|
So I saw some comments about DMPCs being used/abused in games, and I wonder what opinions/stories people have about them.
I ask because I've used DMPCs before, but always in a more passive role (such as a bard) and always in a niche that was not already filled by another player. None of my players seems to have been bothered by it, and a couple even rather liked the character.
My take has always been that as long as you aren't taking the glory from a player (whether by giving the DMPC face-time or by stepping on a PC's chosen specialization), a DMPC is fine. Not the best use of a DM's time, but not a particularly bad thing.
Any particularly good/bad stories out there?
For me, playing one-on-one with just one player makes DMPCs practically a necessity.
I've told many DMPC stories on these boards, but as for the player liking / disliking them, the darnedest story I've ever told was in my first post on paizo.com ever. Link.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure the very worst offense a GM can commit is utilizing a GMPC.
But let me say, before this causes an uproar, that there is a huge difference between an NPC in the party and a GMPC. The major differences are:
1) Vested interest--a GM has no vested interest in the survival of an NPC. It's just an NPC, no different from any other background characters. I mean, no GM cares if the butcher in the local town dies, right? Meanwhile, a GM has huge vested interest in a GMPC--it is their character after all. They want their PC to survive and be awesome!
2) Drawn focus--a GM does not draw focus towards NPCs, the players do. An NPC only has spotlight when a PC gives it to them by virtue of interacting with them. For example, an NPC thief picks a lock because one of the PCs asked/told them to do it or brought them along specifically for those sorts of purposes. A GMPC, meanwhile, is fully capable of taking spotlight for themselves or even generating it for NPCs by interacting with them. In fact, this can create a chain of problems, since NPCs the players normally wouldn't give a damn about can end up with spotlight because the GM puts them into focus via his GMPC interacting with him. "Tell me about your childhood, oh great Wizard." "What? No, let's move on." "No, Dr. Awesome wants to know about the Wizard's childhood."
3) Power--a GM does not make his NPCs more powerful than the party. NPCs have the same (or more often, lower) pointbuy, class levels, intelligent feat choices, etc. And in fact, if the PCs suck at making their characters, the GM makes their NPCs even more sucky, to make sure there's no overshadowing. "I'm a half-dragon half drow Sorcerer and she's a Wizard/Monk/Rogue!" "Oh, well, uh, you meet a Kobold Barbarian with a shield and dagger..." A GMPC, however, is not bound by this law. A GMPC is as powerful as the GM is able to make it utilizing any and all tricks in the book. "I'm a dual wielding Paladin and he's a Ranger with a Crossbow, because Crossbows are cool." "Ok, meet Father Facekicker, a Divine Metamagic Cleric." Especially egregious ones will have house rules built around their schtick. If the GM ever tells you about all his houserules for grappling and then brings in a GMPC Tetori Monk, be afraid.
4) Deus ex-machina problem/puzzle/mystery solving--a GM does not solve puzzles of his own design via NPC sources. At best, NPCs might offer cryptic hints or clues if asked, but unless your players hate puzzles and brought an NPC along specifically to solve them, an NPC does not solve problems/puzzles/mysteries for the PCs. "Who killed him?" "I don't know, maybe we should check the scene again, re-examine that dagger?" A GMPC, however, solves them like there's no tomorrow. "Who killed him?" "Jo-Bob the mountain man--didn't you notice the carving from his wife on the handle of the dagger?"
So, an NPC in the party is fine--a GMPC never is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMPCs, like anything else, can be bad if handled wrong. They can also be good for the game.
In my first campaign, I included a Miniatures Handbook Healer as the fourth character. She was pure support, an extra source of healing. The only time she ever stepped on the parties' toes was against undead, where her Heals were the strongest offense available.
Another benefit was I had a constant character to speak through when the party wanted nudges in the right direction. She never made decisions, only gave advice.
Can DMPCs take over the campaign? Certainly. Is this the fault of the NPC? No. It's the fault of the DM misusing them.
There are very strict rules to follow if you want to make a DMPC work; mplindustries pretty much summed them up, and TOZ gave good supporting examples.
If you have 3 PCs and they need a 4th character to round out the party, there's nothing wrong with the DM saying, "here, you guys run Korgash for me, will you?" and letting the dice fall where they may.
In contrast, there is everything wrong with the DM saying "The mighty Korgash will lead you on your quest."
The players should always be the ones making their own decisions, and their characters should be the ones in the spotlight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM
Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.
Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.
Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.
