What does Veeky Forums think about NPCs

Come on, he's a new DM. If he needs planning to deal with it at the start, let him. Eventually he will find his own balance of improv/planning.

OP, you can create interesting characters that just won't take the spotlight. Make them companions, quest givers, etc. If they're supposed to aid the players in the combat, prioritize supporting roles: the fighter can be a tanky guy designed to take hits for them, the wizard can be a buffer/battlefield controller type, the cleric can be the healer and etc. Just envision what you would think would be an interesting NPC (you party has to have an interest in him for him to be useful) and send him their way. They're your tools and you can use it as you please to work around the party (Want to send them somewhere and they like the NPC? Kidnap him. They're not interested in him at the moment? Send him his way and keep him in your pocket for a later return as a villain or hero).

I think you might not quite have the right idea of what a "DMPC" is, at least in the derogatory sense. It's right there in the name; player character. Characters being politically powerful doesn't make them a DMPC, nor does them being more combat-capable than the PC's. What makes a character a DMPC is that they supplant the player's role in the story or in battle; so, they become the DM's PC. It's seen as basically jerking yourself off to have your cooler-than-everyone character who knows everything lead the group around like they don't matter.

So that's the main point. Having developed and important characters can really bring a world to life. I personally much prefer the feeling of being out of my character's depth, fighting against my character's relative unimportance in the grand scheme of things to help change the world. It makes the world feel more real to have grand kings, deadly assassins, mysterious allies, all that jazz. You just have to make sure they don't play a party member role, at least for too long. The king may be more important than the players, but he still needs something from them. After all, he's getting older. The deadly assassin may be more lethal than the players, but he's a wanted criminal--he needs you to handle this job for him, in exchange for pay. The mysterious ally may come in to save your players at a critical junction, but he shouldn't show up to save them from their own stupidity when it isn't thematically fitting.

Basically, keep your players relevant. They're the main characters of this story. The world may not revolve around them, but the plots they take part in should. They should be able to feel like they did something no one else could once in a while.

Part 2 because wow that comment limit is short.

Try not to have NPCs stay as party members for long, or do too much while they're there. You can have them fill holes in the party, or to progress a story. Like a certain old mage who knows the way to pass through a dungeon, or a kid the party rescued who doesn't participate in combat but provides a character to bounce off of/help develop the PC's.

I think your ideas are a-okay except for the perma-party member part.

Also, the guy above me basically said what I did but more concisely. Fuck.

I also toss out the level fluff guidelines, because I don't want PCs to be as dangerous as a whole army, but I also don't want to cap them at level 4.

So in my games, a level 5 PC is equivalent to a rookie cop, and a level 15 PC is equivalent to a navy seal. Or Olympic athlete.

"Why aren't the NPCs solving their own problems?"

By and large, they are.

The PCs aren't more qualified than the army. They're a ragtag band of adrenaline junkie mercenaries and treasure hunters.

At 5, they're thrillseeking goons, who may get hired to handle things that normal people don't want to get their hands dirty with, or risk bodily harm doing, but they're still less skilled than the average cop or soldier.

By 15, they're equivalent to a special forces strike team but they're not party of the army, and by 20 they're world class.

And "Adventurer" is a profession, like "Shadowrunner".

It works great, but it means making stories that make sense in that revised level fluff.

>I'm a new DM
>I've got a campaign set up that is breaking a few of the guidelines that a lot of people lay out for DMs

Stop, and think about why these guidelines are there for DM's of all levels of experience. You are certainly not the exception and you will not magically make it work. Heed the advice of those who came before you.

Some of those guidelines, (like an NPC light campaign) can be safely ignored with minimal effort, especially in 5e.

DON'T do this. It always comes off feeling like extreme DM-fiat and author-asspull.
>"Yeah, this character could totally kill the dragon and stop the demon invasion, but she won't do it for this incredibly contrived and plot-convenient reason I totally didn't just make up that makes no sense whatsoever!"

Just tell your story, keep in mind that it's an interactive game and not your shitty fanfic, and stop worrying.
Most stories here are embellished to justify autistic rage. Having important or competent NPCs is fine, what's important is that you and the players have fun. Thinking about this stuff is already to most important step. You'll figure it out.

That is some TERRIBLE advice.

