So I really like the idea of giving the party companions that I run, but most of the advice I've come across makes DM NPCs seem like a terrible idea. Have any of you ever made them work?
The way I would run them is basically like a party-wide leadership feat where the cohort is totally under my control. I would try to make them similar to companions in Skyrim or Fallout in that they would take a back seat generally to the characters and their adventures. I would make sure they never have first dibs on any loot. I'd probably house rule that the party could only ever take one along at a time. I'm also thinking to make them interesting, each of them will have a pretty profound character flaw that the players would have to keep in check.
some character flaws would be:
- Pathological Kleptomaniac
- Claims to be extremely intelligent, but when they fail a knowledge check they lie to the party
- When they take damage there's a 25% chance they turn irrevocably homicidal towards the damage dealer
- Every minute this character waits while the party plans increases the likelyhood they rush in and pull a Leeroy Jenkins.
- A character who is extremely frail and has a chance of losing limbs each time they take damage (it makes sense for the character)
I really want this to work because the game is a West Marches campaign, and I'm really worried about the players going full murder-hobo instead of ever trying to solve problems with diplomacy or alternative methods to combat. I think letting players know that they could pick up potential companions by talking to creatures they find in dungeons might solve this.
A NPC that turns homicidal or pulls a Leeroy is just asking for the PCs to dump him. The PCs aren't a baby sitter.
The best way to have an NPC is one that can occasionally step in to help the PCs, but not in a Gandalf solo fighting the Barlog way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I really like the idea of giving the party companions that I run, but most of the advice I've come across makes DM NPCs seem like a terrible idea. Have any of you ever made them work?
Yes, sometimes. Other times it failed miserably.
for the ones that succeeded, I think the key were:
- The party was small
- The party already liked the NPC beforehand, don't force an NPC into the party.
- out of combat The NPCs were controlled by me as normal, but the party decided their actions in combat.
- The NPC were mechanically simple. A fighter work better than a wizard.
=======================
The idea of having such big flaws is really a bad idea. The first time the kleptomaniac NPC cause problems they will just fire him.
|
DM npc just work when they are very passive. Anything else is just going to annoy the players at your table.
On top of it while you might want to play the game a certain way...at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if the players aren't having fun. If they go full murderhobo, simply roll with it and shows them the consequences of their actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I really like the idea of giving the party companions that I run, but most of the advice I've come across makes DM NPCs seem like a terrible idea. Have any of you ever made them work?
I make them work all the time. I don't think I've had a campaign where there wasn't a GM NPC or three along with the party.
The key is to make them supporting cast to your PC main characters. A GM NPC can be plot important, but that usually works best if they are a walking plot McGuffin rather than an effective character. Of course, you don't want to make them totally useless either or they end up being dead weight (which, I fear, some of your "character flaws" might make some of your concepts).
And yes, I will fully admit that I learned this the hard way. My first couple of campaigns had GM NPCs who were the stars of the story rather than the PCs. I quickly learned that doing that was a terrible idea.
Anyway, having had a decade and a half to refine my techniques, I have a couple of go-to methods for dealing with GM NPCs.
1) A rarity in my current group, but one old standby is to make a healer character who is terrible in combat. Like, say, an Oracle of Life with a curse that renders him or her useless in an actual fight, but a huge pile of healing resources out of combat. My current group tends to prefer playing characters who can heal, so I haven't used that one in a while, but it is a classic for a reason.
2) A character who is mostly mechanically useless, but plot important. The Prince needs to be rescued from the Evil Badguy. The party saves the Prince, but now needs to escort him home through hostile territory. The Prince has some useful Knowledge skills that can aid the party, but is otherwise just a McGuffin to be moved from Point A to Point B.
This can be merged one of the others (escorting a Priest or Priestess for healer, etc).
