Quote from: S'mon;984688I thought it was about crunch-heavy systems where running NPCs mechanically as if they were PCs takes time away from the PCs.

Probably true for the stating out. I don't have too many issues with that, within some limits. But, I was thinking about the part that said "Not to roll for them or play them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general".

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.

I think you need to do what works for you. I do think the game can get bogged down if you are micromanaging everything NPCs are doing beyond the periphery of the PCs (for example in a large scale battle). I like having simplified methods for handling thats sort of thing.

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.

That is basically my approach. I tend to assign them some kind of clear, simple personality type too, just to give the player a guide on how to run them. It encourages players to make them more than just tools to be used. I guess my technique is the exact opposite to the advice in the OP.

Ill be honest and state that Savage Worlds was the first time I thought of letting NPCs be handled by the Players. In 30+ years of gaming it just wasnt done. "Its a Roleplaying game" we always told ourselves. "You only play one role, your character, everybody else is handled by the DM." Now of course if the PCs had some sort of influence over the NPCs (hirelings) then they could order them around to a point but they certainly would never roll for them. I believe for this reason, and that of expediency, I handled NPCs much the way the book Im reading suggests.

If the party of 4 were storming the gate of the keep along with 20 men at arms, they would all make their attacks but I would just roll randomly to see how the rest of the group was doing, assign some casualties and move on. The story was about the players afterall, not the NPCs. I realize that might actually minimize the abilities of the NPCs but it does for the opponants too, who if not directly engaged with the PCs didnt get to roll either. In the end it worked fine and nobody ever complained. Recently though Ive begin to feel we might have missed something doing it that way.

On occasion I've had a player run an NPC, particularly if his own PC is elsewhere and it gives him something to do. FASA Trek, for instance, we'd sometimes have several NPCs from different departments and if your science officer and medical officer beam down it's a good way to give other players something to do: play the yeoman, the security guys, the science specialists, whatever.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984766
If the party of 4 were storming the gate of the keep along with 20 men at arms, they would all make their attacks but I would just roll randomly to see how the rest of the group was doing, assign some casualties and move on. The story was about the players afterall, not the NPCs. I realize that might actually minimize the abilities of the NPCs but it does for the opponants too, who if not directly engaged with the PCs didnt get to roll either. In the end it worked fine and nobody ever complained. Recently though Ive begin to feel we might have missed something doing it that way.

I forget the specific rules, but if my memory serves me, Barbarians of Lemuria handles minions (mooks?) battling each other pretty nicely.

Quote from: cranebump;984404There'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).

Naw you've covered it.

There are trade-offs. Which trade-off one prefers to make is pretty subjective. I usually let the players run the NPCs as a compromise because it simplifies things. Both what I have to run as the GM and also simplifying what the players are doing i.e. if we are using minis they can just move the Swashbuckling Swordsman NPC to guard the rear door and then attack the ogre that comes thru 3 rounds later rather than having to describe an order with contingencies. If I don't see a clear right move for the Swashbuckler I'd rather a player decide whether he attacks, tries to fight defensively to hold the door, or retreats to try and get a flank attack and then have me have to decide which tactic the NPC would choose.

Quote from: Dumarest;984790On occasion I've had a player run an NPC, particularly if his own PC is elsewhere and it gives him something to do. FASA Trek, for instance, we'd sometimes have several NPCs from different departments and if your science officer and medical officer beam down it's a good way to give other players something to do: play the yeoman, the security guys, the science specialists, whatever.

We had multiple PCs/player on our starships so each player usually had a PC on the bridge, on the away mission, etc. Though we did have two red-shirt security guards we called Brutus and Cletus. Somehow those two guys survived multiple missions despite their red shirts.

Quote from: Bren;985034We had multiple PCs/player on our starships so each player usually had a PC on the bridge, on the away mission, etc. Though we did have two red-shirt security guards we called Brutus and Cletus. Somehow those two guys survived multiple missions despite their red shirts.

All the players had at least two PCs to try to make sure at least one was planetside for the A plot and another was aboard the USS Whatever for the B plot, but sometimes there wasn't a lot for the Chief Navigator to do, or whoever, so we had a number of reappearing NPCs with useful jobs that someone could take over and "adopt" as needed. Some NPCs got interesting development as a result, which is cooler than "some guy in blue scans the plants with his botanical tricorder." (They were also rolled up as per PCs so had a whole career behind them.)

Quote from: Dumarest;985038All the players had at least two PCs to try to make sure at least one was planetside for the A plot and another was aboard the USS Whatever for the B plot, but sometimes there wasn't a lot for the Chief Navigator to do, or whoever, so we had a number of reappearing NPCs with useful jobs that someone could take over and "adopt" as needed. Some NPCs got interesting development as a result, which is cooler than "some guy in blue scans the plants with his botanical tricorder." (They were also rolled up as per PCs so had a whole career behind them.)

Makes sense. We started with 3 PCs each: 1 bridge, 1 security, and 1 crew from either medical, science, or engineering. Then we ended up adding even more minor PCs: B-shift bridge crew and some ensigns to play a few lower-decks style adventures.

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.

Generally speaking, I strongly disagree, because this affects Immersion.

There may be some situations where this makes sense; for example, when playing out a mass combat.

"NPCs" in games I run are simply my PCs. The beauty of being the GM is you get to have more than one PC. And I refuse to slow down my game just because I have PCs. Everything has to be real-time still.

I like the way SavageWorlds handles this. I run the NPC's words and actions outside of combat, but let them control them in combat as Extras, Sidekicks, Henchmen, etc. Speeds up play a bit for me, as I don't have to deal with anything but the bad guys in combat.

The way I handle allied NPCs is that I (as GM) do their talking and non-combat stuff, but the players manage them in combat. That cuts the overhead down tremendously.

Just remember the old saw:

Everyone wants something, and in each situation they're going to try to manipulate events to get them what they want, or closer to it.

What do the NPCs want?