How Relevant Should Allied NPCs Be?

[BrokenChord]

What it says on the tin.

Obviously, although many will argue both of these can be used well, as a general rule, DMPCs and Mary Sue NPCs should be avoided like the plague; sometimes an inexperienced DM might need to break immersion a bit in coming up with a reason why that level 13 wizard in town is leaving the goblin invaders to the level 1 shmucks, but as a general rule it's considered better form than the alternative.

But knowing these general rules of DMing, it led me to wonder. How much can you let PCs who aren't opposing the player do to help?

Well, I suppose that deserves a rephrase. As DM, you can make them as important as you want. But I mean to maintain an enjoyable atmosphere where players could still feel accomplished. So minimalizing them getting sidelined by more powerful NPCs, for instance.

The issue mainly comes online in situations where you've already characterized the NPC. For example, let's say that level 13 wizard is Lawful Good and knows the PCs quite well (they've probably taken a liking to him by now as well, so communication between the two is common). PCs are now level 4 or something to avoid people telling them to shunt off, and are now defending the town from a large-scale attack as a consequence of something that happened recently. The logical thing to happen is the wizard joining in the defense, which in and of itself isn't so bad.

Problems arise, however, when the PCs are heavily injured. The only really in-character thing for the wizard to do is to take every action to save them. And he probably has the power with which to do so. Yet him providing that help (especially if he dies because of it, even if that's a natural effect of the dice rather than a cutscene death) is generally frowned upon on these forums.

So how much are important NPCs supposed to be able to provide to the players before they become a negative impact on the game?

[S@tanicoaldo]

Well, the Pcs are the stars of the show. No one likes the game when the DM solve all the problems.

The issue mainly comes online in situations where you've already characterized the NPC. For example, let's say that level 13 wizard is Lawful Good and knows the PCs quite well (they've probably taken a liking to him by now as well, so communication between the two is common). PCs are now level 4 or something to avoid people telling them to shunt off, and are now defending the town from a large-scale attack as a consequence of something that happened recently. The logical thing to happen is the wizard joining in the defense, which in and of itself isn't so bad.

Problems arise, however, when the PCs are heavily injured. The only really in-character thing for the wizard to do is to take every action to save them. And he probably has the power with which to do so. Yet him providing that help (especially if he dies because of it, even if that's a natural effect of the dice rather than a cutscene death) is generally frowned upon on these forums.

So how much are important NPCs supposed to be able to provide to the players before they become a negative impact on the game?

You need to be creative. Maybe the wizard is not a combat wizard and have no combat spell prepared. Or maybe he got more imortant things to do like save the king or the citizens. If all else fails try to do something that prevents the wizard to get close to the PCs to help something such as... Dunno stones blocking his way or something.

[TheThan]

Even James Bond and Indiana Jones have allies and friends. They always take a backseat to both Bond and Jones. But they’re there and they’re useful addition to the story. They support the PCs in between adventures.

That’s the trick, make the NPCs characters that provide support for the players. A gracious king that’s indebted to them because they rescued his daughter from the dragon is perfectly suitable NPC. He can provide the PCs with a safe place to stay and rest up, seek out healing and new equipment and magic, and even provide the characters with new quests, all without interfering with or hijacking the story. The players have nothing to call the DM on, and may actually appreciate having some help.

[jedipotter]

So how much are important NPCs supposed to be able to provide to the players before they become a negative impact on the game?

I make most of my NPC's special, not not game characters. For example, that 13th level wizard might only have a 12 for intelligence. So no high level spells for him.

[Fable Wright]

Something I'm trying out in my current campaign, based on a campaign journal I read, is letting the players use the NPCs as temporary PCs. You have a 13th level Wizard that could help out? Give the Players his spellbook, let them pick his spell loadout for the day between sessions, and let them direct his actions throughout the battle by consensus. Suddenly, the Wizard is an awesome ally, giving crucial support throughout the battle and earning the gratitude of the PCs, rather than being a showboating jerk who steals their glory, even if your actions and the PCs would have been the same.

