easier or harder to be a new DM these days? You've got a ton of advice to look up at will, but it seems like there's a lot more pressure to immediately do things "right" when there's a bunch of nerds screaming at you from their Youtube channels.

No doubt a lot of that advice is bad.

[Man_Over_Game]

No doubt a lot of that advice is bad.

Listen to advice that focuses on the core rules rather than trying to add new stuff.

Everyone wants their new ideas to be heard. They want their thoughts to be valued, so they'll create new concepts, new rules, that kind of stuff. But it's the DMs that truly understand the value of what's already there and how it all works who actually talk about that kind of stuff.

I'd probably say that DMing in general is much harder.

Games have become much shorter than we're used to because everyone has to be a responsible adult nowadays. You can't afford to have a 12-hour overnight session over the weekends like we used to. And while sessions are shorter, the best DMs are the kind of people you'd expect to have a competent, stable job, and are the people most impacted by "real life".

Additionally, more of the game relies on DM judgment now more than ever, which requires DMs to have a strong understanding of combat vs. RP balance. This is actually tied in to the previous issue, so that DMs can create fun scenarios without relying on much reference material (so you just make it up on the fly).

But if you combine these two things, DMs have less time to prepare and have more pressure to understand how everything works. It's very rewarding for an experienced DM in 5e (since we can do whatever the hell we want), but the pressure to do it well is definitely felt with the newer generation of players.

So...yeah. It can really suck. That doesn't necessarily justify a DM making as big of a mistake of inserting an NPC that steals all the glory/fun, but it does mean he deserves the chance to learn from it (as long as he knows it's a mistake).

[MaxWilson]

I like using NPCs too, but I try to use them as major plot points and not just to help the party. Players don't want to be overshadowed by a DM controlled NPC so 9 times out of 10, I make them a few levels lower than the group like when my group had to safely escort a young princess(Bard) on a long journey to her father's kingdom. She had a 22 Cha but was otherwise 3 levels lower than the party and wore no armor. The one time I did use a NPC more powerful than the group was when the group chose to accompany a Paladin on his quest. He was a couple levels above them, used mainly buffing/debuffing spells, and was meant to sacrifice himself in the finale in order for the party to carry on. I feel like it was a success.

But yes as others have said, always talk to your DM about your concerns.

IMO the best uses of NPCs are

(1) Conveyors of scenario information, e.g. if you want to give the players a map of the enemy compound and a briefing on guard patrols so they can make an informed decision, it would not be inappropriate to have that information come from a friendly NPC.

(2) Extensions of the PCs, i.e. hirelings and minions. Some players really love collecting minions, or persuading captured enemies to become (apparent) allies, taming wild animals, etc. Even the town drunk becomes somewhat exciting if you can strap him into a suit of chain mail and give him a sword and shield. But this should be initiated by the players, not the DM, and ideally these NPCs should be mostly under player control not DM control. The DM should feel free to control the NPCs when it comes to color and flavor ("[hireling] rolls her eyes at your suggestion" is totally appropriate for the DM, but would be inappropriate for the DM to say about a PC) but when it comes to decision making and problem solving, the hirelings shouldn't do much of it. I still feel bad about one occasion where I had an NPC provide the solution to "how do you kill an unconscious Rakshasa without magic weapons?"--I couldn't resist letting her speak up because the solution was so obvious, but I wish now I had let the players either come up with it themselves or just deal with the Rakshasa as a recurring villain.

Also, I've never tried letting them hire an NPC that was actually stronger than the PCs are. I wonder whether that would be un-fun because of overshadowing the PCs, or if the players would feel like Pokemon masters taming the strongest monsters.

[Man_Over_Game]

Also, I've never tried letting them hire an NPC that was actually stronger than the PCs are. I wonder whether that would be un-fun because of overshadowing the PCs, or if the players would feel like Pokemon masters taming the strongest monsters.

Overshadowing is definitely a concern.

Good rule of thumb is to never let the NPC do what the players can already do well. And the most universal thing that players do is deal damage, so Rule #1 is Don't Let Your NPCs Do That (without immediately becoming useless afterwards).

