Topic: How many NPC allies do you allow in the party?

[mtpnj]

We generally do not have NPC's unless it's and escort or essential to story line.  That being said the healing classes were difficult to get someone to play especially at low level.   Since the channeling companion came out and you have the priest class someone is now more than willing to play a priest as you get different bases spells and some give weapon skills as every man so the priest was able to hold his own or defend himself in combat.   Channeling companion made healer class more survivable and fun.

[Cory Magel]

Since the channeling companion came out and you have the priest class someone is now more than willing to play a priest as you get different bases spells and some give weapon skills as every man so the priest was able to hold his own or defend himself in combat.   Channeling companion made healer class more survivable and fun.

I love seeing this. Number one goal of that book was to make 'Clerics' not so damn boring.

[MisterK]

Over the years using RM and RM variants, I've tried several options, from none to about as many as there are PCs in the group (I'm not including one-shot hirelings such as guides, caravan guards, or similar - just "named NPCs" if you wish).

Given the nature of the system, I'm obviously more comfortable with the lower end of the spectrum, but even then I feel dragged down by the number of dice rolls and table reading. Still, I've ended up with a number of dos and don'ts that tend to work for me
- do have the named NPCs be there for a reason other than filling a technical weakness. Romantic relation, friendship, professional buddies, whatever, but no "this is the healer NPC because no one wanted to play a healer".
- do not have the NPCs be the focus of the plot. This is PC territory. The NPCs might be peripheral to the plot but not central (conversely, NPCs that are central to the plot should not be in the same company as the PCs, at least until the PCs actively attach themselves to them).
- given a relative (to the PCs) expertise ranging from "complete nobody" to "nearly omnipotent" with "same as PCs" in the middle, do try to keep named NPCs in a band between "noticeably weaker but not crippingly so" to "slightly better but not in a field that is central to a PC".
- do not have the PCs provide definitive answers to PC questions and problems, but do have them offer opinions... and do not forget to have them being wrong sometimes. NPCs are not paper soldiers, they are fully fleshed characters with their own demeanor, problems and ideals.
- try to avoid attaching more than one NPC to any given PC specifically (see "relations" above). Players tend to relate to one related NPC just fine, but more than that tends to split attention and stunt self-reliance.
- do NOT force a relationship upon a PC. Talk to the player beforehand or, even better, have a pre-campaign solo play that involves the NPC to see if they both click. If they do and the PC finds it natural to have the NPC tagging along, that's great and your NPC is OK. Otherwise, have the NPC live his own life and use it differently (if the PC did click with the NPC, they will likely cross paths sooner or later anyway).
- do not have the NPC displaying one of a kind powers or abilities. They can have abilities none of the PCs have, but those abilities should be at worst known in the world and at best fairly common for someone with the NPC's background.

I must add that I broke most of those rules at least once. I most cases, I wish I hadn't.

Then there are the system-side aspects (which I also try to use for opposing NPCs and faceless opposition):
- try to avoid rolling dice for NPCs for manoeuver actions, unless the NPC is the focus of the scene and there is a real interest in cheking whether they succeed or not. Otherwise, have them perform "as can be expected".
- when an NPC is put against a PC, try to "reverse" the RM engine and have the PCs make all the rolls. The RM combat and critical tables, for instance, can easily be used by replacing an NPC attack roll with a PC defense roll against a NPC-defined base value (NPC base value - PC modified roll = result on the table). Critical rolls can also be made by players (using 101 - player roll as critical result).
[honestly, I can't figure why this mechanism is not proposed as a standard part of the GM toolset].
- when two (or more) NPCs are put against each other, do not roll. Rather, guesstimate the average outcome and how much time it would take to reach that outcome barring any situational change. Then, run the clock until a) the average outcome plays out, b) PCs intervene, or c) the situation changes. Players do not have HUDs with real-time NPC combat status updates - they only know what they see and hear, and you only need to know precisely how much an NPC is hurt when it's healing time (and even then, only if the PCs provide the healing).

I yet have to implement all those aspects formally (i.e. in writing), but the general rule is "focus on PCs all the time, including when NPCs are involved".

I am also working on a mildly heretical variant where combat tables would be drastically compacted : for each AT/AR, only have
- result threshold for crit-less hit and average number of CH inflicted
- for each crit level, result threshold for that crit level and average number of CH inflicted
The more heretical variant would include a streamlining of the critical tables, which would be read on a single d10 (taken as the "units" die of the d100 attack roll). Ideally, I would find a way to have that variant applied to the RR mechanism as well, with the objective of having a "single roll resolution" for all actions - and all rolls on player side.