Alternatively, if you want the Wizard to essentially be a backup "Don't Die" button for the players, have him give them all a one-time-use Word of Recall item before the battle. When the PCs get too injured to continue, they can go back to the Wizard and be saved without the Wizard showboating around with the defense.

Or a combination of the two. The first player to go down/teleports out convinces the Wizard to take action, and then controls the Wizard for the remainder of the fight. Players take less exception to Bob across the table taking over the Wizard to save them all after otherwise being marginalized than the DM bringing in the Wizard for a Deus Ex Machina.

[Thrudd]

What it says on the tin.

Obviously, although many will argue both of these can be used well, as a general rule, DMPCs and Mary Sue NPCs should be avoided like the plague; sometimes an inexperienced DM might need to break immersion a bit in coming up with a reason why that level 13 wizard in town is leaving the goblin invaders to the level 1 shmucks, but as a general rule it's considered better form than the alternative.

But knowing these general rules of DMing, it led me to wonder. How much can you let PCs who aren't opposing the player do to help?

Well, I suppose that deserves a rephrase. As DM, you can make them as important as you want. But I mean to maintain an enjoyable atmosphere where players could still feel accomplished. So minimalizing them getting sidelined by more powerful NPCs, for instance.

The issue mainly comes online in situations where you've already characterized the NPC. For example, let's say that level 13 wizard is Lawful Good and knows the PCs quite well (they've probably taken a liking to him by now as well, so communication between the two is common). PCs are now level 4 or something to avoid people telling them to shunt off, and are now defending the town from a large-scale attack as a consequence of something that happened recently. The logical thing to happen is the wizard joining in the defense, which in and of itself isn't so bad.

Problems arise, however, when the PCs are heavily injured. The only really in-character thing for the wizard to do is to take every action to save them. And he probably has the power with which to do so. Yet him providing that help (especially if he dies because of it, even if that's a natural effect of the dice rather than a cutscene death) is generally frowned upon on these forums.

So how much are important NPCs supposed to be able to provide to the players before they become a negative impact on the game?

A higher level NPC, especially one as high level as in your situation, shouldn't be around to help the PC's on a regular basis. They should be too busy with their own stuff to really get involved more than briefly, or act as a patron behind the scenes once in a while.
1e AD&D gives a guideline that an NPC who is within two levels of the party, lower or higher, will only agree to join them for a period of up to two weeks or a single expedition. An NPC more than two levels above the PC's should not have an active role in their adventures at all.
A level 13 wizard should probably have more pressing concerns than whatever the 4th level characters are involved with, regardless of his alignment or feelings about them. Gandalf leaves Bilbo and the Dwarves as they enter Mirkwood, a very dangerous place, because he has more important things to do. He didn't swoop in to save them when they got attacked by spiders or imprisoned by elves, either, even though he felt very strongly about Bilbo.
I would wean these characters off of this NPC, by having him be involved in something much too dangerous for them in another part of the world or on another plane. Maybe he will leave a message for them, or use sending or astral projection to contact them once in a while to see how they're doing and let them know he's thinking about them.

[Kimera757]

What it says on the tin.

The issue mainly comes online in situations where you've already characterized the NPC. For example, let's say that level 13 wizard is Lawful Good and knows the PCs quite well (they've probably taken a liking to him by now as well, so communication between the two is common). PCs are now level 4 or something to avoid people telling them to shunt off, and are now defending the town from a large-scale attack as a consequence of something that happened recently. The logical thing to happen is the wizard joining in the defense, which in and of itself isn't so bad.

The typical Forgotten Realms problem. It's a world-building issue.

