|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 17, 2015 16:01:02 GMT
I'm not expecting this to be a problem, per se, but it something I haven't had much experience with so I'm interested hear some opinions on. There's going to come a point in the campaign I'm running where I plan to add an NPC to the party. This might be a temporary addition or not depending on where the story goes from there. Initially the party will need to protect the NPC in question (lets call her Kay) during something of an escort quest and over the course of that quest things happen that require Kay to stick with the party for the (then) foreseeable future.
When the campaign was first conceived I'd been expecting to have a fifth player by then who could play Kay (assuming they were interested) but now it isn't looking like that player will be able to make it. There may be another player who could swing in but for now I'm planning on Kay having to be an NPC. That presents a challenge in how she'll be run from session to session. She's "just" a Fighter (in 5e) so her combat mechanics are relatively simple so I'd been planning to let the players take turns playing as Kay (and their usual character) for any combat. Meanwhile I'd control Kay for anything out of combat.
I'm sure this is something other DMs have run into before so I'm curious how ya'll've addressed this particular conundrum? Any particular challenges and/or solutions you ran into?
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jun 17, 2015 16:24:57 GMT
This has come up for me in my campaign. In general, I'm pretty bad about NPCs and I try to avoid using them. I just forget they're there. I had an NPC travelling with my group for a bit, and they had to keep reminding she was with them and asking what she was doing in combat. I just made her really ineffectual, which fit with the circumstances.
One danger I've seen with NPCs is that the DM's turn can take too long. I play with my kids sometimes, and my middle son really likes to DM...but he also really likes making and playing characters. The solution has been that he does both, runs a character or two and DMs. He usually does a really good job separating the two rolls (better than I would do if it were me), but one session he set things up so that he had two characters he was running, an NPC, and the monsters we were fighting. His brother had two characters he was running and I had one. The result is that we had to sit through a whole lot of behind the screen dice rolling and internal action that we were not participating in. I talked to him about it and we set things up better now.
He's only 9, so I think the maturity difference would make this much less of a problem. However, I can still see situations arising where the PCs feel shut out of the action or where the DM's turn just takes too long to get through.
Some suggestions to avoid this:
Roll initiative for the NPC separately from the enemies in an encounter. I know I (and other DMs) will usually make a single initiative roll for the whole cast of enemies, with perhaps an individual roll for a "boss" monster. Keep the NPC's initiative separate from the other creatures you are running.
Make sure your NPC has a mostly support roll. Meaning she supports the party, the party's decisions, and the story. I don't mean choosing a "support class"; I mean making sure she supports the team in combat situation, whatever her combat role is. Part of an NPC's roll can also be helping to guide the players through the DM's story.
Consider letting one of the players control the NPC during combat; either choose a player who has a good handle on things and is willing/able to follow your direction as to the NPC's motives. Allow the player to roll the dice and choose the combat actions. Or alternate players; each player gets to control the NPC; rotate by session or by encounter. But you maintain control between encounters and in social encounters in order to use the NPC as a story guide.
In short: do everything you can to make sure the PCs are the heroes of the story, and that your NPC is a side character.
|
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Jun 17, 2015 16:26:06 GMT
The only issue with a Player running an NPC during combat, is that they might make choices that you as the DM know the character wouldn't do. For instance, if they're a cowardly NPC, they might have them do something heroic or self-sacrificing. Hopefully, how you as the DM have played that NPC during non-combat will be how they play them when the dice are rolling.
Is the NPC critical to the story in that they tag along with the party? Or were you just using them as place-filler for the eventual 5th player? If it's the former, then passing the NPC around should be fine. If it's the latter, then just write them off and have them go somewhere else, be killed, etc.