My players have liked many of my npcs because I make them competent, just ill-equipped or outright unable to deal with the problem. If the npc accompanies the players, it's as a guide or in some secondary support role

System? Unless it's dark heresy and an inquisitor is picking up fresh recruits, it's a bad idea. Most pcs mate playing second fiddle or working for someone else. You have too much pre-planned and set up for your players. As a GM, the most you can hope for is to guide the story while the PCs go off and have fun. It's better to have notes on what's going on in the word, the major players, and overall plot. Everything past that will never go as planned

>Play Fallout 3
>Get Fawkes as a companion
>Is super mutant who's immune to radiation
>At the end of the game his "very specific circumstances" for intervention suddenly dictate he can't run into a room full of radiation he's IMMUNE TO and press a button.
>Die because I have to be the one to do because the DM's plot railroad.
>Feelsbadman

I can't believe I'm actually seeing someone try to pass this off as legitimate advice for a DM.

The less detailed and involved your npc's the more your players will like it.

The majority of players don't want to hear a story or experience atmosphere. Their only reason for being at the table is to run a power fantasy. Powerful npc's that they can't kill on a whim breaks that fantasy and brings them back into reality. The "story" is supposed to be about their not self insert!character. Bosses that survive the first encounter are "dm bullshit", they are supposed to be the video game main character. It triggers autism even worse if you give the villain unique abilities instead of them. Railroading takes away their fantasy through being controlled. It's bad enough watching parties "roleplay" infighting because the fighter did more damage than the rogue in the last fight and took his glory in front of the other players. Adding strong npc's are like tossing oil on an already burning fire.

The more detail you put into an npc, the more time you just wasted and the faster your group will disband.

Who hurt you?

I have a game that's got several hundred NPC's running about, the hardest thing about so many is managing stats and how they all balance out together. I tend to not stat out any NPC's unless they're directly need though, most remain statless just for the sake of various RP's and goals.

It's good to remember that NPC's in a campaign world are living and breathing, just like the player characters. Give them lives that make sense, and you can convey a pretty realistic world, you know? The trick is to know when to stop focusing on the NPC's and instead focus on the actions of the players.

The nice thing about so many NPC's is you can adapt on the fly to a situation very easily if you have the broad swathes of each character down. If not... then it becomes quite the nightmare to manage to many (take notes, plenty of notes. I have hundreds of thousands of words in notes)

Its not bait, it's the truth. Unless you make a group out of dm's you will always be disappointed.

Forever players don't have the ability to truly separate themselves from a character and truly roleplay as the character instead of themselves

Have you tried playing with adults?

Play with adults? You think that word means anything? "Adults" are children who have existed longer. There may be less screaming and crying when they throw a tantrum, but that's the only difference.

Don't have asspull characters that can do things the PCs can do but better and without needing a roll to do it
Don't have the worst characters who are just all useless assholes who don't want to do anything except laze around in their own filth
Make sure a character feels like it's own character and not just you but slightly annoyed
Make characters interesting and weird, they all don't have to be weird, but have some variety to it so the PCs learn to give a shit about them
Don't have characters that are cool one second and the next they turn into a lame asshole instantly

That's my advise after playing one of the worst campaigns I've ever seen where all NPCs sucked, were boring, and asspulls dice fudgers

>tfw fpbp

That is terrible advice.

>inb4 the players kill one of them before the mission even starts.

>And "Adventurer" is a profession, like "Shadowrunner".
Fuck you.

Hmm?

Adventurer was a profession in real life for a good while as well. Search Google Books for the word between 1500 and 1900 and you'll find plenty of people listed as such in the driest of contexts. During that period the term can mean 'professional traveling outdoorsman', mercenary, and international investor.

Powerful NPCs are perfectly fine in themselves, whether they're allies, hired mercenaries, pets, etc. The PCs can be level 1 folk and meet the legendary level 15 hero Sir Kevin without any issue. Keep in mind, though...

First, Sir Kevin is doing his own thing. He his reasons for not showing up to solve the PC's problems. Most important of all, he does not tag along and he's not on camera. If the PCs earn his help, Sir Kevin should be a powerful asset the PCs can use, like a powerful magic item or a kingdom's political support, and they will have to use him smartly.

Second, Sir Kevin may interfere in the PC's favor or disfavor, and he might unexpectedly save them from a hopeless situation once or twice, assuming it's not an asspull. However he's not slaying the two-headed ogre for them, unless they ask.

Now, if the players are also level 15 heroes traveling with Sir Kevin, it's perfectly fair to play him as if you were a player. It's okay. You're allowed to have fun, and the character is a perfect opportunity for you to show the players a complex character who's not set in stone, and for you to provide the party with skills, potentially unreliable information/exposition/worldbuilding, contacts, hints, warnings, etc. all in-character.