3) A character who has a skill or ability necessary to the game that none of the PCs wanted to bother with. The PCs have no rogue, so they pick up an amateur inventor. While he has terrible physical stats, his Perception and Disable Device (and Stealth) are excellent, and can help the party with traps, although he will hide if a fight breaks out.
4) A character who is lower level than the party and specialized in a way that makes the character able to survive but not distract from the PCs. A young squire joins the party. She is a couple levels lower than the party, and wants to learn from them. She focuses mostly on defense and tanking - she doesn't deal much damage, but she can resist damage very well and makes for a good front-line distraction, allowing the PCs to DPS.
This one also works well with support/buff spellcasters.
Edit: Forgot to explain the reasoning for number 4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have used them sparingly. Once I added a cleric to a party of two, just as a source of some healing. Lower level than the PCs. He was also a story device. A few times he got trapped/captured/cornered by a monster and they would have to help him out. Another one I used was with a group of new players. The character was basically a meat shield. Around third level they had learned a couple things and had some extra hit points, so I had him part ways with the group. The only other time I could think of was in a group that needed a guide and ended up hiring a kobold that knew the area. He couldn't do much in combat, but I enjoyed using the voice I deviced for him so I probably kept him around a little longer than necessary.
|
|
Gotta say the flaws idea sounds terribad. My players would rob the klepto naked and drop him in the middle of a desert at first sign. They would actively try and invoke the leeroy character into killing himself....
The best GMPCs are ones that fade into the background IMO. Though take that with a grain of salt, my choice is to never use them in the first place.
I recommend a heal/tank Paladin or Cleric if you want to give the party a babysitter. The only downside should be that they always encourage the party to do the right thing and give them morality lectures when they do bad things. It works if they are just too useful as a healer and damage sponge for the party to ditch them. It works best if the party begrudgingly likes them due to their unshakable loyalty and faith that the PCs are all truly good people destined to do the right thing.
This of course won't really work with a super CN/CE party but if they are generally NG and lean CG sometimes this can keep them from going to chaotic.
I think the character flaws would be more endearing (definitely annoying) with the broader context of the characters themselves, but I'm constantly worried my players are going to dig up my posts here considering I've used my real name as a user-name.
They are pretty intriguing characters (in my opinion) and many are based off of monster manual creatures. They're also totally manageable if the players are smart about it. The klepto character for instance has no concept of worth, and think's shes "trading" with the PCs and NPCs but without their permission and leaving behind (usually) worthless items. She does totally understand the concept of desire though, so if a player faked that something was really nice and that they didn't want to give it away, they could trick her out of anything she took.
Don't take this for defensiveness, I'm really open to your opinions, I'm just trying to provide context that the flaws are part of a greater character, and not ONLY there to make players upset or engage in babysitting. Of the DM NPC characters ive created, there are only two who are actually humanoid, and even then they have some sort of template added to them. I'm worried more about balance.
1) A rarity in my current group, but one old standby is to make a healer character who is terrible in combat. Like, say, an Oracle of Life with a curse that renders him or her useless in an actual fight, but a huge pile of healing resources out of combat. My current group tends to prefer playing characters who can heal, so I haven't used that one in a while, but it is a classic for a reason.
This is exactly my character who is at risk of losing limbs.
Gotta say the flaws idea sounds terribad. My players would rob the klepto naked and drop him in the middle of a desert at first sign. They would actively try and invoke the leeroy character into killing himself....
I'd be totally fine with that turn of circumstances if that's what happens. Because it's west marches we have about 15 players, and a fair amount are CN. I have a lot of faith in my character work and roleplay ability to make these characters likable despite their flaws (I think it would be because of them, actually) that this would cause some tension between players who really like these NPCs. I live for dramatic tension as long as it stays at the table and doesnt become real world drama.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Often what one troublesome player/GM would call "endearing" turns out to be a liability. The problem with your logic is that Pathfinder is a team game. A team member that steals from the party, gets the party into trouble, or is uselessly weak is a burden or liability. Your players will not find this fun.
|
|
whoa, 15 players? Since its West Marches I gather you wont have 15 folks showing up to every session? I find that PFS, Sandbox, and rotating GMs are the instances where DMPCs actually can work out. Good luck.