[Druss_the_Legend]

Over the years using RM and RM variants, I've tried several options, from none to about as many as there are PCs in the group (I'm not including one-shot hirelings such as guides, caravan guards, or similar - just "named NPCs" if you wish).

Given the nature of the system, I'm obviously more comfortable with the lower end of the spectrum, but even then I feel dragged down by the number of dice rolls and table reading. Still, I've ended up with a number of dos and don'ts that tend to work for me
- do have the named NPCs be there for a reason other than filling a technical weakness. Romantic relation, friendship, professional buddies, whatever, but no "this is the healer NPC because no one wanted to play a healer".
- do not have the NPCs be the focus of the plot. This is PC territory. The NPCs might be peripheral to the plot but not central (conversely, NPCs that are central to the plot should not be in the same company as the PCs, at least until the PCs actively attach themselves to them).
- given a relative (to the PCs) expertise ranging from "complete nobody" to "nearly omnipotent" with "same as PCs" in the middle, do try to keep named NPCs in a band between "noticeably weaker but not crippingly so" to "slightly better but not in a field that is central to a PC".
- do not have the PCs provide definitive answers to PC questions and problems, but do have them offer opinions... and do not forget to have them being wrong sometimes. NPCs are not paper soldiers, they are fully fleshed characters with their own demeanor, problems and ideals.
- try to avoid attaching more than one NPC to any given PC specifically (see "relations" above). Players tend to relate to one related NPC just fine, but more than that tends to split attention and stunt self-reliance.
- do NOT force a relationship upon a PC. Talk to the player beforehand or, even better, have a pre-campaign solo play that involves the NPC to see if they both click. If they do and the PC finds it natural to have the NPC tagging along, that's great and your NPC is OK. Otherwise, have the NPC live his own life and use it differently (if the PC did click with the NPC, they will likely cross paths sooner or later anyway).
- do not have the NPC displaying one of a kind powers or abilities. They can have abilities none of the PCs have, but those abilities should be at worst known in the world and at best fairly common for someone with the NPC's background.

I must add that I broke most of those rules at least once. I most cases, I wish I hadn't.

Then there are the system-side aspects (which I also try to use for opposing NPCs and faceless opposition):
- try to avoid rolling dice for NPCs for manoeuver actions, unless the NPC is the focus of the scene and there is a real interest in cheking whether they succeed or not. Otherwise, have them perform "as can be expected".
- when an NPC is put against a PC, try to "reverse" the RM engine and have the PCs make all the rolls. The RM combat and critical tables, for instance, can easily be used by replacing an NPC attack roll with a PC defense roll against a NPC-defined base value (NPC base value - PC modified roll = result on the table). Critical rolls can also be made by players (using 101 - player roll as critical result).
[honestly, I can't figure why this mechanism is not proposed as a standard part of the GM toolset].
- when two (or more) NPCs are put against each other, do not roll. Rather, guesstimate the average outcome and how much time it would take to reach that outcome barring any situational change. Then, run the clock until a) the average outcome plays out, b) PCs intervene, or c) the situation changes. Players do not have HUDs with real-time NPC combat status updates - they only know what they see and hear, and you only need to know precisely how much an NPC is hurt when it's healing time (and even then, only if the PCs provide the healing).

I yet have to implement all those aspects formally (i.e. in writing), but the general rule is "focus on PCs all the time, including when NPCs are involved".

I am also working on a mildly heretical variant where combat tables would be drastically compacted : for each AT/AR, only have
- result threshold for crit-less hit and average number of CH inflicted
- for each crit level, result threshold for that crit level and average number of CH inflicted
The more heretical variant would include a streamlining of the critical tables, which would be read on a single d10 (taken as the "units" die of the d100 attack roll). Ideally, I would find a way to have that variant applied to the RR mechanism as well, with the objective of having a "single roll resolution" for all actions - and all rolls on player side.

thanks for posting this! ur gming experience is obvious to see. iv broken a fair number of these rules myself. the biggest is perhaps having the npcs at the centre of the story or having a bit too much importance. easily sorted by killing them off i guess. heroic death or tragic death perhaps to move the plot fwd.
i agree the tables esp in combat are a hindrance to having many NPCs in the party. ive done away with them in favour of a home brew system that is based on the super smooth combat system. we play exclusively online now. wasnt always the case. but roll20 does lend itself to quick dice rolling and adding up damage etc. we still use the crit tables but the refined combat system ensures they happen rarely and damage in general is about 3-4x what it would normally be if tables would be used. just found it tedious to run larg combats where u had to keep track of all the mods to combat incurred by crits.
back to the NPC topic... i have successfully used 'flashback' bacstorries for two of my longest running pcs and it was quite fun to flesh out them a bit more and give some detail about their NPC father/uncle or other NPC linked to the larger plot. in an ideal world we would have done this in the beginning and had more of a hook built in to the story but its actually worked pretty well and allowed my to drop in some intersting links to the current story arc.