If you're in a group of mages, nobody's going to turn away a Cavalier.
If you're in a group of Warriors, nobody's going to turn away a Life Cleric.
If you're in a group of holy knights, nobody would turn down a Lore Bard.

If the NPC doesn't provide something the group can't already do, then make the NPC extremely temporary, or have them do something else. The game is about the players feeling exceptional, and taking away those chances for them to be so just makes everything feel...less.

Although, if you make the NPC feel like a group resource (like a super mount, a vehicle, some kind of special pet Dragon or something), that the group feels responsible for (and ownership of), that can lead into your favor. It's now a resource they're using. That way, they feel like their success is still from their actions.

[MaxWilson]

Overshadowing is definitely a concern.

Good rule of thumb is to never let the NPC do what the players can already do well. And the most universal thing that players do is deal damage, so Rule #1 is Don't Let Your NPCs Do That (without immediately becoming useless afterwards).

If you're in a group of mages, nobody's going to turn away a Cavalier.
If you're in a group of Warriors, nobody's going to turn away a Life Cleric.
If you're in a group of holy knights, nobody would turn down a Lore Bard.

If the NPC doesn't provide something the group can't already do, then make the NPC extremely temporary, or have them do something else. The game is about the players feeling exceptional, and taking away those chances for them to be so just makes everything feel...less.

Although, if you make the NPC feel like a group resource (like a super mount, a vehicle, some kind of special pet Dragon or something), that the group feels responsible for (and ownership of), that can lead into your favor. It's now a resource they're using. That way, they feel like their success is still from their actions.

I don't agree with that rule as formulated, and here's why: a Barbarian can do damage well, and a wolf can do damage, but in my experience a Barbarian who beats a goblin unconscious with the body of an grappled wolf and then later on spends a few weeks training that wolf to see him as his new master will get oodles of enjoyment out of having that extra wolf do damage in combat, until it falls off a building or whatever happened to it. (I forget.)

Maybe you want to avoid letting NPCs do things better than the PCs, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't let them do it at all. That's just speculation though because as I say I've never actually tried letting them have access to a friendly NPC who is better than the PCs--usually I kill all those friendly powerful NPCs off before the campaign starts, or make them otherwise unavailable.

[Sigreid]

I would say that an NPC can be a plot catalyst, but should never be the plot driver. The players and their actions should drive the adventure forward. NPCs should be background, support and opposition. Nothing more.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't agree with that rule as formulated, and here's why: a Barbarian can do damage well, and a wolf can do damage, but in my experience a Barbarian who beats a goblin unconscious with the body of an grappled wolf and then later on spends a few weeks training that wolf to see him as his new master will get oodles of enjoyment out of having that extra wolf do damage in combat, until it falls off a building or whatever happened to it. (I forget.)

Maybe you want to avoid letting NPCs do things better than the PCs, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't let them do it at all. That's just speculation though because as I say I've never actually tried letting them have access to a friendly NPC who is better than the PCs--usually I kill all those friendly powerful NPCs off before the campaign starts, or make them otherwise unavailable.

In your example, though, the NPC is either temporary (an easy enemy after the battle ends) or a resource (a eventual "part" of the player). Neither of those are a problem, and which of those it becomes is entirely within the player's power to choose.

Really, it all just boils down to making the players feel important. Does adding your NPC make the players feel more important?

[MaxWilson]

In your example, though, the NPC is either temporary (an easy enemy after the battle ends) or a resource (a eventual "part" of the player). Neither of those are a problem.

Really, it all just boils down to making the players feel important. Does adding your NPC make the players feel more important?

+1, agreed. (It doesn't always have to make the PC feel important, but the player should feel like they are making meaningful decisions, or why bother playing the game?)

[rahimka]

As many have said above, it's probably best not to escalate straight to preparing an ultimatum. D&D is a team-game, and the DM is actually part of that team. Come to them the way you would want a teammate (and friend) to come to you if they had a problem with how you were playing (ie respectfully, directly, empathetically). IF, based on how they react and respond to you raising the issue, you think it still isn't resolved, THEN it might be time to speak to other players and/or seriously consider leaving the game/group.