I personally try to only have NPCs with the party when necessary, then find any reason for them to leave the group (aka: Killed, reassigned, disappeared, etc.). The PCs are the stars of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 17, 2015 17:16:40 GMT
Is the NPC critical to the story in that they tag along with the party? Or were you just using them as place-filler for the eventual 5th player? If it's the former, then passing the NPC around should be fine. If it's the latter, then just write them off and have them go somewhere else, be killed, etc. I personally try to only have NPCs with the party when necessary, then find any reason for them to leave the group (aka: Killed, reassigned, disappeared, etc.). The PCs are the stars of the story. Ordinarily I think I would've avoided this sort of situation, if only to avoid the complications mentioned. It was just the possibility of the new player that got me to consider it and now it's become pretty well essential to the plot. Removing "Kay", either from the game or the party, would require re-writing a huge swath of the campaign. A significant portion of the campaign revolves around her so keeping the party at the fore without removing the character's agency will probably be something I'll have to focus on. She won't show up for awhile yet so I have that option if need be. At the moment I'm more inclined to try it out and deal with any issues if/when they crop up than chuck out a few months of pondering "just in case." Story-wise, Kay would probably fall into the "Chosen One" category but she isn't any more powerful than any other character of that class/level. The party is ostensibly there to protect and help her, though individually they're probably each more powerful than she is. Ideally, I think I might homebrew an archetype for her that's closer to 3.5's Marshall prestige class than a classic Fighter. That way she could still be useful in a fight but mostly she's there to support and enable the party. |
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jun 17, 2015 17:23:33 GMT
Is the NPC critical to the story in that they tag along with the party? Or were you just using them as place-filler for the eventual 5th player? If it's the former, then passing the NPC around should be fine. If it's the latter, then just write them off and have them go somewhere else, be killed, etc. I personally try to only have NPCs with the party when necessary, then find any reason for them to leave the group (aka: Killed, reassigned, disappeared, etc.). The PCs are the stars of the story. Story-wise, Kay would probably fall into the "Chosen One" category but she isn't any more powerful than any other character of that class/level. This is something I would advise being very careful about. Its a trap I fell into in my younger days of DMing. Its really easy to want to write something in like that, then just put it on an NPC because the players aren't cooperating with your vision or just don't fit the "chosen one" profile. I had some salty players at times. This can be done well. Just make sure that the PCs are still the stars of the show. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 17, 2015 17:52:13 GMT
None of my players like playing Chosen Ones. They've all explicitly stated at one time or another that they'd never want to play that sort of character. This particular story calls for that sort of thing though so an NPC seems like the right solution.
To be honest, I'm not -too- worried about the NPC overshadowing the players. I know it's something I have to keep in mind but I know my players pretty well and their characters are all at least a bit more interesting than Kay. I'm more concerned about the actual managing of the character. I can see a lot of benefits to letting one (or all) of them run Kay in combat but it's a little hazier when it comes to RP or choices like gear and leveling.
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jun 17, 2015 17:58:38 GMT
I had a party who took a goblin prisoner and allowed said goblin to eventually got a serious case of Stokholm Syndrome, because some of the party was "nice" to him. I just had him tag along at all times, but would allow for his flaws to be role play opportunities and allowed for less combat interaction of his part. I completely area with having the NPC initiative turn different from that of the monsters, as it allows for more easily playing the character in combat. I often had the goblin just be a turret in back. I also wait for the party to interact with him, so that the amount of time he takes up at the table is based solely on what they choose to do. Most of them love Mugmurch, but some would just as soon he die, and there are have been hilarious role play between characters at the table because of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2015 23:23:20 GMT
I would seriously consider altering course so that Kay isn't a necessary component in driving the plot. Her story could be occurring in the background, and may even contain the major events that affect your world, but the main plot should focus on the PCs, with opportunities to interact with Kay's story as suits their goals.
Obviously I don't know the intricacies of your story, so further details may be helpful. In any case, as a DM you need to be prepared to throw out everything you've prepared anyway, because players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 18, 2015 14:37:12 GMT
Obviously I don't know the intricacies of your story, so further details may be helpful. In any case, as a DM you need to be prepared to throw out everything you've prepared anyway, because players. I find I'm taking objection to that statement because it doesn't reflect my experience. My campaigns have always revolved around a central story in which the players play a part, but aren't the end-all-be-all of the story. The players make choices that determine how the story develops and they do more to determine the ending than I do, but their characters are still part of the original story. I want them to have the distinct impression that they're part of a "living" setting; that they could leave the quest behind and follow any random NPC around if they wanted to and the world would continue turning and events would continue happening elsewere. Those events may be more dire without the player's intervention, but they always have that choice. Giving them that choice requires a significant investment on my part to grok the setting and the story to predict how their choices will affect both. Chucking everything for any particular reason wouldn't benefit either of us (DM or player). That's probably not the case for every DM but it's definitely the case for me. It's the only way I know how to DM. Narrative stuff to be unread by any players (you know who you are): I find trying to summarize a complicated narrative is like summarizing a genetic sequence. You might wind up with something the approximate shape of what you intended but the devil's always in the details. In this case the players (Male Gnome Ranger, Male Human Rogue, Male(ish) High Elf Wizard (in a setting without arcane magic and largely without elves), and a Female Tiefling of Obad-hai) are in an area of the setting with a heavy Arthurian theme. Skipping a few chapters of backstory they've been tasked to find "The Pendragon" and bring it back to a pantheon of Archfey. They've been told this is to prepare for some coming Big Bad but they don't know much else. Like any reasonable person in the setting they're under the impression that the Pendragon is the current High King. What they don't (yet) know is that some political intrigue a few generations ago broke the line of the High King and the guy currently sitting on the throne has no blood relation to the original High King Arthur.
