Let's say that the player party has some sort of special monster helping them long term, for example a dragon or an ogre or whatever.
Something that's powerful and very different from typical PC.
Outside of combat, it can just be played by the DM but what about the combat itself?
I feel like having DM have full control over said powerful creature would just defeat the point, players wouldn't feel the power of this creature that's helping the party, it'd feel like DM fighting against himself.

So, how would you attempt to give control of it to the players?
My main ideas, and why I feel like they wouldn't work are:
>Just make one player play as the monster as straight up their character, providing more unique experience but then it's unique to just one singular player and by default makes them more special than everyone else at the table which obviously kinda sucks
>Each turn another person controls the monster, so turn 1 Player A control it, turn 2 Player B controls it and so on. However this means that the monster is borderline schizophrenic as its plans basically change every single turn since they're controlled by different player each time
>Some sort of meta currency to spend to control it, however this would create an issue of meta PvP game where players have to take away the control from other players or just stop giving a shit about controling the monster themselves altogether
>Players making a decision together. It seems the best at the first glance, but it'd result in shitton of bickering and long turns as players try to come to one decision on what to do every single turn
Is there any way to do this?
To have players be supported by a powerful non-human entity with control over it split between the entire group without making it frustrating?
The more I type it out the more it feels like a pipedream to be abandoned but I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas.

The player that brings the snacks get to play the monster.
Alternatively, the player that actually keeps notes on the campaign.

>>96078053 (OP)
>Baby's first familiar thread

Give them the statblock, then spend the next 15 minutes reviewing notes and looking at pictures of busty argonians while the players fight over who gets to control the cave troll

>>96078053 (OP)
What you're describing is a DMPC. What you should be asking is, why is that something that needs to be in your game?

>>96078053 (OP)
>but what about the combat itself?
It shouldn’t be participating because it should be advancing their goals elsewhere

>>96078053 (OP)
Its not that special or unique.
Palladium/rifts its extremely common to have fully playable stats for monster races that are sentient. Dragons, giants, ferries, ect.
Most are 1step more combat capable than most pc's but 1 to 2 step under in skills.

Honestly, getting a player to not act like a metaphor of a human into a dragon is harder than preparing encounters.
Why limit players to humans and dwarves ? Why not let them be cool shit occasionally?
Get a better system.

What kind of game doesn't let you play as a killer whale, dolphin or hump back whale? Dragons are mundane by comparison....honestly its cliche to say but look past DnD sometime

>>96078053 (OP)
Sounds like you have a DMPC on your hands. For those, I find it best to have it stick to a default behavior cycle unless ordered by another player

ex. Every turn it prioritizes healing the party, and if everyone is healthy it then uses an attack on the nearest foe, and if there are no foes nearby it moves closer to one

There are probably better methods, but I usually go with that so that players won't have to babysit the GMPC, it won't be doing all of the action on the party's behalf, and its actions are consistent so they can plan around it except those occasions where they need it to do something very specific outside of its "programming"

>>96078053 (OP)
There's a licensed campaign that has a strong companion who refuses to help the players in combat because of "I wouldn't want to impede on your fates" or something similar unless the players are dying.

That's a shit idea. What has worked for me with NPC companions is raising the level of abstraction and making players feel like its them that just got a special ability. I give them a card that has a list of the different things the companion does mechanically and in combat: the ranger Dob Bylan gives +2 to the players' survival checks when he is present, and in combat the players can roll a ranged attack with him whenever they want once a round. No map placement, no initiative tracking, no overloading the players with too many choices to make. If you want to avoid player bickering, giving the combat abilities to a single PC works as well. Admittedly, this is pretty videogamey and if the party desperately starts needing Dob to pull a lever or something and placement matters, you might need to start simulating him as a regular stat blocked NPC on the fly.

>>96078053 (OP)
>DM runs it
>one player who the DM trusts to not metagame controls it during combat the DM runs it all other times
either way works really.
the first option you provide would be interesting, but unrealistic. the other three sound terrible.

>>96078053 (OP)
I agree with >>96086340. Just running it yourself works fine unless it *completely* overshadows the party, in which case, why would you want to do this anyway? I've never had players complain about moderately strong GM-controlled allies before.

>>96078053 (OP)
Personally, I would avoid letting the PC's directly control NPCs in combat; unless its some kind of mass-combat where they're organizing troops, or the NPC is directly associated and subordinate to one PC (like a familiar, animal companion, summon, etc). This allows interest in changing tactical situations during combat, where the monster might prioritize things that make sense for its goals/objectives, but not the PCs.
I had a similar situation where they had tamed some horrible spirit to follow the party around, but the spirit definitely had its own ideas on sound tactical decision making. Rather than necessarily instantly go for the enemy commander, it rather consistently slowly threshed its way through the enemy line, giving the PCs smaller scale fights against enemy commanders/elite forces.

>>96078053 (OP)
The GM still should ultimately be in control of the monster companion, but unless it's being given direct guidance by players it's going to just suboptimally hit the closest thing with its most basic attack and avoid special abilities unless it's actually in palpable danger. Issuing direct commands to companions as a bonus action is already a mechanic in 5e, which I'm going to assume you're using, but you can find an equivalent to whatever your system's minor actions are to use for it if not.

>>96078053 (OP)
Don't make it available for combat. Obviously.

>>96078053 (OP)
Mechanics based on whatever makes sense for the monster, why it's helping, what it's abilities and limitations are. Do you need to offload some of the play onto someone else?

Lets take a specific.

Ogre. i would run it myself, with his limitations that he's a dumbass, who isn't necessarily paying attention or gives a fuck to optimal party play. Gets distracted by food. Doesn't start combat ready and needs a turn. Players can take time to yell instructions at him, possibly even full turns.

You could also abstract the monster as sort of a powerup. Imagine a great wyrm, who is geased to fight only under the yoke of man. So one, or more of the party members needs to fucking ride him to get him to do shit. And of course he's a bitch about it, and tosses the character off between combats, so you can't just start there. And there's a possible battle of wills if you don't have enough badges to controll that pokemon.