Like a player, though, if Sir Kevin is insufferable, too competent, or he threatens the party's cohesion, you'll have to give him up (he might make a better antagonist). And make sure to not hog the spotlight and take over someone else's niche (although a friendly rivalry is perfectly acceptable).

>Party hires a local guide
>Doesn't fight
>Doesn't make any party decisions
>Just a guide to keep the party from getting lost in a huge forest
>Sticks around for multiple sessions
NPC or DMPC?

Are you using that character to play the game while GMing it? If no, NPC

You just sound like a fag that thinks putting details are the same as presentation. Go away and be wrong somewhere else.

He's a NPC.

If he fought along the players and helped them make decisions he would also be a NPC.
Some people would call him a DMPC, and that could be accurate. However there is nothing wrong about DMPCs as long as they're believable and don't act like shitty Mary Sues.

Pic related is a perfectly acceptable DMPC.

I keep a variety of npcs that travel with the pcs who are pretty strong, who generally dont help the party unless they are asked and given a reason that its worth their time. DMPC's are more sticky than occasional sideliners, and basically are leaders of the group, or an important member. Avoid taking the players feeling of choice away, so long as you keep that in mind its probably not a concern if you have a DMPC or just an npc

Just be careful with
>bonus of meeting and interacting with all these cool characters
Because its hard to tell how a player will react to NPCs. Don't try to foist them on people thinking how cool they are, it's very much the making of a shit NPC. Most groups end up taking a shine to one or two NPCs anyway, usually the one you've got the least material for and was literally just a random generated name you pulled out of your ass.

DMPCs aren't even necessarily all bad, especially if the group is low in number. You just always need to remember they're a sidekick at best and should never, or extremely rarely, have the spotlight. The few (two I think) times I've used something like this I don't even generally roll or take their turns. They just hold a door closed against reinforcements, scout ahead or distract some low tier mook in melee until the party finishes fighting

Thanks for sharing. I had not read that one yet.

Or he could've found another player

Obviously, yes, trying to find another player is among a GM's options.
Are you implying it's always the superior choice compared to just playing a NPC ally?

It is always the superior option, the problem is that it's not always there since you need to find a decent player and that's a lot of time wasted depending of how you play

If the circumstances can make it so you need to spend an absurd amount of effort on finding an extra player, I wouldn't exactly call that *always* the superior option. It might qualify if you have a lot of TTRPG buddies available for games because you live in a big city or something I guess.

(Also, I think it's acceptable to want an extra character but not an extra player for various reasons.)

bump while I read

Having plans for the game is fine, as long as they are malleable and you aren't hesitant to change things on the basis of PC actions. I tend to compartmentalize things a bit when planning. I might, for instance, have general event I see happening (the thieves guild targeting the party for attack) but leave it rather open how things get that point (maybe jotting down a few ideas about how things could reach that point and committing to none of them). Keeping things loose also makes me more willing to completely change or drop an event than if everything were more tightly scripted (since that would force me to rewrite a bunch of shit). But people plan in different ways, and I'd be lying if I said I never got very specific with how I saw an event unfolding. Just leave yourself open to change and don't pressure the players into taking a certain path or bend reality to funnel them there, and you should be fine.

Sadly, I agree with this man...

OP, make sure you have some kind of plan in place for when your players get bored and start to kill your story-specific questgivers.
The best thing to do is approach NPC's from a real world perspective. They exist day to day doing what? It's fine to have a few of note, but planning to have certain NPC's traveling at certain times with the PC's or else plot won't happen, will usually be disastrous. Plus, you're players are on to you anyway.

If you want an awesome NPC you just need to slap restrictions and major downsides to them.

Powerful cleric buddy? Also extremely moral and has to answer to his church.

Talented sorceress gal? Awesome, except she's recently blind and has trouble navigating anything.

Neat Goblin warlock? Great, destructive spells, except it activates a demon rage form where he can't distinguish friend from foe.

Or he could, y'know, focus on his players and their story instead of how awesome his NPCs are...

They're not mutually exclusive? Maybe it's hard to tell, but I'm just giving advice on how to make interesting NPCs instead of flat out ignoring them.

It's really not that hard.

Why the fuck do you people keep playing with randoms?
I feel like 85% of suppposed problems would be solved by not playing with random chucklefucks on R20, from craigslist or at your LGS.

I'm aware of the "Powerful Wizard in Tower of Knowledge" kind of NPC but OP was about slapping a few DMPCs with the players in an effort to build a relationship between the PCs in an effort to develop his own characters. Players usually hate this. The most successful DMPCs are the ones that spring up organically, as the players themselves are usually driving that relationship.