I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battler or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.
I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run.
|
|
I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battler or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.
Maybe we should call these DMNPCs instead. This would be to match up with the sentiment that the only good DMPC is one that isn't really a PC.
This thread calls to mind a really enjoyable campaign I had with a buddy of mine, when we couldn't find any other players. For each adventure we'd each run our own PC. We'd trade off DMing, and the unspoken rule was that if you were DMing, the other guy's PC got to be the "leader," as it were, and take the lead when it came to making party decisions. It actually worked out amazingly well, but in retrospect the setup follows most of mplindustries' rules, particularly Rules 2 and 3.
|
|
The question is, do you need to tack 'DM' onto 'NPC' if it is not being used to refer to a DM's PC?
The key difference being that most NPCs don't follow the party around and help out directly in the adventure. At least, not on a consistent basis from adventure to adventure, which is what I assume these NPCs do.
Maybe a better term would be PNPC? (Partied NPC, or an NPC that is considered a party member of sorts.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Supporting Actor (as opposed to Co-Star).
I've told stories about my most hated DMPC occurance on this board many times, so I'll keep it short: There was a half-minotaur (?) Cleric named Moo. Sure, he started off innocent enough- he was created by the DM to fill out our obscenely large revolving-door group of PCs since the DM loved playing for a large group of PCs. However, he also ran a very deadly game (literally every combat left at least half the group in negatives), and it became clear to everyone that there was a reason why the DM had never quite made it clear what Moo's stats were- the DM, whether intentionally or not, made Moo more powerful than the entire party combined. He was easily capable of taking hundreds of hit points' worth of damage before going down (we were at level 5), had an AC at least five higher than anyone else in the group, and he was the only one capable of hitting the random encountered enemies' ridiculous ACs (and he hit like a truck too). One savvy player realized this more than anyone else, and from that point on, he exploited Moo's invincibility to the fullest extent, spending every resource to buff Moo and then hide. Moo never did anything other than help out in combat, though (he rarely said anything other than "Moo"), except for when the savvy player above pissed off the DM- at which point Moo proceded to step aside during a tense combat and do literally nothing as some form of childish "payback" towards the player in question. I later found out from one of the other players (the only one who had the patience to play with this DM for more than a couple months, unlike the dozen of players that came and went) that this DM's been playing Moo in some form or another for every campaign he's ever run.
Yeah. It was bad.
So, to lighten the mood, here's an opposite story that I experienced!
I was running the Age of Worms a few years back, and with a small party (3 PCs, all of them some form of front-line fighter), it occured to me that the party seriously lacked a trapfinder and an arcane specialist. Knowing how deadly the campaign was going to be, I talked it over with the group- and eventually they decided they wanted me to make a DMPC to fill in the missing roles. I eventually made a rogue/sorcerer, who wouldn't really excell at anything but would be able to provide a bit of support, mainly outside of combat. I even had decided on an interesting backstory for her (stolen straight from an older WotC 3e adventure)- she was a Pit Fiend who, using a powerful divination spell, had found out about the Age of Worms and all that it entailed, and knew that if it happened, she'd be screwed over in some form or another. So, in order to stop it (all in her own best interest, of course- no real regard for the rest of the material plane) she used a cleverly-worded wish to transform herself into a less-powerful form in order to help the heroes that were destined to try to stop it. By the time I made this character and had everything lined up in order to introduce her, some changes happened in the campaign- specifically, one of the players re-made his character as more of a skill monkey (thus taking care of the trapfinding/sneaking issue), and another character invested heavily in UMD and lots of scrolls, so the arcane necessity was less of an issue. In the end, the players themselves realized it wasn't necessary, so I was more than happy to shelve the DMPC and only mentioned her in passing at one point later in the campaign.
This thread calls to mind a really enjoyable campaign I had with a buddy of mine, when we couldn't find any other players. For each adventure we'd each run our own PC. We'd trade off DMing, and the unspoken rule was that if you were DMing, the other guy's PC got to be the "leader," as it were, and take the lead when it came to making party decisions. It actually worked out amazingly well, but in retrospect the setup follows most of mplindustries' rules, particularly Rules 2 and 3.