---

I started DMing full-time a few months ago (switching over from being a Player in Pathfinder) and introduced a DMPC from the get-go for several reasons (based in large part from discussions with my own former DM, one of the best I've ever played with):
1) I like DMing, but LOVE playing. I agreed to DM because 4/5 of the other people in the group had NO EXPERIENCE at all with tabletop RPGs. Getting to RP a longterm character helps me scratch that itch (and thus increases my DMing stamina)
2) Having a DMPC can help the DM have a better sense of the Player experience (difficulty of encounters, sense of danger and urgency, resource levels throughout the adventuring day, etc). Especially useful for me since I'm newer to 5e and my players are mostly newbs
3) A DMPC can be a useful tool to nudge the players in the right direction if they get truly stuck on puzzles or lost on plots (and/or to provide Red Herrings), without having to resort to blatant railroading or meta-game hints
4) Using a DMPC means I've got skin in the game on the Party's side of any combat, which helps prevent the classic trap of a "DM vs Party" mentality. We're here to play and tell a story TOGETHER, having a character to play on their side keeps ME attached in their perspective of that story
5) I'm playing out a longer, slow-burn version of the first scenario described by the OP, where my DMPC is trying to stick around for the collection of a whole series of MacGuffins before betraying them (if he can't sway them to HIS side before then). As far as the players are concerned, he is just the "token evil teammate" of the group; they know he's shady af and seem to love having him around to do the dirty work (like executing prisoners). It helps that, in contrast to the OPs example, I actually DOWNPLAY how powerful he really is (because the character himself is clever enough that he doesn't want them to know what he's really capable of when sh*t inevitably goes down), to the point where they tease him in-character about being kinda useless in a fight

[Malifice]

This is pretty much guaranteed to ruin the game long term, even if the DM agrees in the short term. By issuing the ultimatum in this way you've seemingly "ganged" up on the DM and it takes an incredibly mature individual to get over something like that. if this managed to work in the short term I would expect the DM to eventually leave the game him/herself or escalate somehow.

Then you sack him from the group and play fun games with people you actually.. you know, like.

I mean come on.

[rahimka]

Then you sack him from the group and play fun games with people you actually.. you know, like.

I mean come on.

Why would you assume they DON'T like the current DM as a person? Because they have an issue/concern with how the game has gone? If that was the case, why would they bother coming to ask for help on resolving it?

It seems like the OP would LIKE to continue with this group (which includes the players and the DM) and came looking for advice on how to resolve this issue they're having without messing that up.

You're advice hinges on treating the DM like an adversary that must be bested (politely or otherwise) rather than a peer that can be spoken to as an equal so that both the player and the DM can understand where the other is coming from an adjust their behavior and expectations as needed to resolve the issue that they are having.

In my experience and observation, the kind of adversarial approach you are recommending for this interpersonal conflict is often self-defeating. People usually respond better to being treated like a teammate than like an opponent. And that's the point of a gaming group, you are all (DM included) on the same team, playing the game TOGETHER, and should treat each other as such

[Citan]

I am roughly into the 7th session of a homebrew where the DM has introduced some overpowered NPC's to accompany the PC's. In sessions 4 - 6, the PC's were introduced to a "guide" (the description given was that he looked like the monster-fied Mountain from Game of Thrones) that was to lead us to a place where they could destroy an evil artifact. During this quest which took place in a magical tower, the NPC joined in each fight and several times delivered the killing blow.

Could we have won without the NPC's help? For about half the fights definitely not. This NPC was not only the meat shield, but was dishing out major damage which the DM took great delight in relating to us. It was sometimes like the DM was playing with himself and we were just set pieces. Even when we faced monsters that we could take, the NPC jumped right in and did the loin's share of the combat damage.

When it came time to destroy the relic, the NPC revealed he was evil and started using the relic. Fight ensued where each PC lasted maybe one round with him (although he did non-lethal damage). We are knocked out, guide uses item to destroy the town we came from, leaves and now have a major villain to contend with in the future.

I do not mind the final fight with the Mountain because that creates a story hook for future adventures. But the events leading up to the boss fight don't sit well with me because the PC's actions were inconsequential.

I present this background because last session, DM introduced us to another NPC (described as a large Warforge). In our only combat last session against a group of 12 unmodified goblins (PC party was 6 lvl 6 members - ranger, warlock, paladin, barbarian, rogue, druid), Warforge took out 3 of them with magic missiles in the first round. Think combat lasted 1 1/2 rounds total.