What OP is describing will end up with his questgivers dead or resented at the hands of his players.

Oh, that was my bad interpretation in that case. I'd absolutely agree on organic attachment.

In personal experience, NPCs (almost) never follow the party unless specifically requested. The easy exceptions are villains, comic relief (if people laughed), and merchants for the challenge of haggling with the same guy/gal on multiple instances.

Played for over twenty years. Never online and always with friends, coworkers or locals at clubs. People get bored and destructive. At least you can tell randoms to go fuck themselves, "friends" have this weird "it's all in fun bro, honest" excuse when they crash your campaign.

The stricture against having NPCs accompany the party is stupid. While I don't support the term "DMPC", because that implies that the GM has a special connection with that character (that he's playing the game *as* that character, in fact), just because something sometimes gets misused doesn't mean that it's inherently bad. As long as an NPC doesn't overshadow the PCs, take away player agency, annoy the players (by feeling foisted on them somehow), or interfere with your running of the game (slowing things down too much by making you split your attention), everything should be fine.

I like to have an NPC in the party whenever possible (and may sometimes have two when there aren't many PCs). Things run better when there's one and I honestly miss them when I don't have one there (generally when there are a lot of PCs and I'm worried about slowing things down too much). An NPC can help keep conversations alive and things moving when otherwise the group might become unfocused or directionless. That doesn't mean taking over the narrative or dominating discussions (generally speaking, you want to NPCs to get less "screen time" than PCs and maybe even fade into the background a bit when they're not needed), but used strategically, they can really help out without being overbearing. Generally speaking, I try to use NPCs to state the obvious when the players seem to be overlooking it (which sometimes the players can do thanks to misunderstandings, assumptions, distractions, tunnel vision on other things, etc.), to fill in gaps in energy or enthusiasm, and to provide color or additional perspectives. The key is to realize at all times that the NPC is a secondary character compared to the PCs, and is only there to enhance the game experience for your players.

Mate, if your friends are this retarded, you should have a word with them or get new friends. At least that's the way around here. Friends aren't arseholes to friends and if they are, they get called out on it. If they get pissy and walk out on you, they weren't true friends anyway.
I know that the concept of friendship is different around the world. What's considered a friend elsewhere would barely be an acquaintance around here.

Which is why I haven't DM'd in years.

Unfortunately, the last good player I had (best friend since highschool. shit roleplayer, but critical thinker and all around team leader type) hung up his hat and called it quits for good....lost all will to keep going after that.

A lot of it, I'm sure, comes from different perspectives on gaming. Some people take role-playing less seriously than others, and if you're in a group of people like that, you're going to have a hard time forcing everybody to play the way you want them to. As much as I detest lolrandumb bullshit, it's not an objectively wrong way to play. With that said, I would quickly lose interest in a game like that and would soon be looking for a new group if that's the only way my current group wanted to play. I will say that players tend to go randumb when they start to get bored, so keeping things moving and them engaged can help alleviate the problem (though if folks are in the habit of randomly attacking shit, it may take a while to break them of that).

It's shit. What is your contingency plan if they kill one or both or ignore them? Why are you making this like a videogame? Why do you DM if you want to play (overpowered) characters? Never mind, just answered that for myself.
Just don't. Scrap your shit and start over.

Shut the fuck up retard.

>Also, I think it's acceptable to want an extra character but not an extra player for various reasons

Yup. You don't actually give a shit about players playing in your world, YOU want to play in your world with your shitty self insert. It's called being a shit DM.

An extra player significantly slows things down, and you might have a good group dynamic that could be at least partially undermined by adding another person, especially if you can't find anybody that is as good of a fit or as high of a caliber as the folks you've already got. Also, the NPC can perform a role not well-suited to a player character. Maybe it's a support or entirely noncombat role in a game with a decent amount of combat. Maybe the NPC is there for story shenanigans or as a conduit to fill out your setting (they know shit about the island the party is marooned on). There are tons of reasons to want an NPC in the party that have nothing to do with self-inserts.

>I've got a campaign being set up that is breaking a few of the guidelines that a lot of people lay out for DMs
Stop right here
Why do you think that you can do it better, even though you're a novice? Why would you read seemingly useful information, only to discard it?
You should take a step back and think this through again.

>Everyone doesn't run 5e the way I think they should! Let's resort to name-calling and try to silence everyone who disagrees with me!
So, you've got nothing and you cede defeat then? Glad to see you admit it.