While I'm very strongly opposed to any form of DMPC, I think that a two-person game is a reasonable exception. When you're roleplaying with only two people in the room, many of the usual "rules of good gamemastering" are entirely different, and the stories become much more personal and individually focused.
|
|
This thread calls to mind a really enjoyable campaign I had with a buddy of mine, when we couldn't find any other players. For each adventure we'd each run our own PC. We'd trade off DMing, and the unspoken rule was that if you were DMing, the other guy's PC got to be the "leader," as it were, and take the lead when it came to making party decisions. It actually worked out amazingly well, but in retrospect the setup follows most of mplindustries' rules, particularly Rules 2 and 3.While I'm very strongly opposed to any form of DMPC, I think that a two-person game is a reasonable exception. When you're roleplaying with only two people in the room, many of the usual "rules of good gamemastering" are entirely different, and the stories become much more personal and individually focused.
Agreed. A 2-person game is a very different animal entirely. Once you hit 3+ players, a DMPC should not be necessary (usually you can just change the campaign a bit).
I like Kirth's suggestion of calling an NPC that adventures with the party a Supporting Actor of sorts. Possibly SNPC? (Supporting NPC). This would be different than a Cohort primarily in mechanics (no feat supporting it, treated as a full member rather than a minion, etc). Having the word "supporting" in there leaves the implication that the NPC is not supposed to work directly very much, which is a good implication to have.
All-in-all it seems that the absolute worst thing a DMPC can do is to take the narrative away from the PCs in any appreciable way.
The term used in the 3.5 DMG is "Ally".
The term used in the 3.5 DMG is "Ally".
Given the number of feats and abilities in PF that reference "allies" to refer to the rest of the party (other PCs), I'd prefer a different term, just from the standpoint of clarity of game terms language.
The term used in the 3.5 DMG is "Ally".Given the number of feats and abilities in PF that reference "allies" to refer to the rest of the party (other PCs), I'd prefer a different term, just from the standpoint of clarity of game terms language.
I never ran into any confusion while playing 3.5.
EDIT: Besides, I think that is kind of the point. The character should be theoretically indistinguishable from another "ally" in the party.
|
|
The term used in the 3.5 DMG is "Ally".Given the number of feats and abilities in PF that reference "allies" to refer to the rest of the party (other PCs), I'd prefer a different term, just from the standpoint of clarity of game terms language.I never ran into any confusion while playing 3.5.
EDIT: Besides, I think that is kind of the point. The character should be theoretically indistinguishable from another "ally" in the party.
I've seen it happen. An NPC that some party member's trust and some don't can happen easily enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question is, do you need to tack 'DM' onto 'NPC' if it is not being used to refer to a DM's PC?
Mmm quite. There is a great difference between a dmpc, and a long-running, well-played and helpful party npc. Those you remember.
Good idea cranewings. Yes, I've added ranger archers as support npcs.
-
To prevent a dmpc from developing, you can also give the players absolute choice in whom they bring along. Games like Suikoden have done this, and it prevents the players from ever feeling any of the npcs were forced onto the party.
My favourite npc which accompanies the party, just happens to be the one always chosen to be a part of it. The players want him there. He really compliments them, and backs them up. His story has developed as the plot has, and other npcs have been recruited, but they are taken along a lot less.
So yeah, give the players the choice of any joining npcs, absolute veto (mostly role-played of course) and build up a number of npcs that could join. I have seen another dm do this really well in kingmaker.
I tend to run games for small parties so I tend to throw in a support character. I do not, repeat, do not run a front line anything when I GM. My last few NPCs reflect this:
A cleric with a reach weapon who would stand back and stab while the PCs ran to the front and got the glory. Then healed them once it was over.
A history nerd in Call of Cthulhu who read all the books.
A bard with a bow. Shot things and played the bongos.
A summoner. This is a campaign with one solo PC. The summoner hangs back with a bow and buffs the PC. The eidolon provides a warm body for the PC to flank with. Half the time the eidolon isn't even present.
Each one has a complex story behind them but I'm a writer! Give me two minutes with a flattened penny and I can spin a tale all about how it got that way. The key to dealing with those complex stories is...
Never. Tell. Them.
I have never told a character backstory. I spin adventures around the PC's backstories to the point where one series of adventures was a long quest to find a PC's long lost father. An AP was twisted to become one PC's ultimate quest to retake Sargava for the glory of Cheliax. No NPC has ever gotten such an adventure. No NPC ever will. As far as my PCs and my players are concerned the NPC is there to keep them fighting one round longer than the other guy. To take the extra shift on night watch so they can regain their spells in the morning. To take that crit so the PC doesn't die. To let the players have fun.
