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. :D
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.
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?
Quote from: RPGPundit;986729Generally 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.
How could it affect immersion? The players wouldn't even be aware of it. They woukd only know of the npcs exploits through the GM'S description as in any game.
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.
Quote from: RPGPundit;986729Generally 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.
Quote from: rgrove0172;986818How could it affect immersion? The players wouldn't even be aware of it. They woukd only know of the npcs exploits through the GM'S description as in any game.
Speaking for my own immersion, if the GM is rolling for actions involving PCs but not for NPCs, I'll notice it. Same if he is "not ... play[ing} them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general" - that is going to be noticeable, so unless they aren't very observant, they will be aware of it. I certainly would. As I am interested in playing a game where I get to be in the fictional situation and when I immerse in it, I will be relating to the PCs and NPCs as if they are the same sort of people, subject to the same kind of cause and effect, and acting appropriately, if it is clear that the PCs get treated one way and the NPCs in quite another, that is going to affect my ability to immerse, believe, and be interested in and care about the supposed situation.
Quote from: Skarg;986830Speaking for my own immersion, if the GM is rolling for actions involving PCs but not for NPCs, I'll notice it. Same if he is "not ... play[ing} them actively but to simply describe what they do and what happens to them in general" - that is going to be noticeable, so unless they aren't very observant, they will be aware of it. I certainly would. As I am interested in playing a game where I get to be in the fictional situation and when I immerse in it, I will be relating to the PCs and NPCs as if they are the same sort of people, subject to the same kind of cause and effect, and acting appropriately, if it is clear that the PCs get treated one way and the NPCs in quite another, that is going to affect my ability to immerse, believe, and be interested in and care about the supposed situation.
But none of this interests you at all when the situation reaches and exceeds the threshold from large battle to mass combat? You care deeply about the specifics of performance surrounding the 8 orc warriors against you but no so much when its 28?
Now if you are saying you do care but simply resolve to lay those cares aside when the numbers become too difficult to manage in the interest of brevity, play-ability, pace of the game etc. I totally get it but Im doing the same thing, just at a lower threshold.
Quote from: rgrove0172;987120But none of this interests you at all when the situation reaches and exceeds the threshold from large battle to mass combat? You care deeply about the specifics of performance surrounding the 8 orc warriors against you but no so much when its 28?
Now if you are saying you do care but simply resolve to lay those cares aside when the numbers become too difficult to manage in the interest of brevity, play-ability, pace of the game etc. I totally get it but Im doing the same thing, just at a lower threshold.
You'll at least need to raise your numbers a bit. I have played out tactical battles with over 100 characters on each side on hex maps using TFT and GURPS, and they all have stats and equipment and skills and are all tracked for facing, dropped weapons, effects of injury, etc etc. However on those rare occasions, it did end up seeming pretty excessive, but it was done intentionally, and was the culmination/climax of several sessions leading up to it, with the players' side all of NPCs recruited before, so it would've seemed something of a lame anticlimax to handwave what happened to them.
My interest doesn't really go down with high numbers of combatants, but when there is a ton going on, it can become impractical to track everything. I do still want things to happen for good reasons and not be hand-waved. See for example the thread where a couple of us were discussing our dissatisfactions with the GURPS Mass Combat system, although my main gripe is the results, and that the details are a bit too detailed for the level of accuracy they provide.
I have also developed systems for very quickly handling combat results between non-detailed NPCs, for the purposes of being able to do large combats very quickly but without losing much accuracy. I have sometimes just handwaved some stuff and dictated what happens between NPCs, but it's not as interesting or satisfying to me as trying to keep it randomized and having about the right odds for stuff. After having played tactical battles out with a system for years, I can get a pretty good sense of what the likely outcomes are, and how likely they are. Though in GURPS, if you play it out, the specifics can be fun and interesting and leave a lot of nice chaotic details about where the bodies, blood and breakages end up.
When the PCs are present and directly interacting with NPCs, I will almost certainly be using the rules the same for the PC and NPC.
(Also I'm not sure why the topic drifted from the published game's suggestion for generalizing all NPCs, to situations where one would shift for large combats.)
Quote from: rgrove0172;986818How could it affect immersion? The players wouldn't even be aware of it. They woukd only know of the npcs exploits through the GM'S description as in any game.
Because the impression on players could easily be that NPCs are just literary elements that accomplish or fail things based on where the GM imagines the "story" should go.