(My earlier response was based on thinking of my default murder-hobo group and how they would react to your flawed GMPCs.)
You should look into Ultimate Charisma for the companion ruleset. It's very simple and adds a lot of dimensions to the idea of cohorts. I allow companions for each of my campaigns. One of my groups is currently running with a NPC Kyra and NPC Terrible Tup! It's a lot of fun.
You should look into Ultimate Charisma for the companion ruleset. It's very simple and adds a lot of dimensions to the idea of cohorts. I allow companions for each of my campaigns. One of my groups is currently running with a NPC Kyra and NPC Terrible Tup! It's a lot of fun.
I absolutely will! Thank you for the suggestion.
The problem isn't DM NPCs, it's DM PCs - that is, characters who act like full members of the party, get involved in making decisions, want a big share of loot, and generally act as a player that just happens to also be the GM. That's... difficult to do right at the best of times, and usually best avoided.
NPCs with the party, on the other hand, are easy enough. Maybe they're just bad at fighting so they run and hide when it happens, or they have the job of keeping the escape route clear and so don't get involved outside of that. There's plenty of ways to ensure they don't outshine the party. ^^ Just gotta be a little creative.
I have never had that problem. I just roleplay them as if they were people. They contribute to the adventures and combat, and share accordingly. In every group, there are roles that no one else wants to play. Sometimes it's the healer, or the trap expert. Having that big a hole in the party can lead to a TPK, and no fun.
I let the party run NPCs that join the party. I give guidelines as to the NPCs [apparent] motivations and goals and only intervene when the party want the NPC to do something they wouldn't do or are trying to stiff the NPC e.g. by giving an unfair share of the treasure. This can extend as far as allowing the party to level the NPC when appropriate.
DM-NPCs can work. In solo games and when I don't have enough players to complete a 4 people party I complete the group with NPCs, often letting rhe players choose between many options about what NPC they want to take with them. They have some decisions about how to level them up and they always have builds that combine well woth the PCs (i.e. if one of the PCs uses a lot of SoS one of the NPCs will be a debuffer). They also fill some roles that might be missing at the party and never they shine at the fields that are the PCs specialities.
Aside from that, I always tend to have some kess relevant NPCs around so the party can get to them when they want.
There are some golden rules to keep NPCs around and players enjoy them:
-Don't try to force them into the party. Just make them make their appearance and let them interact with the party. If the players accept the NPC they will take it with them. If they don't, pushing the NPC into the party is usually a bad idea. I have let a lot of NPCs fall into nothingness because they never stuck.
-Don't artificially protect them. The players have taken a NPC with them, but they have grown tired of it. So now they want to get rid of it. Deal with it. Maybe they want to leave the NPC in the next town or maybe they want to kill it. The players should feel like they have the freedom to choose, not that the NPC is stuck with them forever and ever and is unkillable. The same way, if the NPC is killed by a villain, let it be dead. Players don't react well when they feel you are protecting a NPC.
-They can help solving the situations, but never solve really important things by their own. They can have their own plot hooks so the PCs solve them, but when doing it the PCs have still to be the main cast, not the supporting cast for the NPCs. Never, never, give too much spotlight to a NPC.
-If you plan some plot where the NPC is relevant, device a way that the story can go on without the NPC, so it doesn't become eessential to the story. Making it relevant is OK, making it essential would force you to give the NPC plot armor, and that's a bad idea.
My advice about your "flawed" NPCs is that if you think they can work and will be likable, go with them, but if the party doesn't react well to them, don't artificially protect them.
I can't remember how many times I used a NPC that my players ended disliking (because I wanted or by accident) and the happiness on their faces when they just got rid of it (with getting rid I don't mean killing. My players have a wicked mind for humiliating annoying NPCs xD).
