What's your favorite kind of high level "friendly" NPC?

[Foxwarrior]

People here seem to often complain about (especially Paizo) NPCs who are generally on the players' side (or at least not enemies the players are supposed to kill or defeat in order to progress) but who are much higher level than the party and thus not a fair fight.
But not all high level NPCs are created equal. I think my favorite would probably be the kind where you know where they stand and what they want and (as a player) have a decent chance at manipulating them to act in desirable ways.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Wait, let me run that through a sanity filter super quick...

People here seem to often complain about (especially Paizo) NPCs who are generally on the players' side (or at least not enemies the players are supposed to kill or defeat in order to progress) but who are much higher level than the party and thus not a fair fight.
But not all high level NPCs are created equal. I think my favorite would probably be the kind where you know where they stand and what they want and (as a player) have a decent chance at manipulating them to act in desirable ways.
[But I don't mind the ones I imagine I can personally control for some reason.]

I don't think you have made an adequate attempt at describing or understanding the thing people dislike that you for some weird ass personal agenda reason desperately want to find sub categories of that you can point at and call OK.

edit : Also. "over leveled toys are OK when I personally can control them" is perhaps the least self aware angle to come at this from.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

PL, what the hell are you babbling about?

I'm a fan of the kind who dies so I can get all their cool shit and use it for their REAL purpose - making my penis feel big in a pretend fantasy game. Unlike real life, high-level NPCs in TTRPGs exist as a stepping stone for my story. But like real life, anyone with power over me is my enemy.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

In this context "high" level NPCs is basically a euphemism being used to downplay NPCs you cannot reasonably expect to defeat.

So no, "the type you kill and take all their stuff" excludes them from the initial category by definition.

[Lord Charlemagne]

The question as a whole seems kind of non-starter because high level friendly NPC is pretty much an archetype among themselves with only so much variation between them. The only real variations on the idea is how they help the party, how often they help the party, & what is their connection to the party or a specific PC (& maybe how soon will they stop being high level in comparison to the party). Most answers that aim to answer the question would be, "I liked a high level friendly NPC in X context", which doesn't tend to be very informative since it rarely grounds the answer in actual context, as NPCs are a highly contextual part of a TTRPG, being system, campaign, & GM sensitive thing (if not more things I'm forgetting about).

I think there is room for discussion for how a GM can handle NPC design to create a coherent and functional location, setting, or campaign for various TTRPGs as designing & operating stuff from the GM side of things tends to not see as much discussion as the player sides of things, but "I like X" isn't much of a kickstarter for discussion as it naturally leads to the responses of, "I also like X", "I like Y" or "Okay" and the conversation is hard to develop from there.

[Foxwarrior]

"I like X" isn't much of a kickstarter for discussion as it naturally leads to the responses of, "I also like X", "I like Y" or "Okay" and the conversation is hard to develop from there.

You say that, but the first two replies were "how dare you suggest that any X could be likeable" and "I like Y (which actually isn't the same as X)"

[Thaluikhain]

But not all high level NPCs are created equal. I think my favorite would probably be the kind where you know where they stand and what they want and (as a player) have a decent chance at manipulating them to act in desirable ways.

I suppose that would include the important person who gives you a quest/mission, gives you accurate information (at least if you bother to ask) and honours the deal with no intentional duplicity afterwards. Good solid starting point there. Hard to make betrayal interesting if everyone always expects to be betrayed.

[MGuy]

In practice, as a GM my favorite use of this is a High level NPC that dispenses treats to the players. It is a win win kind of situation that provides me with a convenient way to funnel the goodies I might want to give out and players tend to respond positively to an NPC who gives them stuff. This could be the same NPC that gives them missions but isn't always. Could be the proprietor of ye olde magic shoppe or something else.

[Foxwarrior]

edit : Also. "over leveled toys are OK when I personally can control them" is perhaps the least self aware angle to come at this from.

Well, when you put it that way, yeah that is pretty much what I was thinking. The problem with high level "friendly" NPCs, I thought, was that they boss the players around, give them bizarre pop quizzes sometimes (??), and make a mockery of the players' adventure by implicitly indicating that the whole thing is beneath them. But if the players can manipulate the high level NPC, then instead they're more like a river that they can redirect into the dungeon with conversation instead of engineering

I dunno, I generally get annoyed by the existence of beings much more powerful than me, but you're supposed to have some in your setting for verisimilitude or whatever and I thought this kind might be worth encouraging a bit.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

...for verisimilitude or whatever and I thought this kind might be worth...

