So, what's your take on the Player run Non-Player Character?
Basic Premise: Each player gets an NPC who can't be higher than Level 1. (Sort of like a sidekick, but more focused.) These characters are specifically people who are important to the PC. Their spouse, family, servant, or BFF. Each of these characters cover some book keeping for the party. Maybe one watches the mounts while they're in a dungeon. Maybe one is an engieer who can deactivate traps. They're also a free hireling that the Player will value protecting.
In short, the player gets to control the skills of the P-NPC, but they don't roleplay them (most of the time).
As a player, I'm thinking, "why am I building this character if I don't get to play them? Why is the DM roleplaying them so weird I didn't build them that way?"
As a DM, I'm thinking, "why am I roleplaying this character if I don't get to build them? Why is the player building them so weird I don't roleplay them that way?"
In one of my earliest campaigns, I gave full control of NPCs I made over to the players that were essentially a reward for successfully completing certain roleplay scenarios as well as introducing the new character concepts (this was an Eberron campaign when Warforged, Shifters, Changelings, and Kalashtar were all brand new). It worked out fairly well aside from biting off more than I could chew in terms of the general power level of the party, but I quickly realized I had to let them roleplay the characters themselves if they were in control of them.
I know that the adventure modules Storm King's Thunder and/or Storm Lord's Wrath do this as an option (I forget which one I played) and it was kind of fun although difficult for the new players at the table. The modules give a very simple background and motivation for the player-controlled NPCs, and although the DM tarts the initial interactions with the players, the players gain full control over the NPCs to have fun with for that duration of the adventure.
In the examples provided, I don't really see the difference between what you're proposing and sidekicks.
To that end, I think it comes down to how much work beyond playing the character or running the game respectively your players and you want to do. The first example sounds like "background tasks" being made more integral to the story. The party takes along someone who minds the mounts while the PCs are dungeon delving. Does that individual really need to be fleshed out onto a character sheet? And to what end? Are things going to happen outside the dungeon to the mounts (bandits steal them or some magical effect emanating from the dungeon scares them) and the party would prefer to have a "fighting chance" rather than return to the surface and be narrated "your mounts have run off"? Do you really want to take brakes from the main action for a side plot of animal husbandry. Those brakes also in terms of playing the game constitute splitting the party in that while the group is off dungeon delving, you need to keep cutting back to this care and feeding of animals story.
As for the specialist. You're brining in a character who has skills that are needed in the adventure that the party lacks. This is a sidekick. It does give the players a way to engage your game in a way their characters for some reason can't I guess. It would give the players something to do in a situation where they would otherwise sit around and listen to you narrate an NPC does their work for them.
As already mentioned it comes down to workload. Some role playing intensive games where players are able to break between roles may find it rewarding. But I think more often than not you're basically providing a player with what they'll see as a simple utility that now needs to play out for some reason (mount minder) or a toolset outside their PC which the player may or may not have mechanically mastered or feel invested in (trap masters).
The biggest economy of game play time hurdle is accounting for these accessory characters during combat. Do they have the same action agency as the main PCs, are what they do in combat limited to dodge and maybe some sort of reaction unless ordered by the PC, or do they just presumptively stand there even if the battle is going very very poorly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, what's your take on the Player run Non-Player Character?
Basic Premise: Each player gets an NPC who can't be higher than Level 1. (Sort of like a sidekick, but more focused.) These characters are specifically people who are important to the PC. Their spouse, family, servant, or BFF. Each of these characters cover some book keeping for the party. Maybe one watches the mounts while they're in a dungeon. Maybe one is an engieer who can deactivate traps. They're also a free hireling that the Player will value protecting.
In short, the player gets to control the skills of the P-NPC, but they don't roleplay them (most of the time).
I would say either full control or no control.
As a player, I'm thinking, "why am I building this character if I don't get to play them? Why is the DM roleplaying them so weird I didn't build them that way?"
As a DM, I'm thinking, "why am I roleplaying this character if I don't get to build them? Why is the player building them so weird I don't roleplay them that way?"
In one of my earliest campaigns, I gave full control of NPCs I made over to the players that were essentially a reward for successfully completing certain roleplay scenarios as well as introducing the new character concepts (this was an Eberron campaign when Warforged, Shifters, Changelings, and Kalashtar were all brand new). It worked out fairly well aside from biting off more than I could chew in terms of the general power level of the party, but I quickly realized I had to let them roleplay the characters themselves if they were in control of them.
I know that the adventure modules Storm King's Thunder and/or Storm Lord's Wrath do this as an option (I forget which one I played) and it was kind of fun although difficult for the new players at the table. The modules give a very simple background and motivation for the player-controlled NPCs, and although the DM tarts the initial interactions with the players, the players gain full control over the NPCs to have fun with for that duration of the adventure.
In the examples provided, I don't really see the difference between what you're proposing and sidekicks.
To that end, I think it comes down to how much work beyond playing the character or running the game respectively your players and you want to do. The first example sounds like "background tasks" being made more integral to the story. The party takes along someone who minds the mounts while the PCs are dungeon delving. Does that individual really need to be fleshed out onto a character sheet? And to what end? Are things going to happen outside the dungeon to the mounts (bandits steal them or some magical effect emanating from the dungeon scares them) and the party would prefer to have a "fighting chance" rather than return to the surface and be narrated "your mounts have run off"? Do you really want to take brakes from the main action for a side plot of animal husbandry. Those brakes also in terms of playing the game constitute splitting the party in that while the group is off dungeon delving, you need to keep cutting back to this care and feeding of animals story.
As for the specialist. You're brining in a character who has skills that are needed in the adventure that the party lacks. This is a sidekick. It does give the players a way to engage your game in a way their characters for some reason can't I guess. It would give the players something to do in a situation where they would otherwise sit around and listen to you narrate an NPC does their work for them.
As already mentioned it comes down to workload. Some role playing intensive games where players are able to break between roles may find it rewarding. But I think more often than not you're basically providing a player with what they'll see as a simple utility that now needs to play out for some reason (mount minder) or a toolset outside their PC which the player may or may not have mechanically mastered or feel invested in (trap masters).
The biggest economy of game play time hurdle is accounting for these accessory characters during combat. Do they have the same action agency as the main PCs, are what they do in combat limited to dodge and maybe some sort of reaction unless ordered by the PC, or do they just presumptively stand there even if the battle is going very very poorly.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.