Yeah I use GM PCs, I play with my kids. No, I don't always make them meek little clerics who stand in a corner, I want to have fun to. :-)
No, they don't hog the spotlight, I play with my kids, they hog it plenty for everyone. :-)
My advice about your "flawed" NPCs is that if you think they can work and will be likable, go with them, but if the party doesn't react well to them, don't artificially protect them.
I was never planning on doing that. Especially considering the nature of a west marches game where players will be rotating in and out, I love the idea that characters that have a positive relationship with a DM NPC and those who don't have any relationship will be exposed to the same character. My first DM NPC will be the klepto, and I imagine that the plot hook that introduces her will make her fairly sympathetic. If that information isn't shared to the PCs who weren't there, she will likely come off as antagonistic, which may result in her death. Even if they don't kill her, she's fairly suicidal in her misunderstanding of what is a proper threat to her life, so she may die on her own accord anyways, and the players who were adventuring with her may be blamed by those who weren't. Don't take this for me trying to bait players into interparty conflict, but the dramatic tension that is possible to result may be very memorable, and teach them a proper lesson in sharing as much information as they can.
I didn't want to imply you would do that, of course. It was just regular advice.
I think you should go ahead with your idea, as you seem passionate about it and you have put some thought and effort into developing the NPCs. If you think they will improve the story, trust your intuition. And if they finally don't, there are many ways to fix that later.
If you are one of my players and you read this, I will be very cross with you. Everyone else, enjoy:
She's meant to serve as sort of an introduction to the character flaws that are possible, while being pretty low stakes. The others, such as the egotistical liar, leeroy jenkins, lightswitch homicide person are the other side of this and can potentially get a PC killed if they are not careful. They are also vastly more powerful, which makes them maybe worth the risk. I want players to consider their character relationships with the DMNPCs before taking them on a mission. I'm also considering implementing a sort of "pokemon obedience" sort of rule where players who travel more with a character start to earn the trust and respect of them and they act upon their flaw less, based on percentile die.
Just make sure your players have a way to notice this flaws and a chance to neuter them if they play wisely before they become a major hindrance or they can become an annoyance and very disappointing.
In Way of the Wicked...
My players repaired the golem to get it back to work. I could have just let them know the flaws of the golem before it killed someone important for them. If that happened, the players would have probably dismantled the golem again, and with a good reason.
Having a minion that causes more trouble than it's worth is not cool. If you can control it, good, if you cannot, screw the minion.
So I had the golem to do some irrelevant killings (mostly forest animals) so the players figured out that it was something wrong with the golem. And they reacted well to it.
They pictured how to use it to avoid his psycho instincts to turn on by making it watch empty places or taking it with themselves so he doesn't run rampant. They find interesting and even funny that their golem is a psycho. But if it had caused them major trouble they would have reacted in a complete different way.
I've done a fair number of DMPCs. Some have been popular enough that my players gave them cameos in their own games. The trick is to not overshadow the PCs, but not be so useless as to be a liability. That's a different kind of NPC, and if the PCs can't dump them, a different kind of mission. (Escort Mission. Okay once in a while, but actively-suicidal NPCs to be escorted can leave players pulling out hair.)
Some of my more successful GMPCs:
- Acholate (Half Elf Sorcerer). Focused on buffing PCs, and messing with the opposition (stuff like grease instead of blasts), Acholate was useful, and probably the most popular GMPC I've ever written. She was the good aligned 'daughter' of one of the villains, and I gave her a nifty backstory about basically being magical runoff from his experiments that coagulated into the shape of a person. (Mostly I wanted to create a more interesting background for the Arcane bloodline than "I'm descended from a wizard".)