[Druss_the_Legend]

as GM im big on having the pcs drive the story although there is a definite balancing act involved with u sometimes needing to steer them in a certain direction. another mistake u can make, and i have made this one is being too heavy handed with suggestions to the player. i counciled a pc from making a rash decision (he is quite a stressed out person in real life). He changed is mind and he later said he felt i had manipulated him. honest hard hitting feedback and u just need to learn from these situations.

[MisterK]

back to the NPC topic... i have successfully used 'flashback' bacstorries for two of my longest running pcs and it was quite fun to flesh out them a bit more and give some detail about their NPC father/uncle or other NPC linked to the larger plot. in an ideal world we would have done this in the beginning and had more of a hook built in to the story but its actually worked pretty well and allowed my to drop in some intersting links to the current story arc.

I think using flashback scenes has two advantages over doing pre-campaign play:
- what you play is relevant to the game at the moment you play it. The drawback of using pre-campaign play is that the information provided at that time risks getting buried under later info.
- the information is available because it is relevant (flashbacks are played "as the need arises"), while pre-campaign play provides information that might never be relevant.
Conversely, pre-campaign play has advantages over flashbacks:
- the character is played in chronological order, which tends to be easier to memorise than hopping back and forth.
- having pre-campaign play tends to anchor characters in the game world better and provides information that the players are free to use as they wish, even in ways you, as a GM, have not foreseen.

All in all, I think it depends on the kind of game you want to manage: if it is very plot-driven and tightly run, flashbacks, in my opinion, are better. The more long-term and "setting first" the game tends to be, however, the more the advantages of pre-campaign play come to the fore.
Except if you are running a very freeform game where player input drives not only the resolution but the very definition of the plot. In this case, flashbacks are better because they can be initiated by players.

The caveat, of course, being that not all players are comfortable with flashback scenes. I know flashbacks tend to be significantly out of mine's comfort zones

as GM im big on having the pcs drive the story although there is a definite balancing act involved with u sometimes needing to steer them in a certain direction. another mistake u can make, and i have made this one is being too heavy handed with suggestions to the player. i counciled a pc from making a rash decision (he is quite a stressed out person in real life). He changed is mind and he later said he felt i had manipulated him. honest hard hitting feedback and u just need to learn from these situations.

From past experience, any advice provided by *the GM* to *the players* during actual play is a bad idea. The GM already has many tools to provide "in context" information to the players - NPCs can have their own ideas and opinions, events can be set in place, and clues can be dropped to either confirm that the trail they are following is connected to the problem they are trying to solve (or, conversely, that it is related to some other world issue). Providing in-context information has the additional benefit that the information can be incorrect, vague, or biased, and players expect it to be so depending on who or what give them the info.
But trying to steer PCs in some predefined direction when they would, on their own, go another direction is IMO always counter-productive and can be perceived as railroading (which is a capital sin for a GM). The PCs can make mistakes, can follow false trails, can misjudge a situation - it is part of the players' freedom of choice. The role of the GM, as far as I'm concerned, is NOT to ensure the PC stay on the "right path" but to make sure that 1) something interesting happens wherever they go and 2) barring PC death or crippling injury, they will have the opportunity to get back to the main plot if they want. The only thing to monitor is the players' expectations versus the actual duration of the campaign: if players are getting impatient, it's better to give them an opportunity to catch up with the main plot soon

[Druss_the_Legend]

back to the NPC topic... i have successfully used 'flashback' bacstorries for two of my longest running pcs and it was quite fun to flesh out them a bit more and give some detail about their NPC father/uncle or other NPC linked to the larger plot. in an ideal world we would have done this in the beginning and had more of a hook built in to the story but its actually worked pretty well and allowed my to drop in some intersting links to the current story arc.