I try to use DMPC's sparingly if at all, for the simple reason that any PC I make is going to be over optimized compared to how my main group of players will make their characters. Though sometimes they do have a time and place, the real key is figuring out when that time is
Give me two minutes with a flattened penny and I can spin a tale all about how it got that way.
Tosses you a flattened penny
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to run games for small parties so I tend to throw in a support character. I do not, repeat, do not run a front line anything when I GM. My last few NPCs reflect this:
A cleric with a reach weapon who would stand back and stab while the PCs ran to the front and got the glory. Then healed them once it was over.
A history nerd in Call of Cthulhu who read all the books.
A bard with a bow. Shot things and played the bongos.
A summoner. This is a campaign with one solo PC. The summoner hangs back with a bow and buffs the PC. The eidolon provides a warm body for the PC to flank with. Half the time the eidolon isn't even present.
Each one has a complex story behind them but I'm a writer! Give me two minutes with a flattened penny and I can spin a tale all about how it got that way. The key to dealing with those complex stories is...
Never. Tell. Them.
I have never told a character backstory. I spin adventures around the PC's backstories to the point where one series of adventures was a long quest to find a PC's long lost father. An AP was twisted to become one PC's ultimate quest to retake Sargava for the glory of Cheliax. No NPC has ever gotten such an adventure. No NPC ever will. As far as my PCs and my players are concerned the NPC is there to keep them fighting one round longer than the other guy. To take the extra shift on night watch so they can regain their spells in the morning. To take that crit so the PC doesn't die. To let the players have fun.
It does seem though, like you are missing out on what could be done with npcs. As a writer and a storyteller, surely you can see the npcs are just another vehicle to move things along and tell a great tale.
Some of my party npcs have a backstory which does lead to quests. Skyrim does it for instance. Where the pcs help an npc resolve something/find an item/hunt someone/help them save face.
Simply, I make them almost equals, but not quite. The golden rule is that they are characters but the game isn't all about them. So when you say, the npc is there to take the extra shift on night watch, so the spellcaster can gain their spells, I immediately jump to this question--would the npc be fine to do that? Because they aren't just tools, that is the common view of npcs. If the player has a good rep with the npc, he might do more than take watch, he might do a suicide charge to save the pc, leap in front of a crit. If the pc treats the npc like crap, then it makes no sense for the npc to be loyal, go the extra mile. Which is where how the two pcs treated Tymeke the hobgoblin is instructive in how it can go. One treated him poorly, dismissively, decided his char was prejudiced towards chaotic hobgoblins of Andoran, almost killed him via scimitar on horseback. The other aided Tymeke, befriended him, learned some of his backstory, helped him kill former murderous bandits he ran with, turned him to the good alignment, they ended up killing a dragon together! And that is the difference, if an npc is just a tool, there isn't much potential. If they are a real npc, they can be a rival or a real, fleshed-out ally.
A last example. A young lad from Gillamoor called Charry, survives a zombie uprising; turned to looting to survive. Shared only what he got with those close to him, was only a little successful. The refugees hated him and his friends for this. He didn't share with the majority. One pc tries to throw him to the mob to aid their rise to power, another defends him. All his looting friends die in the squabble to bring them to "justice", but when the melee in the snow ends, he is alive. He joins the party of his defender as a very low level scout. Now he has to level to survive. So as he moves through Isger fighting all sorts of nasty creatures, aberration goats, vampire poet, pits og goblin snakes, hellknights, bearhound, a white dragon etc. He levels up quickly, and this young somewhat nervous guy, becomes an actual confident hero. He isn't as good as the pcs, but he is learning, developing, growing as a character and a figure of the region. His defender wants him around, and he is loyal as can be (along with Tymeke, who the pc also helped). That is how a real party comes together, it is much better than meeting at a bar, a party only being pcs, ignoring npcs and other possible allies and treating them like tools.
Our Friday group plays for almost 20 years now.
We rotate DMing duties but in the last years it has been usually me DMing.
We ALWAYS use DMPC's, all of us.
There never has been a problem.
We follow simple guidelines:
- The DMPC will be a surporting Character filling a opne niche-
- The DMPC may stay at home if all players are present
- The DMPC choses magical items last
- The DMPC does not participate in riddles
- If my DMPC is a caster, I ask the group which spells to learn in the morning
Why we don't use NPC's instead?