- Lana Lightsun (Human Aristocrat). An aspiring Paladin, Lana was brave, kind, gentle, patient, and all that good stuff. She wasn't exactly the biggest DPR machine around, but she was smart in combat, and set up flanking opportunities for the vivisectionist, and for that she was particularly loved. She was also memorable enough that even after leaving the little thorp in which she lived, the PCs stopped back more than once to ask Lana's help in redeeming villains who seemed redeemable.
- Jack Liddell (Human Psychic). I'm actually surprised Jack got much attention. He was just a shipmate who challenged the gunslinger to a knife-throwing contest. I guess they latched on because they were in a situation where most of the NPCs around them were being jerks, whereas Jack took his defeat humbly. He wasn't the most useful combatant around (mostly just flung telekinetic projectiles), but they insisted on dragging him to a fair number of dungeons nonetheless.
- Joker (Tiefling Swashbuckler). Like Jack, I'm surprised Joker got popular. I wrote her as an insufferable show-off who'd switch to the PCs' side the instant it looked like she was losing, and would be obviously ready to turn on them at any minute. They loved her, and were competent enough (whenever she was around) that she never did end up betraying them.
- Galdu Maheem (Human Brawler). Strong, silent, big, and muscly, Maheem broke my rule about overshadowing the PCs, because he was built to be an enemy. Instead a diplomacy check in the 30s saw him becoming one of their first allies in that campaign. The players seemed to appreciate what a powerhouse the big guy was, and ended up making him one of their most trusted allies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
( 1 ) Two levels below APL.
( 2 ) Invited by the group, not thrust upon them (they'll always be suspicious of NPC's they have to take, suspecting and expecting betrayal).
I've got a hedgewitch GMC (as I spell it) in a homebrew campaign that I think is working well. She started out an elderly, size-small ratfolk-variant whose primary value was her potions & alchemical items. (Plus, her Cure spells.) As soon as danger threatened, she screeched and ran for cover. The players seem to like the RP. Unfortunately for my plan, she's been in a number of combats now, and they're starting to turn to her for spells. And she's starting to become braver! (Or madder, I'm not sure.)
I'm certainly taking in the advice here with both ears.
I ran a short campaign in v.3.5 where the party started at 10th level but had no cleric, only a ranger and a paladin. The entire campaign was based in one area that consisted of a number of connected dungeons, so I introduced a NPC cleric who asked the PCs for help with the troubles brewing there. In return, she acted as healer and source of info about the local area. I treated her as a cohort tied to the party as a whole, and kept her 2 levels below them. That made her powerful enough to provide a welcome amount of healing and buffs, and not be a liability in combat, but not so powerful that she ever overshadowed any of the PCs. And since we had a paladin, we could let that PC be the conscience of the party, not the NPC.
Oh, I should mention the game I'm playing in. The GM liked the character background of one of the PCs so much, he introduced a GMC who is a long-ago best friend of the PC. The thing is, he's a rogue, and we already have a rogue, so he treads a bit on that PC's toes. OTOH, the RP is fun!
Plus, we have a terrible time keeping clerics. So finally the GM introduced a cleric GMC to the party. (She got toasted almost immediately by a dragon's fire breath, and then dropped out of the initiative order, with the GM making a cryptic comment that led me to believe we'd lost her in record time! No, she was still taking actions, but to heal herself.) She's only been with us for a couple of sessions. But I'm sure grateful the GM was merciful in giving her to the party!
I'm fairly certain both GMCs are the same level as we are. The GM plays them, including deciding their actions in combat. I haven't had a problem with that, for the record. Based on my experience here, I don't think lower levels are necessary. But for sure, pick a focus on abilities that complements the players' choices, rather than overlaps them.
I'm intrigued by the idea of introducing several NPCs to the party, and letting the party pick who accompanies them -- rather like a computer game, except that I will NOT have everyone in camp, so they can be summoned at will!
Good idea for a forum game topic. Why is that npc here?
Good idea for a forum game topic. Why is that npc here?
To befriend party then be killed by the BBEG to make the PC's more motivated.