I don't want to play second fiddle to another DM NPC. I like the players in this group (friendly and mature) so prefer not to leave it. The DM is young (college age) but don't know him that well - only having met him while playing AL once with him before he started this homebrew.

What should I do? How do I communicate with him about my thoughts regarding his play style. I would rather face life-threatening challenges and lose a PC that be babysat throughout the adventure. One weakness I see is that he doesn't have a good sense of an appropriate CR for us and maybe his NPC affords him the luxury of not having to worry about it too hard. Or perhaps he truly loves his NPC's and wants to play with them in the adventure he created.

Help
Hi!

I'll 100% back the two following posts.

Have you tried explaining to the DM how you feel and why in a calm, respectful manner, like the way you told us about it?

The best approach is to be direct, respectful, and empathetic and try to use "I statements" to express your feelings/concerns without making accusations about FAULT.

That is to say, be clear that you aren't coming AT him, you are coming TO him as a friend, as a player, etc to let him know that this was bothering you (and why) and to try to understand where he is coming from, so that you can to address the issue TOGETHER, resolve/improve it, and make sure EVERYBODY keeps having fun and enjoying the game
You have the right mindset of "ok, I have the feeling DM is pushing NPC far too much in the light, not sure why, so I'll try and discuss with him where does that come from and how to gradually make things evolve to the best shape for everyone.

However, do NOT follow under post's advice, see why next (except for the part about asking other players if they have the same feeling about what happened: if you're alone, maybe your perception is a bit biaised for some reason. If other people share your view, then it's probable there is indeed something in DM's way to manage that does not suit players).


Politely request the DM retire all DMPCs from the game permanently, and roughly scale his encounters for the PCs appropriately using the guidelines in the DMG.

If he refuses, politely explain you'll quit the game if he doesnt do so.

If he still refuses, wish him luck with his campaign and find a different group.

Preferably chat with the other players as well before hand, so they're also on board with the above request, and refusal to play in the game if he doesnt agree to stop. If all players express dissatistfaction he's faced with two options; conform or find a new group to enact his powertripping nonsense on.

Dont make it a hollow threat either- if he refuses despute the above request you guys need to all quit the game and find a different DM, leaving him with no-one to belittle, steal the limelight from and show off.. err... I mean 'DM' for.


Im not suggesting 'plotting' anything.

Yeah, you are.
This as as bad advice as one can get.

Going straight to someone and tell him "stop that or I quit" is the absolute void of constructiveness. You are not only telling, basically, "you suck as a DM change or I drop you", (which implies that in your view, DM did something wrong and did it on purpose) but you don't even have the balls of assuming that.

Whatever your opinion of something one did or not, the only constructive way to discuss it is by giving the person the heads to explain his/her own thought process behind. THEN only start trying to make your own opinion of the thing.

What you suggest is borderline bullying, and as arrogant as egocentrical. In addition to being the worst thing to do: if the DM is a blockhead, this wouldn't change much compared to a constructive approach. But if he/she was however genuinely trying to help and/or simply oblivious of that flaw in behaviour, going AT him/her like this just puts on the defensive reflexes immediately, voiding any hope of discussion.

OP is trying to find a way to strengthen and cross the bridge, while you suggest starting by burning it. GG man.
By the way...

I didn't say start the conversation with change or we quit.

Read what I said again.

First you all politely ask him to change.

Then (if that doesnt work) comes the ultimatum.
"Politely request the DM retire all DMPCs from the game permanently, and roughly scale his encounters for the PCs appropriately using the guidelines in the DMG.

If he refuses, politely explain you'll quit the game if he doesnt do so."

--> "DO THAT OR BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES". That is the exact definition of an ultimatum.

[AHF]

If I do include an NPC that will partake in combat, it's strictly because we're a few players down due to prior engagements or whatever - so I might throw in a fighter, if that's what's needed, or a cleric, etc - but they're solely there as a "just in case" knowing that the party is headed for the main boss that's taken over the mining community's mine.