- NPC are not the DM's charakters so we tend to absue them, tread them badly and except them to die for us, every time a NPC tagged along it ended in frustrated people and discussions at the gaming table
A DMPC makes the Dm truly neutral, he stands on both sides of the fight
Mr. Fishy ran a DMPC sorcerer that argued with the party bard, got the ranger arrested for his murder [he then testified at the trial], the only character that liked him was the cleric. His name was Max Valentine and he was the party's "Leader". He was a drunken gambler and a shameless coward but he could gather infomation like a champ. When he died giving them a chance to escape every one felt bad and missed him.
That was a fun character. Mr. FIshy usual runs silent fighter types to fill a need in the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind when having these discussions is your definition might not be the same as someone else's. I've heard the term "DMPC" used to described:
1)Any NPC that the DM runs that joins the party, no matter how strong or weak.
2)Any overpowered NPC that the DM runs, in the party or not.
3)Any character the DM "cheats" for.
4)"This foe is beyond any of you." types of characters. Ones that travel with the party if only to show how pathetic the party is. "You go kill those 5 1st level goblin warriors, I'll be over here dealing with the Balor."
5)An NPC that is the equivalent of a PC in the party. That is, if a non-DM was running the character, then it would be a PC. This character has comparable gear and abilities to the PCs.
5a)In a game where the people trade off the roll of DM regularly, it is the current DM's character.
Mr. Fishy has a had high level NPC in fights with the party. The High level NPC usually pulls hold the line duty, while the party performs some vital side task.[lead the prisoners to safety, steal the plans from the now unguarded command tent.]
@ Pres man
You shall not level!
I, like Blueluck, and vehemently opposed to DMpcs. NPCs are great. I'm talking about a specific character that adventures with the party as a core member of their group. Even in a support role, I find it takes spotlight away from the players.
I would much rather bend the rules and give the group custom magic items to fill roles (such as a crystal that can heal enough so that the role in the party isn't an issue).
As for giving hints...I prefer not to do that either. The group will always come up with a way to do SOMETHING, and then we can go from there. I don't write them into dead-end scenarios very often where they MUST figure out a certain thing. And sometimes, it's ok if they fail (makes the success that much sweeter). On the rare occasions that the players (not the characters) need a hint, I just give it to them out of game. They're smart people, they know that a DMpc giving them a hint is as big of a bailout as me just giving it to them out of game (and the problem is sometimes ME, not them, obviously). It's STILL more fun for them to then roleplay how their characters change course and realize that hint in game, rather than just going "Well, thank you DM-mouthpiece character!"
(None of this applies in a 2 person game, of course)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often include a DMPC* when the party is lacking a character role AND the party is interested in having someone cover that role.
To be clear, I never force a DMPC on the group, instead I tell them, "Play what you want to play. If you think you still have a role that needs filled, I can always make up a character to be party of the group if you wish." My groups tend to like this because it keeps the person who is most laid back or passive from being forced into a role they don't really want to play, healer being the most common.
Now, true I could include gobs of potions and wands. Maybe even minor artifacts that can substitute for these missing roles, but why would those things not show up when the role is not missing? Wouldn't that seem artificial to anyone else?
Having an equal party member is preferred for me than some weaker version. I dislike the character being The Load. It also let's the players know that their characters aren't some unique super special beings (special, yes, but not completely so). That there are other rare individuals out there that may help or oppose them (which is a good thing when one of their characters dies and a new one must be brought in).
Does the DMPC ever steal some spotlight from the players, maybe on some rare occassion, but more often it increases the spotlight, especially for those "wallflower" types. "Jasmine what do you think we should do?", isn't all that unreasonable of a comment. The character will respond to the other PCs within its realm of interest and knowledge. A funny aside, I once had a discussion with someone that played their NPC as being all knowing (basically the NPCs knew everything the DM knew by default) and they had to remember to remove information, this is why they disliked DMPCs. I couldn't understand that mindset since I always play my characters as totally ignorant by default and add in additional information that they would know by their experience and training.
*By DMPC, I mean a character that is otherwise identical to other PCs but is instead run by the DM. Same rules for options for races, class, level, wealth, abilities, etc. Characters that use special rules or get special treatment that other PCs don't get are not DMPCs using this definition.
Yeah, taking an npc into the party, I don't have the problem of them being all knowing. They might look to the pcs for the majority of the decision making, or they might really lunge towards a certain option or response if it really means something to that character. If the players delay, and an npc has a high int or wis, they can start to make some sensible suggestions. If a player wants to pursue a certain course, dmpcs can also be great to support an option, saying yeah, let's kill some gnolls, let's go in over the walls etc.