So. Best guesses. Is this...
A) You not even knowing what you want to say.
B) You trying to obscure what you want to say because you know that what you want to actually say won't be well received.
C) You surrounding the thing you want to say with so many potential avenues for back downs and back pedals that it no longer means anything.
?

And having a high level NPC you can just ask to complete adventures for you kinda IS an example of severely diminishing the value of player contributions, even if they opt in. Just possibly it is especially bad if they all collectively prefer it to actually playing the game.

[Dogbert]

The problem with RPeen NPCs is that they shatter WSOD merely by existing. Why are the lvl 1 chumps even here when Elminster can save the world -now-? Why isn't he doing it already? Refer to The Problem of Evil. Furthermore, if the reason they're Willing But Not Able is that they have legitimately much bigger fish to fry, your adventure is automatically reduced to piddly shit by comparison. Unless I'm specifically pitching a Konosuba/Super Losers kind of premise, I like my players to feel they're the actual protagonists and what they do matters.

Thus, the only ones I can like are those that...
a) Die at the beginning of the story. This is a win-win: If you didn't give the NPC any personality or played them like an asshole, players celebrate their death. If they were actually a likable character and the players lament their death, then that's great for the game.
b) Are disabled: Call it bedridden, depowered, or have otherwise legitimate reasons why they can no longer save the day.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

"I like X" isn't much of a kickstarter for discussion as it naturally leads to the responses of, "I also like X", "I like Y" or "Okay" and the conversation is hard to develop from there.

You say that, but the first two replies were "how dare you suggest that any X could be likeable" and "I like Y (which actually isn't the same as X)"

Hey, loot pinatas are a valuable form of NPC!

[Foxwarrior]

...for verisimilitude or whatever and I thought this kind might be worth...

So. Best guesses. Is this...

Probably A. Seems unlikely to be B, surely I would have tried defending the existence of some high level NPCs during any of the times it came up on the Den in the past ten years, rather than just thinking of this angle yesterday.

[Kaelik]

I think the answer is that anything can be cool and fun if it happens once and you are playing a game with your friends and maybe they do a good job, but that if there were game mechanics that allowed the BMX bandit to call on the angel summoner to do adventures with him and the angel summoner was a dmpc, that in practice that would be less fun for the BMX bandit player every time after after first time and they might stop doing it. Or just wish they were playing the angel summoner.

[angelfromanotherpin]

There's a classic CRPG trope where even though you are saving the world from capital-E evil, merchants who should have a plain interest in seeing you succeed continue to charge exorbitant prices for your gear, even though maintaining their profit margin might cause you to fail, the short-sighted ingrates. The first counter-example I experienced was in Medievil, where the merchants are gargoyle heads animated by the big bad's evil magic, and I was grateful to have their wares at all, because they were plainly associated with Team Bad Guy and could very reasonably have offered nothing.

That's been my answer to this problem a few times: someone who can provide resources that the PCs don't have, and will provide them because of their own motivations, but whose interests at least seem to align with the opposition.

[Foxwarrior]

I think the answer is that anything can be cool and fun if it happens once and you are playing a game with your friends and maybe they do a good job, but that if there were game mechanics that allowed the BMX bandit to call on the angel summoner to do adventures with him and the angel summoner was a dmpc, that in practice that would be less fun for the BMX bandit player every time after after first time and they might stop doing it. Or just wish they were playing the angel summoner.

It's really quite a lot like the redirecting a river into the dungeon thing. Hacky ways to bypass challenges are generally more fun the first time.

Although I wonder if a politics game about convincing big dumb hunks to do all your fighting for you would be fun...

[Krusk]

I wouldn't be upset with a high level NPC that takes the Zordon route. Hes probably a badass of some sort, but hes also trapped in a glass tube, and can really only scry, dispense plot/knowledge, and give you giant mechs. He was a great warrior back in the day, but now he needs 5 teenagers with attitude to go on quests for him. (In DND you could insert some bound or trapped outsider, like a genie or something)

There are loads of ways you can introduce a high-level ally that aren't offensive, and you're probably not using the Zordon example every time without it being hackey. I think the important part is the high level NPC can't go solve the problem on his own for some reason better than "I'm busy". If hes just busy, that immediately makes the quest you send your PCs on seem less important, because it clearly is. Instead, the NPC should be indebted and reliant on the PCs, even if he is on paper higher level and has access to some powers that are way higher level than the PCs.

[deaddmwalking]

When a high level NPC exists, it's automatically disempowering to the PCs - you're basically saying there's someone that can use force against them and they have no chance to 'win'. When that NPC tries to make the PCs do something they don't want to do, conflict increases. If the NPC wants PCs to do something that they're unwilling to do, it automatically reduces the importance of the mission commensurately.