Those NPCs only take action if the tides are turning against the heroes. So for example, even though there's a fighter in the group that's an NPC, I won't have them roll actual combat unless the party gets some really bad rolls and needs a nudge (to win) the scaled back encounter; or I might not roll, but reduce the creatures hit points by 1 or 2 points each round, to account for the fighter "attacking."


I DM largely for small groups of players that need help and think a Paladin can be a really great NPC if the DM needs to fill out the party. If you don't smite, they are fairly low impact on attack and they can focus in areas that help the PCs shine - high AC can act in a tank role letting the PCs score the damage; if a player is at risk they can help protect with a sanctuary spell; the bless spell helps the players score their hits and make their saves; if a player is hurt or goes down they can heal either by lay hands or spell; players will like the aura benefits; and if the group is in dire need they can break out the smite for a bigger impact last resort. If you don't have a Paladin smite / nova, they are really not a big threat to steal anyone's glory.

[Willie the Duck]

they'll be no group seems to logically follow.

Yes, I was trying to suggest that if both sides of a negotiation walk in with a 'no-compromises'/'my way or the highway' attitude, that perhaps the end result is a forgone conclusion. I see others have more directly called out this tactic.

[truemane]

I completely agree with having a calm, rational chat with the DM first, before going to the other players. A unified front can be a powerful tool for someone who's dug into their position, but it can be overkill if the problem is a simple disconnect. And, for the purposes of this conversation, the other players' opinions are entirely relevant. The OP is the one not having fun. So if everyone else has no issue with the way things are, her conversation with the DM still happens.

Two things I might recommend in terms of having a calm, rational conversation:
1. One of the tricks to having difficult conversations well is to walk in with the assumption that everyone is doing their best. Have the talk with the thought in mind that the DM is trying to create a great experience for everyone, i trying to be the DM they can be, and simply aren't aware that what they're doing is contrary to what they want to do. Being told you suck at something stings. But being told you suck at someone who has your best interests at heart stings less.

2. Is it possible they don't what what a "DMNPC" is, in the way that we interweb denizens do? I've been bathed in on-line RPG culture for so long that I'm often surprised by the things that 'normal' people don't know. It's possible he just doesn't know that this phenomenon, a DM having an NPC that takes the spotlight, is A Thing, and that it's almost never done well, and it almost always goes badly. Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) giving something like this a name and a identifiable history takes a lot of the emotion out of it. It's not that you're saying he's bad, or a jerk, or whatever, he's just fallen into this trap that many have before, and the way out is clear and easy.

If the DM doesn't respond well, then a talk with the other players is for sure your next step.

You sound like a thoughtful person trying to to their best to find the most compassionate way forward. I hope it works out.

[MadBear]

Then you sack him from the group and play fun games with people you actually.. you know, like.

I mean come on.

I feel like your advice is more apt for people who meet others solely on the basis of D&D. I can see this working if it's a local game store that you show up to for the purpose of playing d&d, and the people you're playing with being mostly happenstance. Because I've never had friends that I'd treat the way you're suggesting. At it's worst, I've had friends who were terrible DM's, and it just came down to us switching over to playing Blood Rage and Zombicide instead.

There's a distinction between "a group of friends who decide to hang out and play d&d" and "I'm hanging out with this group of people for the purpose of playing d&d"

[MaxWilson]

If he refuses, politely explain you'll quit the game if he doesnt do so.

Never do this. If you're going to quit, quit.

You can politely explain beforehand that certain things are required for you to have fun, and politely ask if those things can be had at this table, but once it's clear they cannot be had here there is no use making ultimatums to try to force compliance. Just say goodbye.

[Sigreid]

The way I've left games is "I'm not feeling it and I don't want to ruin it for the rest of you so I'm out. Have fun." Or similar.

[OverLordOcelot]

The way to deal with the problem is to assume that the DM wants everyone to enjoy the game and doesn't realize that what he's doing is causing issues. Talk to him in a reasonable way about what you don't like about it and suggestions for what would work better for you. He probably either doesn't realize what he's doing, or thinks it's a good setup for some big awesome story he's got planned later. If you assume that he's friendly but misguided, then you can talk and figure something out that works for both of you. If you assume that he's out to push people around, the only sensible course of action is to just leave in the first place, and you don't want that.