If you can somehow prove to us that all the other games that don't use this assumption of PCs being 1-man armies don't work, then people may believe you're right. I'm pretty sure you can't, as that's most RPGs, many of which work quite well.

A focus on humanoid enemies and a world where the PCs aren't 1-man armies works just fine, it just doesn't let you have your power trip murderhobo fantasy of butchering peasants by the dozen in a world where nobody who can stand against you.

Not everyone is interested in playing or running that, and it's not all you can do with D&D. Deal with it.

This can work fine.

Low limelight usage hireling to help out a poorly designed party. Like a support bard, or a healbot cleric.

If that's not what he's gonna do with it, it's a bad idea, but not all NPCs, or even all NPC tagalongs, are terrible.

Personally I'd me more inclined to give out freebie magic items to fix it or something, unless the group has a very small number of players, in which case I'll have the PCs control the NPC in combat, because I have enough to do.

Worth considering:

Some of that information can be changed fairly easily, but there are some things that are not ever any good, like DMPCs.

But regardless of what this pitiful chucklefuck () thinks, you can run a monster-light, NPC heavy D&D 5e campaign with minimal adjustments.

You still want the PCs to do their own shit, not be saved by some benevolent wizard or some other bullshit handwaivium, but this paradigm works just as well in D&D as it does in Shadowrun, WoD, Deadlands, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Unisystem, and GURPS. It just means writing plot hooks and scenarios appropriate to the PCs power level. Your level 3 barbarian isn't going to save the world because nobody else can. If he does, it was a fluke because he was in the right place at the right time, and that's it. In such a campaign, if you're level 3, you're not hot shit.

You're not wrong, but that's not what a DMPC is for. A DMPC is there to fill an empty slot in the party, not be more powerful. What makes a DMPC a DMPC is the fact that is has the PC stats and bonuses as an npc and also assists the party. DMPCs just tend to be overpowered because the GM is the banker in the player's game of monopoly in a way.

>but with the added bonus of meeting and interacting with all these cool characters.
FP said most all of what needed to be said. But I thought of another example....

Imagine in Phantom Menace, if instead of Qui-Gonn and Padme meeting Watto on Tattooine, imagine if they met MACE WINDU...

...Now imagine Samuel L. Jackson's personality and character of Mace Windu compared to Liam Neeson and Natalie Portman...he'd steal every scene.

Imagine some DM wanted his players to meet "MACE WINDU!" and then let Mace take over every scene, telling the players what they ought to do, what they ought to look out for, how they would get parts for their ship, and "Look out! It's a Sith Lord!" fights masterfully using his "Look! Mace Windu is using his Vaderooperap style of lightsaber fighting! It focuses the opponent's Dark Side energy back upon the attacker! Look! Look!" pretty soon your players are yawning and playing on their phones.

What I do when I get the urge to create a DMPC, I have that character adventure off screen and away from the players. I find this often opens up new avenues for adventures for the players. They get back from an adventure and hear about the DMPCs exploits via rumor, or the DMPC can offer employment. However I make sure the the DMPC never plays a prominent role on screen.

When my players all move on and the game stops, at least I still have my NPCs.

This is the best example so far. A DMPC just steals the show, and in a meta sense they know you are the DM and who is behind the character. So they won't treat you the same as a regular player.

I think the stupidest thing that can ever happen in a game. Is the DM talking to himself (his NPC accompanying the party with another NPC)

It's cringe.

I had this in a one off. Guy spent 30 minutes haggling with his merchant NPC, made smalltalk with him, etc. He never DM'd again. And it was his first time trying and admitted he did it to pad shit out since he ran out of ideas and was nervous. And he's a good player too, but the DMPC/NPC shit was fucking awful as we sat there having this guy talk to himself about bullshit.

It's something you want to avoid doing too much of for obvious reasons, but it's fairly inevitable that it's going to happen from time to time in any campaign where there's a decent bit of talking in character. Even if there's no NPC in the party, there will be some situation that involves a number of NPCs who should logically interact. And I've seen it done well. I've had a GM get in a heated argument with himself, with him turning the other way each time he switched characters, as well as changing his posture, mannerisms and the way he talked (though he didn't do accents). You could tell it was taking a lot out of him to keep that up, but it was pretty damn impressive.

After the second session your first NPC got his head cut off, while the second is scarred for life because one of the players raped him.

If the players have any brains, they will see the horrible railroad and derail the campaign much faster to spare everyone the pain of playing with you again.