The best case is when the NPC is neither aligned or opposed to the PC - a completely neutral party with completely separate interests - that the PCs can choose to interact with (or not) as needed. Think the giant turtle in Neverending Story. Essentially it is an encounter that can't be 'won' by brute force - it requires negotiation and/or the exchange of services. To avoid the issues above, the NPC would need something that they can't easily get on their own - the PCs need something they can offer that's actually meaningful. Trying to get that balance right is difficult.

PCs have generally responded well to rulers that are sincerely interested in the well-being of their people, have very obvious challenges that require their ongoing immediate attention (like leading their army in defense of the city), willing to provide assistance to the PCs (armor, weapons, even if limited) and/or promise of reward if the PCs can do something the NPC can't (like leave the besieged city and kill the evil wizard in Isengard, relieving the siege) and actually doing it.

[merxa]

'high level NPC' becomes a bit of a shared conceit for people who play long enough. Typically people playing enjoy adventuring, and asking an npc to do the adventuring for you isn't satisfying. So a new player may feel like they are being clever, but if every time they asked the powerful npc to solve their problems and they did so they probably will stop playing or stop asking for the help and do it themselves. There's certainly no experience or loot in having the NPC complete the dungeon without you.

for verisimilitude everyone might agree high level npcs exist, and are pushing their own agenda, but players will typically avoid them whenever possible and there's the tacit assumption the gm is going to be providing level appropriate encounters, unless they themselves are looking to pick a fight. One thing I found agreeable with 5e was how much flatter it was, even if the PCs are interacting with something powerful it may not be instant death or a tpk to oppose it. 5e was ultimately too flat as and even powerful pcs could feel easily overwhelmed by relatively small forces -- i think ideally you would want emergent narrative powers from certain mechanical powers.

[Thaluikhain]

Watching the Viva La Dirt League DnD thingy, and one thing that happened was a High Level NPC had 6 missions that needed doing, gave a brief description of them and let the players choose 3, while the NPC would complete the other 3 off-screen. Which was interesting and allowed the players to decide what they wanted to do (or didn't want to do), though it means making 3 missions you won't use, or will re-use later on without giving the players a choice.

[merxa]

of course after the PCs finish their 3 missions they will return and find out the powerful NPC never returned from their first mission... leaving the PCs to either complete the other two, or take the risk of going after whatever may have stopped the powerful npc.

[srcs]

No one is "on the players' side" by default. The players choose who they will ally with or against, if anyone. Naturally, if they take actions that align with or against the interests of other characters, those characters may offer assistance or resistance, but there is not a single character anywhere in the universe that the players are ever expected or required to interact with, or "take quests" from.
All characters in the world are subject to the same trait cap the players are.
Characters who have abilities or powers at or near the trait cap are rare.
All characters in the world have their own lives and concerns independent of the players.

[erik]

I most like the zordon method. Handicap the Uber NPC in some way, usually in travel. There needs to be a reason the character who is more capable than the PCs doesn’t do their job yet still is supreme in their region of dominance, and limited mobility is a fine way to do it.

In my game I currently run the strongest NPCs in the region are old/venerable and in charge of administration. They can lay the snack down in a single fight but prolonged adventuring with crappy Con is just waiting for RNG to kill you on a bad beat. Plus they didn’t become powerful just to see their region run poorly. They want it run their way.

The strongest by far is queen, an Azer who was bound to her husband the king but outlived him in war and had been stuck ruling on the Prime for so long that she cannot be away from her heating areas for long. When not seated on her heated throne, she mostly toils away in a forge creating an army of golems so she can leave the kingdom protected in the hands of a worthy successor. She wants to go home to the plane if Fire but is bound to the kingdom until an heir is found.

I figure plot lines will either be: finding an heir who was turned to stone long ago, becoming successors/heirs themselves, usurping the kingdom from the queen, or dealing with whatever corrupt successor takes over inheriting an army of golems, or dealing with the fall of the kingdom to one of its neighbors (or to golems run amok).

Anywho having a bound outsider as an Uber NPC can let you impose limitations which the PCs can be a workaround to.

A dragon who refuses to leave their hoard would be another travel limited powerful friendly NPC.

[erik]

I now want to make a setting where dragons are convinced that land ownership can be part of their hoard and they jealously protect their city as it is part of their wealth. So you get rival dragon kingdoms and act as agents of a dragon king/queen or as rebels or upstarts.

[Kaelik]

I now want to make a setting where dragons are convinced that land ownership can be part of their hoard and they jealously protect their city as it is part of their wealth. So you get rival dragon kingdoms and act as agents of a dragon king/queen or as rebels or upstarts.

Isn't that just Shadowrun?