I think of it as a police show. Suppose the main characters are small town cops, and a serial killer who has hit several small towns comes to theirs, kills someone and then (probably) leaves. The FBI has been hunting this killer, and they show up with their superior resources and technology. Fans won't be happy if the FBI does all the work. Why are the main characters there? Usually a TV show fixes this problem by having the FBI agents be incompetent ivory tower lawyers. Somehow I doubt it's realistic, but then how often is TV that? The fans will be happy.

Or the other way around. Suppose the main characters are FBI agents (Mulder and Scully, say?). They come to the small town, where the cops are "closer to the ground" and know the local terrain. If the local cops solve the crime, why are Mulder and Scully even there? Usually TV shows would make the small town cops incompetent at anything beyond stopping rum running, which is unlikely to be an accurate portrayal, but it will keep the fans happy.

(To make this more relevant to an RPG discussion, if the campaign was d20 Modern, Mulder and Scully might be level 13-15 agents, as the Menace Manual puts the typical federal agent at level 13. Probably not realistic, but there you go. Their boss, Director Skinner, is probably only a level or so ahead of them. Why can't he show up and solve their problems? He put so many skill points into management skills and spends several hours a day running the department. He didn't get his position due to high level, but due to his specific skills. Well, his level may have played a role, in that he's better at his job than a level 14 manager. Still, Mulder and Scully can't do his job, and he can't do theirs.)

In both cases, the writers wrote the world so the heroes didn't have too much "good guy competition".

Different settings go about this their own way. In the Eberron setting, for instance, finding a named good character above level 8 or so is rare. Finding any named character over level 13 is also rare. The "Big Goods" of the setting are all limited in some way. Oalian, the animated tree druid 20, and might have a CR of 24-29, can't leave his forest. The Pope is a powerful level 16 cleric... in Vatican City. Outside she's a 16-year-old level 3 cleric.

The villains are usually slightly more powerful (the PCs have to tip the scales in favor of Team Good), but the strongest of the villains still have powerful limits. Vol is hated by two entire races, one of which is dragons, so doesn't show her face. The Lord of Blades is far more powerful in the Mournland where nothing organic can live for long, but doesn't have many troops so couldn't win a massive battle outside his "safe" zone. The most powerful Cthulhu monsters are stuck on another plane, and can only come through when cultists perform involved rituals that will certainly draw the PCs' attention. Same with a balor (with its Teleport Without Error and Dominate Monster at-will abilities, it could literally take over the world in a day), so it's probably not a good idea to just introduce a balor into Eberron.

What role does the wizard in the above example have? If he's 13th-level he's perfectly capable of doing entire level 4 adventures single-handedly. Give him the right items and he's capable of doing so without expending permanent resources. I don't see any need to have an NPC who interacts with the PCs being nine levels their senior.

In my own place of work, there's an obvious hierarchy. I'm not supposed to say where I work for some reasons, but it's a branch of the federal government of Canada. (I deal with confidential but not classified info.) A few weeks ago the minister dropped into the office for maybe an hour. She said some words near my workstation, got her picture taken with some people, and then left. A grunt like myself isn't going to have any kind of sustained interaction with her; if I did, there are dozens or hundreds of other people like me who would also take up her time. If I have a problem, I talk to a supervisor. The supervisor can talk to a manager. The manager can talk to a senior manager. The senior manager can talk to a director in another building. The director can talk to the minister's deputy or chief of staff in another city.

If this were modeled like an RPG setting, and each rank had a level increase, here's what happens:

I'm a level 1 "grunt".
Level 2 supervisor
Level 3 manager
Level 4 senior manager
Level 5 director
Level 6 deputy minister or chief of staff
Level 7 minister

Or a military setting, specifically US Army and not Special Forces:
Level 1 Private
Level 2 Corporal
Level 3 Sergeant (leads a fire team of 4-5 men)
Level 4 Staff Sergeant (leads a squad, usually 3-5 fire teams)
Level 5 Sergeant First Class (second-in-command of a platoon, which is usually 3-5 squads)
Level 5 Lieutenant (leads a platoon; the sergeant first class is usually more experienced in military terms than a lieutenant, but the lieutenant didn't get that rank until some years later and probably had more non-military experience, assuming the lieutenant didn't get the job yesterday. This assumes the officer isn't a mustang; if they are, they're much higher level)
Level 6 Captain (leads a company, usually 3 or so platoons)
Level 7 Major
Level 8 Lieutenant Colonel (leads a battalion, usually several companies plus associated smaller units). By this point, the officer probably has 15-17 years of military experience. Officers usually retire at this rank.