Politely request the DM retire all DMPCs from the game permanently, and roughly scale his encounters for the PCs appropriately using the guidelines in the DMG. If he refuses, politely explain you'll quit the game if he doesnt do so. [etc]

Just to chime in to help anyone reading understand how bad the advice is, if players came up and 'politely' told me that I was not allowed to use DMNPCs at all, and that I had to scale the encounters according to the guidelines in the DMG or they'd leave, I'd tell them 'don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya'. That's an extremely hostile and controlling stance, and clearly none of the players are interested in cooperating with the DM to create an enjoyable game experience, or in treating the DM like a friend. And that creates an environment where I'm essentially their servant, where they will tell me exactly how to run my game under threat constant thread of them delivering yet another ultimatum. Much better to play with either a group of actual friends or find a fresh set of randos than deal with that.

Incidentally anyone who expects the DM to always run encounters that fit the DMG guidelines would be playing in the wrong game entirely. As far as I'm concerned the DMG guidelines are, well, "guidelines" not hard and fast rules, and for me the whole draw of playing P&P instead of CRPGs is the ability to go entirely off-script.


This is pretty much guaranteed to ruin the game long term, even if the DM agrees in the short term. By issuing the ultimatum in this way you've seemingly "ganged" up on the DM and it takes an incredibly mature individual to get over something like that.

"Having a backbone" and "maturity" are not mutually exclusive. I would say that deciding to 'get over' this kind of awful treatment is actually the immature choice, that this is the sort of thing a mature person looks at and says "I do not need this in my life" and moves on.


I feel like your advice is more apt for people who meet others solely on the basis of D&D. I can see this working if it's a local game store that you show up to for the purpose of playing d&d, and the people you're playing with being mostly happenstance. Because I've never had friends that I'd treat the way you're suggesting. At it's worst, I've had friends who were terrible DM's, and it just came down to us switching over to playing Blood Rage and Zombicide instead.

I think it's less likely to work if it's a group that don't have an outside connection, because the hard part for pickup games is finding DMs in my experience. Adventurer's League groups constantly have more players signed up than DMs available even though that's a 7:1 ratio, 'looking for' boards tend to have WAY more players than DMs, groups recruiting through word of mouth tend to have to decide which players to include, there's really no one going 'how can I possibly find some random 5e D&D players?' Trying hardball negotiating tactics doesn't work well if the other person can just shrug and have a fresh group show up at the next session.

[Angelalex242]

If all else fails, vote with you feet, and walk away.

[Corpsecandle717]

"Having a backbone" and "maturity" are not mutually exclusive. I would say that deciding to 'get over' this kind of awful treatment is actually the immature choice, that this is the sort of thing a mature person looks at and says "I do not need this in my life" and moves on.



I think a sign of maturity is recognizing that sometimes even the best of us can sometimes be immature, and patterns of behavior are more important than a single instance.

[HappyDaze]

The way I've left games is "I'm not feeling it and I don't want to ruin it for the rest of you so I'm out. Have fun." Or similar.

I've done the same, both as a player and (more recently) as a GM. For the latter, I had just lost all interest in Star Wars (the game I was running and everything else to do with SW), and that's what the group wanted to play, so I bowed out and killed the game. They asked me if I wanted to play in a SW game if one of them ran it, and I declined with pretty much the exact line in your quote.

[BoxANT]

i mean, the simple solution would be for the PCs to ... frag the DMPC in his sleep, in game of course.

[Tawmis]

i mean, the simple solution would be for the PCs to ... frag the DMPC in his sleep, in game of course.

1. I imagine the DM would not allow it. It'd be that the NPC was suspecting the party would turn on him and not asleep - and now deals all the damage the party has seen him do to the monsters upon the players themselves.

2. Alignment/Justification. If this NPC is as helpful as they have been, what would be the party's justification for murdering him/her in their sleep? Other than alignment?

[HappyDaze]

i mean, the simple solution would be for the PCs to ... frag the DMPC in his sleep, in game of course.

Yeah, just like that time Obi-wan and Anakin were getting their butts handed to them by Dooku and then the DM put his little green NPC in there to steal the scene. They should'a totally saber-fragged Yoda next time he slept.