They're going to get to the Capital and spend a couple months worth of sessions (maybe faster depending on their choices) figuring that much out. In the process they learn that "Kay" is probably the current Pendragon. There's an extended bit where they prove that by "stealing" Excalibur (the sword belongs to the Pendragon but everyone else still things that's the guy on the Throne) and then they'll probably run back to the Archfey with Kay in tow. I say probably because that's what I expect them to do having played with them for so long but they always have the option of doing something else.
In this setting, the Pendragon is more of a diplomatic than a warrior. They are the one "mortal" that the "immortal" races (Fey, Dragons, etc) will treat with. The Pendragon does get Excalibur which allows them to do a few unique things but not until a bit later in the story (and the PCs will have their own unique tricks by then too). Hypothetically, the bulk of the campaign might involve the party becoming Kay's "Knights" (of a sort) and escorting her around the world to secure support from the various nations and powers (again, dragons) to face the Big Bad that's about to bust out. Of course, if the players decide they'd rather let Kay go off on her own, or if Kay dies for some reason, the story still goes on but they have to find some other way to stop the Big Bad and there might not be one that allows them to save everybody. What I expect to happen, knowing my players, is they'll try to do all this more or less clandestinely without making a big fanfare everywhere they'll go. Kay would probably just become another member of the party (albeit one without a dedicated player) and the story would continue to unfold based on their actions. I really don't expect her to overshadow the entire party but if she does I'll find some way to address that. tl;dr: My query is about managing the mechanics of an NPC party member, not so much the risks of using one. I apologize if that wasn't clear from the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Jun 18, 2015 14:52:23 GMT
There's no button for it, but for spoiler tags, just put [SPOI LER] (removing the space) before the text you want to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 18, 2015 15:16:12 GMT
There's no button for it, but for spoiler tags, just put [SPOI LER] (removing the space) before the text you want to hide.Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jun 18, 2015 15:20:10 GMT
Obviously I don't know the intricacies of your story, so further details may be helpful. In any case, as a DM you need to be prepared to throw out everything you've prepared anyway, because players. I find I'm taking objection to that statement because it doesn't reflect my experience. My campaigns have always revolved around a central story in which the players play a part, but aren't the end-all-be-all of the story. The players make choices that determine how the story develops and they do more to determine the ending than I do, but their characters are still part of the original story. I want them to have the distinct impression that they're part of a "living" setting; that they could leave the quest behind and follow any random NPC around if they wanted to and the world would continue turning and events would continue happening elsewere. Those events may be more dire without the player's intervention, but they always have that choice. Giving them that choice requires a significant investment on my part to grok the setting and the story to predict how their choices will affect both. Chucking everything for any particular reason wouldn't benefit either of us (DM or player). That's probably not the case for every DM but it's definitely the case for me. It's the only way I know how to DM. tl;dr: My query is about managing the mechanics of an NPC party member, not so much the risks of using one. I apologize if that wasn't clear from the OP. This very much describes my DM style as well. There are events, schemes and plots going on in my world that will happen and move forward no matter what the PCs choose to do. I think this is a good formula and have no plans to alter this formula. That being said (and I think this is what Nevvur may be referring to) I am always willing to alter/modify my plot to fit the players' choices. For example, one of my players is a Dragonborn Fighter. He recently mentioned to me that he is considering multiclassing into Warlock. I immediately came up with a great hook for that involving my campaign world's version of Bahamut, who would qualify as a Great Old One under my cosmology. Then, he tells me he want the pact to be with a Fiend. I had nothing ready in my head for that, so I had to do a quick bit of rewriting and tie the Fiend in with the same Fiend that created our Tiefling Sorcerer (there's a whole back story behind this that the player is completely unaware of; his character awoke in a burned out field at the age of 9 and has been living as a wandering Tiefling orphan Sorcerer ever since). So, player choices caused a rewrite of something I had pre-planned and ready, but it all still fits with the larger narrative that is going on. I think Nevvur's off the cuff comment is encouraging a "Yes, and..." mentality. I am very much pro that and encourage it, but I understand that your question was meant in a different context. As to your actual query, I hope I answered (as far as my opinion/knowledge/ability-to-BS goes) in my above post. If not, I am more than willing to clarify  |