Following the chain of command, a 4th-level staff sergeant is unlikely to talk to a lieutenant colonel unless they're working in the colonel's office. Being friends with the colonel? Not too likely, although possible.

Funnily enough, d20 Modern has the "typical" officer (no rank given) being a 13th-level character! IMO, getting past 10th-level is a tremendous milestone. There are literally thousands of US Army officers.

By contrast, a level 13 wizard is so far removed from the PCs he should never get more than a minute or two of face time with them. If he's so driven he's gotten to that level, he's either a research mage who is too busy doing his research, or he's an adventurer with his own party and is off across the world with his Teleport spells fighting desperate battles with demons, fallen angels, and rampaging elementals.

Even if the wizard is tied to a city (you pretty much need a large city, if not a metropolis, to even have a wizard of such high level), 4th-level PCs are just a drop of water in a bucket. They're not going to play a big role fighting an invasion that's substantial enough to threaten a metropolis with a 13th-level wizard. (If the PCs can do a lot to stop the invasion, said invasion wasn't much of a challenge to the city. If the PCs couldn't stop it, the local militia could.)

[mephnick]

Like previously stated, you have to be imaginative. I actually prefer to use NPCs that are slightly weaker than the party, though the stronger mentor NPC is very tempting to use. It almost requires creating a separate storyline to keep the NPC out of the main campaign, but that can lead to adventure hooks at a higher level.

Part of the reason I love e6 is that it removes the "why can't this powerful guy help us?" problem, because that person simply doesn't exist past a certain point.

[BWR]

So how much are important NPCs supposed to be able to provide to the players before they become a negative impact on the game?

As unhelpful as it is to say this: exactly as much as the players are comfortable with.
Some players will be insulted if they can't be in charge of just about everything that isn't trying to kill them. Some players are fine with more powerful people doing a lot and overshadowing them every now and then (so long as it doesn't happen all the time and they have the opportunity to grow and do the same to others).

[Slipperychicken]

I'd say that NPCs shouldn't steal the show. That is, they should not totally outclass a PC in his specialty, but they can fill roles the PCs don't have covered. They can fill roles the PCs already have covered, if the NPC isn't obviously better at it (being the PCs' equal is acceptable, however).

There are probably exceptions to that, though.

The issue mainly comes online in situations where you've already characterized the NPC. For example, let's say that level 13 wizard is Lawful Good and knows the PCs quite well (they've probably taken a liking to him by now as well, so communication between the two is common). PCs are now level 4 or something to avoid people telling them to shunt off, and are now defending the town from a large-scale attack as a consequence of something that happened recently. The logical thing to happen is the wizard joining in the defense, which in and of itself isn't so bad.

One way to solve it: The wizard is so old and frail (i.e. d4 hit dice, minus 6 to Con and Dex from Venerable age -> One hitpoint wonder) that he believes he would do little good on the front line. But he is willing to give some advice, all-day buffs, and consumables to the youngsters.

[Artemicion]

Give the Players his spellbook, let them pick his spell loadout for the day between sessions, and let them direct his actions throughout the battle by consensus. Suddenly, the Wizard is an awesome ally

Yes! I have done something similar in the past, and the players loved it. The NPC becomes a resource they can use instead of a shadow over them. I also gives them a taste of the power they will eventually get.