[MaxWilson]

2. Alignment/Justification. If this NPC is as helpful as they have been, what would be the party's justification for murdering him/her in their sleep? Other than alignment?

Murderhobos want his magic items.

[MadBear]

I think it's less likely to work if it's a group that don't have an outside connection, because the hard part for pickup games is finding DMs in my experience. Adventurer's League groups constantly have more players signed up than DMs available even though that's a 7:1 ratio, 'looking for' boards tend to have WAY more players than DMs, groups recruiting through word of mouth tend to have to decide which players to include, there's really no one going 'how can I possibly find some random 5e D&D players?' Trying hardball negotiating tactics doesn't work well if the other person can just shrug and have a fresh group show up at the next session.

Oh, I think that kinda negotiating tactic is pretty dumb all around. I'm just saying, if you use it on "friends" be prepared to lose friends.

[Spo]

How often do you play?

When is your next game, I'd be interested to know how this turns out.

Thank you all for your excellent suggestions. Let me take a moment and update you all on the last two sessions.

As we were waiting for the DM to show up, two other players mentioned that the CR of these past sessions have been kind of wonky (last one pitting 5 lvl 6 PCs plus an OP NPC vs 12 lvl 1 goblins wasn't worth the spell slots used whereas the session before that was suicidal without the help of the OP NPC). Instead of talking to the DM about my concerns, I tried to roleplay the solution as follows:

We entered the city to find the mages that would help us kill The Mountain, with the NPC Warforge in tow, I began talking to the Warforge about how he had choices in life and should grow beyond what he was created for, namely a walking weapon. The DM didn't have him say much and the entirety of this session was simply meeting the mages, learning how to defeat The Mountain, and making plans to do so. No dice were rolled the whole night and there was no need for the Mountain to do anything.

The next session (only 3 people showed, so it was lvl 6 moon druid, lvl 6 conquest paladin and lvl 6 swashbuckler rogue) we began our adventure looking for another NPC that would help us gather items needed to destroy the Mountain. We entered the cave and met the NPC (a dryder (sp?) - half drow/half spider). Upon speaking to her, we were attacked from behind by a flesh golem. Druid summoned 2 dire wolves CR 1 (prefer over bears for pack tactics), paladin attacked as did the rogue AND THE DRYDER NPC!!! Dryder did 30 + points of damage. After the first round was complete, the golem was destroyed (the Warforge didn't do anything and no one mentioned his inactivity).

After the golem's defeat, a Mindflayer appeared boasting that he had created that flesh golem and would make more out of our bodies. Rolled initiative and everyone moved before the Mindflayer and Dryder (and the Warforge if he was actually going to participate or not). After the wolves attacked, the Druid's attack spell (earth eruption), the paladin's attack and the rogue's sneak attack, the Mindflayer was dead.

[side note: First fight ever with a mindflayer. Been watching a lot of videos about them. Encounter was somewhat anti-climatic because it was over so quickly - that's what she said :).]

So again we had an OP NPC joining our fight and out damaging everyone. Did we need their help? No Our paladin was their to take and deliver the hits with the Druid and rogue providing more damage and support.

Our next session will be having us set sail onto finding more pieces for the Mountain Killer weapon. The Dryder will be staying in her cave with the Warforge still in tow. Just hoping that Warforge doesn't get too close to the edge of the ship. Them seas can be rough.

[Davehotep]

There is another potential option. Our DM gave us a strong NPC ally in a campaign where we were about to face some incredibly challenging encounters and he realised we needed some help to avoid a TPK. He created a full character sheet and then handed it over to us. He RP'd the NPC but, for each combat, one of us got to play the NPC in addition to our own character, which meant that it still felt like the party was in control of what was happening, not some 'outsider'. It also gave us all a chance to play a different class temporarily as the NPC was a fighter and none of us were. This character was not OP either, he just helped us gain an edge in melee where it was needed - no one felt overshadowed by him. Our NPC was only ever a temporary ally too, we had to RP negotiations with him to persuade him to fight with us until a specific objective was met.

Obviously, this only works if your party needs assistance to overcome something potentially beyond your level - which does not appear to be the case here - but if your DM gets his CR levels right going forward then this could be an option for him to keep creating cool characters (which he appears to enjoy doing) without taking away player agency.