I think using flashback scenes has two advantages over doing pre-campaign play:
- what you play is relevant to the game at the moment you play it. The drawback of using pre-campaign play is that the information provided at that time risks getting buried under later info.
- the information is available because it is relevant (flashbacks are played "as the need arises"), while pre-campaign play provides information that might never be relevant.
Conversely, pre-campaign play has advantages over flashbacks:
- the character is played in chronological order, which tends to be easier to memorise than hopping back and forth.
- having pre-campaign play tends to anchor characters in the game world better and provides information that the players are free to use as they wish, even in ways you, as a GM, have not foreseen.

All in all, I think it depends on the kind of game you want to manage: if it is very plot-driven and tightly run, flashbacks, in my opinion, are better. The more long-term and "setting first" the game tends to be, however, the more the advantages of pre-campaign play come to the fore.
Except if you are running a very freeform game where player input drives not only the resolution but the very definition of the plot. In this case, flashbacks are better because they can be initiated by players.

The caveat, of course, being that not all players are comfortable with flashback scenes. I know flashbacks tend to be significantly out of mine's comfort zones

as GM im big on having the pcs drive the story although there is a definite balancing act involved with u sometimes needing to steer them in a certain direction. another mistake u can make, and i have made this one is being too heavy handed with suggestions to the player. i counciled a pc from making a rash decision (he is quite a stressed out person in real life). He changed is mind and he later said he felt i had manipulated him. honest hard hitting feedback and u just need to learn from these situations.

From past experience, any advice provided by *the GM* to *the players* during actual play is a bad idea. The GM already has many tools to provide "in context" information to the players - NPCs can have their own ideas and opinions, events can be set in place, and clues can be dropped to either confirm that the trail they are following is connected to the problem they are trying to solve (or, conversely, that it is related to some other world issue). Providing in-context information has the additional benefit that the information can be incorrect, vague, or biased, and players expect it to be so depending on who or what give them the info.
But trying to steer PCs in some predefined direction when they would, on their own, go another direction is IMO always counter-productive and can be perceived as railroading (which is a capital sin for a GM). The PCs can make mistakes, can follow false trails, can misjudge a situation - it is part of the players' freedom of choice. The role of the GM, as far as I'm concerned, is NOT to ensure the PC stay on the "right path" but to make sure that 1) something interesting happens wherever they go and 2) barring PC death or crippling injury, they will have the opportunity to get back to the main plot if they want. The only thing to monitor is the players' expectations versus the actual duration of the campaign: if players are getting impatient, it's better to give them an opportunity to catch up with the main plot soon

yep. guilty of railroading on this one. not my usual way of operating at all. in hindsight i can see we were feeling the pressure of time constraints during this session. dealing with an indecisive player is a challenge. the temptation is to help them make the 'right'decision or just make a decision.
i think i was myself suffering from GM burnout (the reason im taking a well earned hiatus from the campaign).
i give plot clues and am always intrigued by how the players interpret these, the often give me ideas for future sessions when they talk out load about what they think is going on.

[Nightblade42]

MisterK, have you ever tried using both Pre-Campaign Play & Flashbacks in the same campaign?  In my mind, you might get the best of both worlds.  The Flashbacks might have more depth because of the Pre-Campaign Play; while the Pre-Campaign Play material might have more impact if revisted during a Flashback.

I wonder if anyone has tried both within the same game?

Nightblade ->--

[MisterK]

MisterK, have you ever tried using both Pre-Campaign Play & Flashbacks in the same campaign?  In my mind, you might get the best of both worlds.  The Flashbacks might have more depth because of the Pre-Campaign Play; while the Pre-Campaign Play material might have more impact if revisted during a Flashback.

I wonder if anyone has tried both within the same game?

Nightblade ->--

No, I have not. As I said, flashbacks are out of my regular player group comfort zone

I have used directed flashbacks several times, but this is different - it typically involves getting information directly from the mind of someone and the players are passive, whereas flashback as a RP technique actively involves players and gives them interpretative agency.

So, no.

I am, on the average, much more a pre-campaign solo play type of GM. My last RM campaign had several months worth of solo and duo play before the campaign proper began (the campaign itself ran for five years and a hundred sessions). When directing shorter campaigns, I tend to cut down on the solo play (sometimes replacing it with written background, as I did in the previous campaign).

[Nightblade42]

I can understand that.  Flashbacks can sometimes come off as a little hokey.  Though, I think the tie-in with the pre-campaign play would reduce the hokeiness.

I was just wondering if anyone had tried it.  No biggie if no one has.

Nightblade ->--