[Kiero]

Allied NPCs are just fine, as long as they are clearly NPCs that the GM is not personally invested in. That covers important figures in the setting and henchmen who tag along with the PCs just the same.

Taking a single NPC and investing them with the same level of personal interest as a player would in their PC is a different matter. That's a bad business. The GM shouldn't be invested in both sides of the screen at once. If they want to play a character, hand over the mantle to someone else.

In our long-running WFRP2e game, we had an NPC scribe who became a member of the party for a while, handling all sorts of administration, intelligence and logistics for us. He was effectively a 5th PC in terms of screen time, acting as information font and sounding board. Though he was an almost complete non-combatant. I think he stabbed someone with a knife once, but the PCs were there for the bloody stuff.

He was with us for a goodly time, before retiring from our travails to become the spymaster and intelligence chief for the new nation we were forging. Which was no longer under our control since a Karl had been nominated.

[Threadnaught]

Exactly as relevant as their ability to entertain the players.

One of my players referred to an unstatted (I'm lazy) Blue Mage, who's importance depends on the players, as a fire breathing paedophile. Whether the players like him or not, he's important to the game at the moment, this is based entirely on the PCs having not yet killed him.
He does somewhat steal every scene he's in, not by deeds, but with his words. The voice I (attempt to) use to speak for this guy, terrifies them.

I'm hoping they don't kill him, because I've been trying to stat him for a while, but it's their choice. Though he is allowed to fight back if he knows he's being attacked.

[Mr Beer]

I rarely have long term NPCs actively helping the party and if they do, they are no stronger than the weakest party member. PCs dominate the show.

The problem of powerful friendly NPCs is solved in a number of ways:

1. "Powerful" doesn't necessarily mean "combat monster". Plenty of powerful people are low level, they are just rich/charismatic/ruthless/competent etc.

2. Powerful people have better things to do than help out plebs with their petty, mundane tasks.

3. I tend to adjust "Powerful" NPCs relative to current PC status to some extent, so there often isn't a vast level disparity.

4. The powerful NPC is doing something crucial to help defeat the bad guys, that happens to be a long way away from the characters.

5. The powerful NPC just got nerfed by the bad guy in some way and is all out of spells/horribly injured/temporarily kidnapped.

[Defiled Cross]

As it stands, the game I currently DM for has a "failed" Bard for a companion.

Provides just enough information to be helpful, without offering too much in the way of martial assistance.

[INDYSTAR188]

Yes! I have done something similar in the past, and the players loved it. The NPC becomes a resource they can use instead of a shadow over them. I also gives them a taste of the power they will eventually get.

My PC's split the party once so I created fleshed out characters with all the necissary stats for them to still have characters to play during the session. They didn't really go for it and just went through the motions :(.

[Jay R]

Ideally, the NPC ally is crucial to getting quickly past the dull challenges and mere background to the fun challenges.

This advice would be more helpful if there were any agreement about what constitutes "dull" and "fun".

[YossarianLives]

Maybe something could happen like the wizard starts the battle helping the PCs.
But after a few rounds the wizard goes off to defend a different side of the city.
Thus leaving the PCs to deal with the goblins on they're own.

[Tengu_temp]

Allied NPC should have a purpose and reason to be there other than helping the party with their abilities. An NPC who might as well not be there from a story point of view is a waste of space.

Generally, the more the players like an NPC, the bigger a role that NPC can have. If it's someone they like a lot, they won't mind even if the NPC is more powerful than them and there's a storyline that focuses on it. But that's a rare example, and in general the PCs are the main characters and the NPCs are the supporting cast. But do note that the supporting cast sometimes gets the spotlight and a place to shine too!

Taking a single NPC and investing them with the same level of personal interest as a player would in their PC is a different matter. That's a bad business. The GM shouldn't be invested in both sides of the screen at once. If they want to play a character, hand over the mantle to someone else.