For example, a chaotic good dmpc and a lawful good pc really come together when it comes to beating the shi* out of evil. Otherwise they might disagree, leading to checks and roleplaying on how to proceed. I feel an urge to really make them believable characters. So the chaotic good Andoranean hobgoblin really hates evil nobles, tyrants and doesn't have much sense of honour, but loves to fight. If his dislikes don't come into play, he will probably be pretty quiet.
In a game with a low number of players, they are just another part of the awesome buddy movie type game.
I always make sure to make all the "ally" npcs rather expendable. I play with a couple of players who prefer 2-3 players, as it makes for some great RP, without having to feel like 1 or 2 players are excluded when they do their own thing. In those games, I tend to give them a tag-along NPC, usually relevant to the quest in progress.
And in rare occasions, someone who is joining up for the long haul. These NPCs are irrevocably "less" than the players. The most memorable one I sent along was a pixie healer in a lv12 3.5 game. The pixie was sent into the post-apocalyptic home-brew world alongside the heroes as they activated some crazy Gate that ate the entire area. He was terrified, and invisibly clinged to the PCs like a scared kitten, and functioned as a comic-relief/glorified cure wand when he finally got spotted. He hid in combat, and only helped when someone really needed it. He never did a single point of damage to an enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My player's like to go around picking up "DMPCs" like there is no tomorrow. One of the NPCs was only supposed to be there for the beginning to introduce another player. She was a powerful fortune teller, so they tagged along with her for a while (I tried harder than the players to get the NPC out of the party). Anytime I make a NPC seem somewhat interesting, the players get into the "let's take that person with us" mindset. They actually had 8 NPCs travelling with them at one point.
I can't say the NPCs or DMPCs whichever you like to call them aren't fun. I love roleplaying, and the way the players interact with all the characters and the world is just amusing.
One thing I make sure to keep in mind is that the focus is on the players. For example the fortune teller never gave straight answers and wasn't even there all the time, she went off and did her own thing. Though she was technically a deus ex machina, a GM realizes that everything in the world is one. Even if an NPC does something amazing, it is only background to what the player's character is doing.
At one less than savvy point, I had an NPC finish off a monster. Though to be fair, it was the PCs that accidentily released the monster onto her hometown and were struggling to win against it. (It would break immersion if the girl they already knew to be a skilled fighter just sat back as a monster destroyed her town) Fighting off the monster was really a result of teamwork and I was rolling openly in front of the players. Although she made the final blow, I let the players know how the townsfolk had accepted all of them equally as heroes. Only one player was peeved, (and not much) simply because he wanted to be THE hero.
Ironically, they decided to take her along on their journey. Maybe they just like to make roleplay more than half of their party, I don't know. D:<
My player's like to go around picking up "DMPCs" like there is no tomorrow. One of the NPCs was only supposed to be there for the beginning to introduce another player. She was a powerful fortune teller, so they tagged along with her for a while (I tried harder than the players to get the NPC out of the party). Anytime I make a NPC seem somewhat interesting, the players get into the "let's take that person with us" mindset. They actually had 8 NPCs travelling with them at one point.
I can't say the NPCs or DMPCs whichever you like to call them aren't fun. I love roleplaying, and the way the players interact with all the characters and the world is just amusing.
One thing I make sure to keep in mind is that the focus is on the players. For example the fortune teller never gave straight answers and wasn't even there all the time, she went off and did her own thing. Though she was technically a deus ex machina, a GM realizes that everything in the world is one. Even if an NPC does something amazing, it is only background to what the player's character is doing.
At one less than savvy point, I had an NPC finish off a monster. Though to be fair, it was the PCs that accidentily released the monster onto her hometown and were struggling to win against it. (It would break immersion if the girl they already knew to be a skilled fighter just sat back as a monster destroyed her town) Fighting off the monster was really a result of teamwork and I was rolling openly in front of the players. Although she made the final blow, I let the players know how the townsfolk had accepted all of them equally as heroes. Only one player was peeved, (and not much) simply because he wanted to be THE hero.
Ironically, they decided to take her along on their journey. Maybe they just like to make roleplay more than half of their party, I don't know. D:<
Ha! Good story Raven. Reminds me of jrpgs. Yep, my players can sometimes be like that, sometimes I push for it to happen (the lone survivor of a group and a young scout, begs to tag along for some security), and sometimes players become really attached to an npc.
