A rules set I'm reading advises GMS to run npcs allied to the player "summarily" only. Not to roll for them or play them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general as the attention should be focused on the PCs. I have my own feelings about this practice but would like to hear others.

I'm pretty much against that, but generally have the players run Allied NPCs while keeping full veto rights over any actions that seem too self-serving. I treat them like more powerful and independent henchmen, basically.

I think for me it depends on the ruleset, but normally I have the allied NPCs engage mechanically even at the cost of slowing the game down. I rem running Mongoose OGL Conan I just rolled d6s see if NPCs killed each other. Running pre-3e D&D I can generally run the NPCs on the player side myself ok. Running a big battle in say 5e, only NPCs directly interacting with the PCs are handled mechanically, as a rule. If I'm not using the mechanics I generally don't kill off named NPCs but I might set a % chance of death if they're doing something very risky.

That sounds like pretty bad advice.

Theres lots of ways to handle henchmen and the like. The DM handles it all. The player handles some the DM the rest, or the player handles it all.

Just running them like a piece of equipment sounds really lazy.

In normal cases, the players handle their allies/henchmen/apprentices/whatever. I might demand a leadership roll here and there if they let them do really dangerous things, though.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984275A rules set I'm reading advises GMS to run npcs allied to the player "summarily" only. Not to roll for them or play them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general as the attention should be focused on the PCs. I have my own feelings about this practice but would like to hear others.

Why bother having NPCs if they don't really have stats and they don't really do or say anything?

Quote from: Michael Gray;984278I'm pretty much against that, but generally have the players run Allied NPCs while keeping full veto rights over any actions that seem too self-serving. I treat them like more powerful and independent henchmen, basically.

You said what I was going to say, only better.

For me it depends... As a GM generally I like to handle them. Mainly because I like the players to focus on one player each. And I don't really want them to have to roll anything extraneous. Although, if a player explicitly wanted to play an NPC I'd allow them. Or if a player suggests something that makes sense for an NPC to do I'll allow it.

It also depends on their role and how important it is. If it's an important character with a combat role then I'll have the stats (roughly at any rate).

However, I do like killing NPCs off in spectacular fashion allies or non.

There's no right way, but if the GM runs them then any sort of agenda they may or may not have is a mystery to the players, allowing them to react more naturally, and to judge by observation what they're goals might really be (including being just what they appear to be--loyal friends). Hirelings on the other hand? You roll for 'em, I'll make sure I'm tracking loyalty.  But again, no right way. (But I'm sure someone will weigh in disputing that).

I give an NPC his own agenda and odds for how he will react or behave and then randomize the result with a roll.  That way he has a tendency but I don't always know exactly what he will do. I think the important part is making sure the NPC has his own goals separate from the PCs so sometimes he'll be of assistance and other times not so much, maybe sometimes he'll be in opposition to the PCs. But they definitely do things and don't just disappear from existence until the PCs need him again.

Quote from: Michael Gray;984278I'm pretty much against that, but generally have the players run Allied NPCs while keeping full veto rights over any actions that seem too self-serving. I treat them like more powerful and independent henchmen, basically.

Pretty common approach for me. I handle the roleplaying, they handle the tactical decisions unless the NPC would have a very good reason to disagree. My players do a good job of getting invested in the NPCs, so it works out.

Quote from: Dumarest;984406I give an NPC his own agenda and odds for how he will react or behave and then randomize the result with a roll.  That way he has a tendency but I don't always know exactly what he will do. I think the important part is making sure the NPC has his own goals separate from the PCs so sometimes he'll be of assistance and other times not so much, maybe sometimes he'll be in opposition to the PCs. But they definitely do things and don't just disappear from existence until the PCs need him again.

Pretty much this. The NPCs are fully-statted and have goals and tendencies. In a fight, I might let a veteran player make tactical decisions for the NPC because they know that "I throw myself between (PC) and the (death)" is not going to fly.

------------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

We don't use hirelings, but in our current adventure, we have the goblin leader's daughter and two guards, and the orc leader's son and two guards. They have full stats and their own personalities (but "full stats" doesn't take much in my home system). I (unfortunately?) described the goblin daughter as "the goblin version of my wife's character", so she started playing the goblin, with deference to my input. It's been working pretty well.

I'll echo what other people have said and say the suggestions you read seem weird. I would guess the advice may be aimed at the habit that some GMs have of running NPCs as if they were their own characters, ones vastly superior in skill to the PCs.

When I first introduce an NPC (or any monster or creature for that matter), it's completely under my control.  I'll have it act within the mechanics if that makes sense and it is fully in the scene.  Otherwise, I'll make an educated guess on likely outcomes, assign odds, and roll for it.  (Say, the NPC is sneaking around on the other side of town looking for information that the party hired the NPC to get.)  

However, I'm also one to get a player managing the rolls and even tactics of an NPC (or any monster or creature) when it is convenient and fast.  "Take this orc here that just appeared in the doorway to the left and go after Joe with the best of your ability."  The players have a love/hate relationship with that.  They like "getting the bad rolls out of the way" with monster attacks.  And it is definitely a fast way to run a big combat with some heightened suspense.  But they hate when the get a critical rolling as a monster. I've also noticed that players in the group get quickly invested in making sure they have unbiased dice in their possession at all times.

Quote from: Tod13;984548I'll echo what other people have said and say the suggestions you read seem weird. I would guess the advice may be aimed at the habit that some GMs have of running NPCs as if they were their own characters, ones vastly superior in skill to the PCs.

I thought it was about crunch-heavy systems where running NPCs mechanically as if they were PCs takes time away from the PCs.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984275A rules set I'm reading advises GMS to run npcs allied to the player "summarily" only. Not to roll for them or play them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general as the attention should be focused on the PCs. I have my own feelings about this practice but would like to hear others.

Huh. In all circumstances? Seems overly proscriptive, and perhaps aimed at avoiding or creating a style of play that they have in mind?

It's generally not/opposite what I tend to do, except for situations where the NPCs aren't very relevant and/or there are a lot of players and/or NPCs. Often I just have 1-4 PCs and 1-6 NPCs traveling together, though, and/or the PCs are meeting with NPCs, and so I do play most/all of the NPCs actively, know their relevant skills & attributes & qualities & equipment & personalities/backgrounds/etc, and roll for their notions, reactions, perceptions, successes, etc. Given that the GM-to-NPC ratio is always lower than the player-to-PC ratio even with only one player, there's already plenty of attention for the PCs. I also like the consistency of having the NPCs follow the same rules as the PCs, and be considered on par with them except that the PCs happen to be run by players.