Wrong. I never used DMPCs myself, but I've both seen and heard of them being used to good effect. It's just that not many DMs manage to pull them off.

[Kiero]

Wrong. I never used DMPCs myself, but I've both seen and heard of them being used to good effect. It's just that not many DMs manage to pull them off.

Playing and running a game at the same time is masturbatory. And not in a good way.

[Tengu_temp]

Yeah, that's a very mature and convincing counter-argument.

[Artemicion]

I do it all the time, and the players like it (using DMPCs, I mean).

Worse, my "DMPCs" (I do not really like that word, though. It's just basically NPC that tag along for a reason or another, sometimes at the request of the PCs) are usually about the same level of power as the PCs. And usually grow with them.

My first rule is that there must alwasy be a good reason for them to travel with the PCs, and more often than not it is only for a short time.

I use them for a variety of reasons.

Conveying the flavor of the campaign world to the PCs (that weird foreign soldier with apparently no emotions whatsoever says quite more about that foreign country then if I spend ten minutes describing it).

Conveying information to the PCs about the area they are in so they don't make foolish mistakes ("I've been living in those marshes for years, lad. I wouldn't touch that shrub if I were you).

Making the plot move forward when the PCs have been discussing for hours without agreeing on anything. (They otherwise bicker forever).

Giving me something to do and partake in the discussions when the players discuss for hours about what to do instead of standing there doing nothing (DMs are allowed to have fun too).

In some cases, giving them access to skills they don't have if they really need them.

Etc.

And the players love them.

[Threadnaught]

Stuff.

Yes, this is exactly what I do.

Playing and running a game at the same time is masturbatory. And not in a good way.

Yes, because let's forget that the DM is also a player and that it's important for them to have fun and care about the game as well.
Let's forget that this is a person who may have better things to do that robotically run a game for the gratification of the players.

If the players want that they could just play a video game.

[AMFV]

The typical Forgotten Realms problem. It's a world-building issue.

I think of it as a police show. Suppose the main characters are small town cops, and a serial killer who has hit several small towns comes to theirs, kills someone and then (probably) leaves. The FBI has been hunting this killer, and they show up with their superior resources and technology. Fans won't be happy if the FBI does all the work. Why are the main characters there? Usually a TV show fixes this problem by having the FBI agents be incompetent ivory tower lawyers. Somehow I doubt it's realistic, but then how often is TV that? The fans will be happy.

It's a conceit common to TV shows, they simply cannot have that many characters present as would be required for the investigations. There are cases that the FBI failed to solve cases where small town cops where able to, and vis versa, it's certainly possible to have either side be incompetent. I've met incompetent police, and I'm sure that there are also incompetent FBI officers.

Or the other way around. Suppose the main characters are FBI agents (Mulder and Scully, say?). They come to the small town, where the cops are "closer to the ground" and know the local terrain. If the local cops solve the crime, why are Mulder and Scully even there? Usually TV shows would make the small town cops incompetent at anything beyond stopping rum running, which is unlikely to be an accurate portrayal, but it will keep the fans happy.

Again it's a necessary conceit, also we have cases where the "NPCs" are not incompetent but simply not at the right place at the right time which is realistic, in real life who winds up solving something or being the "main character" is largely a matter of being in the right place at the right time, which is fundamentally a question of luck.

running the department[/i]. He didn't get his position due to high level, but due to his specific skills. Well, his level may have played a role, in that he's better at his job than a level 14 manager. Still, Mulder and Scully can't do his job, and he can't do theirs.)

Because level is an abstraction, in the real world my boss is not simply "better" than me in all respects, furthermore there is no rule that level is related to rank in any way in most roleplaying worlds. Which is consistent with the real world where rank tends to revolve a specific set of competencies rather than general competency.

[QUOTE=Kimera757;17009279
In both cases, the writers wrote the world so the heroes didn't have too much "good guy competition".