I don't so much hold back the power of npcs or prevent them from contributing. If the pcs are defensive characters interested in survival (high ac, high saves) the npcs can actually serve as the damaging elements of the party (normally it might be the other way round). As the moment, a swashbuckler which uses finesse weapons or tumble power attack with a greataxe is firmly in the party as an npc.
Some people get a bit shitty at times, how dare that npc shine, but the "heroes" aren't the only heroes is something players should come to understand, accept and not fixate upon.
Can you imagine the scene:
Npc swordsman cuts down an enemy evil raider, sits on a log and has a drink. "Aaaaah a good day".
Player walks up to swordsman.
Affronted player: how dare you be cool, and effective!
Retired first sword of Braavos: eh?
Affronted player: you should be shi*. I should be the unquestionable hero here!
Retired first sword of Braavos, who happens to sport very few scars and radiate cool like the bright morning sun after a light rain, and smooth breeze: are you high? I've been a swordsman all my life. What are you, 21? Haaaahahahahaha, came back after you carve through your first castle, or, fight in two wars as a high-risk mercenary.
Affronted player: but I'm... the hero... I'm...
Now if the players get the truly skilled on their side, it should be a group of the truly skilled, which can do a lot more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I've only been a GM for a couple of months so take my opinions however you want. I think that there is a subtle difference between making the player's characters the focus of the story and making them the focus of the world.
Something I do whenever the players are around NPCs but directly interacting with them is go into third person, "You see Leandra and Morpheus having a couple of drinks at the bar." However, as soon as the PCs interact with them I go into first person and actually play the character out.
Although all the NPCs are my precious characters, I don't worry too much about them. Their fates have already been altered by the PCs. If they live, if they die, if they have a birthday, it's only a big deal if the PCs make it a big deal. Otherwise all of that stuff is just background.
If the player's really want to have a caravan including an oracle, a ranger, a summoner, an alchemist, a horse tamer, a blacksmith, a poison specialist, and a farmer, why should I tell them no?
Despite all the DMPCs everywhere, my players tell me that really enjoy my games so I guess I'm doing something right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although all the NPCs are my precious characters, I don't worry too much about them. Their fates have already been altered by the PCs. If they live, if they die, if they have a birthday, it's only a big deal if the PCs make it a big deal. Otherwise all of that stuff is just background.
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also have had players try to recruit an army of npcs several times.
To be honest I've only been a GM for a couple of months so take my opinions however you want. I think that there is a subtle difference between making the player's characters the focus of the story and making them the focus of the world.
Something I do whenever the players are around NPCs but directly interacting with them is go into third person, "You see Leandra and Morpheus having a couple of drinks at the bar." However, as soon as the PCs interact with them I go into first person and actually play the character out.
Although all the NPCs are my precious characters, I don't worry too much about them. Their fates have already been altered by the PCs. If they live, if they die, if they have a birthday, it's only a big deal if the PCs make it a big deal. Otherwise all of that stuff is just background.
If the player's really want to have a caravan including an oracle, a ranger, a summoner, an alchemist, a horse tamer, a blacksmith, a poison specialist, and a farmer, why should I tell them no?
Despite all the DMPCs everywhere, my players tell me that really enjoy my games so I guess I'm doing something right.
Bravo Raven, well done. Keep at it and doing well.
Does anyone notice the pattern here? DM’s saying “well, I run a DMPC and my players love it!”. No Players saying “My DM runs a DMPC and we love it!”. Like I said- your players will not tell you they don’t like your DMPC.
(PS, I agree with Blueluck, etc, in that a small game, like with just two players who rotate playing/DMing is a special case)
Does anyone notice the pattern here? DM’s saying “well, I run a DMPC and my players love it!”. No Players saying “My DM runs a DMPC and we love it!”. Like I said- your players will not tell you they don’t like your DMPC.
(PS, I agree with Blueluck, etc, in that a small game, like with just two players who rotate playing/DMing is a special case)
well of course my players would tell me, they would complain like hell if they did not like my DMPC's.
And I never had a problem with the others DMPC's when I was a player, on the contrary, I always got suspicious if a DM would not send one with usthe key is what's the role of the DMPC, he has to be a complete team-player and a support to the party
Does anyone notice the pattern here? DM’s saying “well, I run a DMPC and my players love it!”. No Players saying “My DM runs a DMPC and we love it!”. Like I said- your players will not tell you they don’t like your DMPC.