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 18, 2015 15:48:32 GMT
I think Nevvur's off the cuff comment is encouraging a "Yes, and..." mentality. I am very much pro that and encourage it, but I understand that your question was meant in a different context. As to your actual query, I hope I answered (as far as my opinion/knowledge/ability-to-BS goes) in my above post. If not, I am more than willing to clarify My impression is that we're all in favor of "Yes, and...", which I would agree is pretty useful/important. Originally one of the fundamental points of my setting was that there was no arcane magic, or at least none that was available to player races. One of the Players really wanted to play a Wizard though so I figured out a way to let that happen within the story. None of the players yet know the details of that particular "loophole" but as a DM I'm looking forward to watching their reactions when they find out. As I see it, my role is to create the setting and the situation but the players are the ones who decide where it goes from there. You might say that I'm writing the "Choose Your Own Adventure" book but they're the ones reading it. Of course, in this context their choices aren't really limited to however many the author can predict and pack within X number of pages. One of my players compares it to playing a Bioware game but with much more than 3 major choices to make. About 70% of the time I can guess which way the players will go with at least some accuracy but the other 30% usually winds up being more interesting. In this case, the entire party is Neutral on at least one axis and there's a suspicion that the aforementioned Wizard might not have the world's best interest at heart. There's a notion that he might turn into a villain at some point and I'm pretty curious to see what would happen if he did. In any case, this all straying off topic again. I plan on homebrewing a Marshall-ish archetype to emphasize Kay's supporty-ness. I'm hoping I can do that and keep her gameplay simple enough that any of the players could run her with their character during combat (and she'd have her own initiative). |
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jun 18, 2015 16:46:54 GMT
Depending on the group a lot of what you prepare may be made moot at that session, but I either try and give the illusion of choice and they get to the content by means I hadn't even imagined. If that doesn't work out then I move it into another section or another campaign. If that doesn't work I set it on fire and never look back!
The other issue I had was the group wanting to ask my NPC all the things about all the things. Thankfully with the last NPC it was a goblin and I could easily say he doesn't know, but the one before that was a guide that knew the area very well. So I would sometimes give them some help, or use dice rolls just as a PC would to see if he knew, or be cryptic, or even say he doesn't know because he is too far from his home.
Sounds like a really interesting campaign world you have. You went arcane magic light, but I was wondering if you were light on magic items as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Jun 18, 2015 18:15:10 GMT
Sounds like a really interesting campaign world you have. You went arcane magic light, but I was wondering if you were light on magic items as well? I have been so far but mostly because they're low level and already smoking everything I toss at them. I've written in some nice magic items for them to pick up while they're running around in the Capital. So far as the setting goes, the idea is that all magic comes from a single source of energy. For certain reasons the dragons sealed off that energy from the mortal races at the end of the previous age. So humans, dwarves, etc can't connect with the energy themselves, they need to go through an intermediary. That's typically a deity or in the case of Warlocks an outsider of some kind. There's a few exceptions but by and large most magic items are still available in the setting, they've just been "blessed" rather than "enchanted". I'd originally wanted to try removing magic entirely but I found it was a bit too integral to D&D to manage that without some major rebalancing of things. I'd wanted to see what sorts of solutions players and characters would come up with if they didn't have the ol' "Deus Ex Machina" to rely on. I've had to modify that idea to let the players play what they want, but I'm still getting to see them problem solve sans Knock/Mage Hand/etc at least some of the time. |
|