Different settings go about this their own way. In the Eberron setting, for instance, finding a named good character above level 8 or so is rare. Finding any named character over level 13 is also rare. The "Big Goods" of the setting are all limited in some way. Oalian, the animated tree druid 20, and might have a CR of 24-29, can't leave his forest. The Pope is a powerful level 16 cleric... in Vatican City. Outside she's a 16-year-old level 3 cleric.
[/Quote]

The point is that even if you have more powerful characters they may not have a reason to be involved, also if they become involved in all the little problems, when do they sleep. No one person can fix everything, even if they're NI level.

in another building[/i]. The director can talk to the minister's deputy or chief of staff in another city.

If this were modeled like an RPG setting, and each rank had a level increase, here's what happens:

I'm a level 1 "grunt".
Level 2 supervisor
Level 3 manager
Level 4 senior manager
Level 5 director
Level 6 deputy minister or chief of staff
Level 7 minister

Or a military setting, specifically US Army and not Special Forces:
Level 1 Private
Level 2 Corporal
Level 3 Sergeant (leads a fire team of 4-5 men)
Level 4 Staff Sergeant (leads a squad, usually 3-5 fire teams)
Level 5 Sergeant First Class (second-in-command of a platoon, which is usually 3-5 squads)
Level 5 Lieutenant (leads a platoon; the sergeant first class is usually more experienced in military terms than a lieutenant, but the lieutenant didn't get that rank until some years later and probably had more non-military experience, assuming the lieutenant didn't get the job yesterday. This assumes the officer isn't a mustang; if they are, they're much higher level)
Level 6 Captain (leads a company, usually 3 or so platoons)
Level 7 Major
Level 8 Lieutenant Colonel (leads a battalion, usually several companies plus associated smaller units). By this point, the officer probably has 15-17 years of military experience. Officers usually retire at this rank.

This is actually the whole reason I responded, I was in the military, and this is absolute bunk, literally bunk. Your rank doesn't necessarily have much to do with competency and suggesting that a lieutenant is more experienced than a First Sergeant who has very likely been in the military more years than the Butterbar has been alive is pretty ridiculous.

Rank != Level, they aren't synonymous, rank may have to do with social connections, or with a particular set of skills. For example if they promote based on how far you can run, then a level 20 Wizard with 4 Con may be a very low rank indeed, since we have specific criteria, which is more representative of the real world.

[RPGaddict28]

What I occasionally do in invasion type scenarios with high level NPC's is have them "nova" the enemies, killing a bunch of them, using all his energy, And then only enemies left are the ones I would have had the PC's fights on their own.

[Kiero]

Yes, because let's forget that the DM is also a player and that it's important for them to have fun and care about the game as well.
Let's forget that this is a person who may have better things to do that robotically run a game for the gratification of the players.

If the players want that they could just play a video game.

Nope, sorry, if I'm running a game I derive fun from things other than running a single, personal-investment character. Otherwise I get out from behind the screen (figuratively, I don't have an actual screen when I GM) and let someone else have a turn.

Got nothing whatsoever to do with caring about the game, but having the appropriate perspective. When you GM, you don't invest in any of the NPCs the way a player would in their PC. That way ****ty GMing lies.

[Vrock_Summoner]

Nope, sorry, if I'm running a game I derive fun from things other than running a single, personal-investment character. Otherwise I get out from behind the screen (figuratively, I don't have an actual screen when I GM) and let someone else have a turn.

Got nothing whatsoever to do with caring about the game, but having the appropriate perspective. When you GM, you don't invest in any of the NPCs the way a player would in their PC. That way ****ty GMing lies.

You imply that there's some kind of rule that players have to get invested in their characters. Set your minimum as the standard of the most-invested player at the table; do NOT set your maximum to the least-invested player's standards. Sure, I can get with not developing emotional bonds with your own NPCs, but mentally, you damn well better be invested or you will then be heading down from merely unspectacular DMing into "Not gaming is better than gaming with you" territory.