(PS, I agree with Blueluck, etc, in that a small game, like with just two players who rotate playing/DMing is a special case)
well of course my players would tell me, they would complain like hell if they did not like my DMPC's.
And I never had a problem with the others DMPC's when I was a player, on the contrary, I always got suspicious if a DM would not send one with usthe key is what's the role of the DMPC, he has to be a complete team-player and a support to the party
This. And I would wager that there is a non-representative distribution of DMs to players that post on boards such as this.
Sure of course most of us have been DMs. But still most DM’s also act as players. Still,few “My DM runs a DMPC and I love it” stories, just “I run a DMPC and my players love it” tales. I think too many are rationalizing their desire to run a DMPC.
Tell ya what. Talk to you players. Explain that you know some Players don’t like DMPCs, but don’t want to say anything to the DM as otherwise they like the game and are willing to put up with the DMPC because of that. Give them each two stones, dice, what have you, one black and one white. Have them each secretly put one stone in a hat/box, etc. See how many of each.
Sure of course most of us have been DMs. But still most DM’s also act as players. Still,few “My DM runs a DMPC and I love it” stories, just “I run a DMPC and my players love it” tales. I think too many are rationalizing their desire to run a DMPC.
Tell ya what. Talk to you players. Explain that you know some Players don’t like DMPCs, but don’t want to say anything to the DM as otherwise they like the game and are willing to put up with the DMPC because of that. Give them each two stones, dice, what have you, one black and one white. Have them each secretly put one stone in a hat/box, etc. See how many of each.
it would be a sad thing if my friends and I would have to resort to secret votings to tell each other what we like and don't like, we play together 20 years
and as I said before, all of us DM and all of us use DMPC's
in fact, a lot of gaming would have not happened without DMPC's because all of us have busy lives and a lot of times players can't make it
Well I rarely get to play and not DM, so I don't have much experience under a lot of GMs. The game I'm currently in does not have a DMPC, I think the GM is a little overwelmed as it is just running standard NPCs (the group has a lot of "experienced" gamers that kind of pushed the inexperienced person to GM so they could all play).
I will say that in one of the first games that got me into playing consistently back during 3ed, the DM put in a DMPC and the game was much better when this character was in than when he later ran games without such a character. The guy who was DMing played/plays a lot of competition games (L5R card games was something he was really big in for a long time and still might be), so when he didn't have a character he was controlling in the PC camp, he tended to get pretty adversarial (and a little munchkinny) in his encounter designs.
The only game where I've been a player and there was a DMPC involved a DM who inserted his fetishes at every opportunity. In general I don't get to play, I DM.
That was a bad DMPC. Mostly because that was a bad DM. We told him we didn't want to know about sexy horses and yet... there they were. ::shudders::
I say it again and again: The difference between an NPC and a DMPC is that the DMPC gets a lot taken for granted. Being a PC, he is granted trust from the other players to be "one of the team", he gets autonomy from the storyline, he gets spotlight time, he gets all sorts of things for BEING A PC.
Let's agree to differentiate these things, okay people?
A NPC is a character in the game world that acts and works just like any other NPC, be they barkeeps, kings, enemies or dogs. Just like any NPC, he may be recurring or not. He may stay with the party for a long while or a little while.
A DMPC is someone's character. The attachment that person feels for that character is not merely based on how the players like him, it's a personal thing. He has his own story, own influence over the campaign, own spotlight time, and so on. He is a DMPC to be treated by the other players as a PC, NOT a NPC.
This makes all the difference in the world. And, frankly, whatever your personal view of how good it is to use DMPCs, it adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could not better be done by using NPCs. From the very first rulesets, there has been guidelines for how you get minions, cohorts, hirelings, and so on. This is intended. You can also make NPCs that accompany the party for however long they should. There is NO situation where you "need" a DMPC for balance - you add a DMPC only because you want to play one.
As a DM/GM, you need to be bigger than that, to make the campaign work and the players happy. Now, some of you may consider that you get happy players despite a constant DMPC - it works because you play that "DMPC" as an NPC.
If you truly feel the need to play characters, devote yourself to making interesting and relevant NPCs, something that is too often missing in campaigns.
|
|
I say it again and again: The difference between an NPC and a DMPC is that the DMPC gets a lot taken for granted. Being a PC, he is granted trust from the other players to be "one of the team", he gets autonomy from the storyline, he gets spotlight time, he gets all sorts of things for BEING A PC.
Why is it okay for PCs to get all that, just because a player is controlling that character?