[Threadnaught]

Nope, sorry, if I'm running a game I derive fun from things other than running a single, personal-investment character.

I'm not saying they should play a single NPC as if it were a PC. I'm saying they should be allowed to play without someone else at the table getting uppity about the DM's job being to entertain the players.

Otherwise I get out from behind the screen (figuratively, I don't have an actual screen when I GM) and let someone else have a turn.

Because that's clearly an option every DM can choose?

Got nothing whatsoever to do with caring about the game, but having the appropriate perspective. When you GM, you don't invest in any of the NPCs the way a player would in their PC. That way ****ty GMing lies.

Because it is impossible to create interesting/recurring villains and hirelings with distinctive personalities. In order to pose a reasonable threat, there must be creation time comparable to that of the PCs, after all PCs and NPCs are developed using the same rules.
I'm not saying the DM needs to be able to spend as much time playing as each NPC as the players get to play as the PCs, but when creating villains, important NPCs and special challenges. If it's something they want to be special for their players to remember, why shouldn't DMs be allowed to invest time to make it special?

Or just go with Vrock_Summoner

You imply that there's some kind of rule that players have to get invested in their characters. Set your minimum as the standard of the most-invested player at the table; do NOT set your maximum to the least-invested player's standards. Sure, I can get with not developing emotional bonds with your own NPCs, but mentally, you damn well better be invested or you will then be heading down from merely unspectacular DMing into "Not gaming is better than gaming with you" territory.

When I say a DM should invest in the game and NPCs, I am not referring to any emotional attachments. I mean this stuff.

[Kiero]

I'm not saying they should play a single NPC as if it were a PC. I'm saying they should be allowed to play without someone else at the table getting uppity about the DM's job being to entertain the players.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

A GM isn't playing, they aren't investing a single NPC with the same connection as they might a PC if they were a player. They aren't treating that one individual as special and worthy of greater consideration than the rest of the NPCs populating the game world.

Because that's clearly an option every DM can choose?

I play with a group where everyone has GMed at least once and most are willing to do so again. If that's not an option, clearly you need a new group. I can't imagine anything more miserable gaming-wise than only ever having the same GM.

Because it is impossible to create interesting/recurring villains and hirelings with distinctive personalities.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

Creating interesting and distinctive NPCs is not investing them with the same level of personal importance as a PC. When I'm GMing none of the NPCs in particular are "mine".

In order to pose a reasonable threat, there must be creation time comparable to that of the PCs, after all PCs and NPCs are developed using the same rules.

They don't have to be developed using the same rules at all. Depends on the game, there are plenty where they use different rules. Especially if making a PC is a labourious ball-ache of a process (eg Exalted). More to the point, this thread isn't about villains, it's about allies.

The worst GMPCs aren't antagonists but pseudo-PCs tagging along and getting just as much spotlight time as the PCs played by the players.

I'm not saying the DM needs to be able to spend as much time playing as each NPC as the players get to play as the PCs, but when creating villains, important NPCs and special challenges. If it's something they want to be special for their players to remember, why shouldn't DMs be allowed to invest time to make it special?

Villains are irrelevant, that's not even what we're discussing here. The topic is "allied NPCs" not antagonists.

And once again, you're completely missing the point, investment is about treating one particular NPC as special and different to everyone else, not the amount of time put into making them.

[Tengu_temp]

Nope, sorry, if I'm running a game I derive fun from things other than running a single, personal-investment character. Otherwise I get out from behind the screen (figuratively, I don't have an actual screen when I GM) and let someone else have a turn.

Got nothing whatsoever to do with caring about the game, but having the appropriate perspective. When you GM, you don't invest in any of the NPCs the way a player would in their PC. That way ****ty GMing lies.

You're saying how you're playing the game, and that's fine. But does that mean your way is the only good way to play? That all those groups and DMs who successfully used DMPCs are doing it wrong?