I'm not so certain I want DMPC's in AP's


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

101 to 150 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And your mind is open to change?

If presented with rational thought and discourse, yes. That isn't the case with this thread. Discussing anything in this thread is a "sky-is-yellow/sky-is-blue" style of debate - with you being part of the yellow sky crowd.

thejeff wrote:
Of course, I can't really figure out what you object to. Since you flail back and forth between ranting about controversy and agendas and claiming those aren't the problem at all.

More later, but for now: Thank you for clarifying. As I said, I really couldn't figure out what you were objecting to. From my perspective it seemed to be all over the place and changing with every post.

I see where you're coming from better now, though I still don't agree about the APs.

Dark Archive

I appreciate your honesty.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

If he meant the GM, why did he include me in that bullying response?

It implies directly towards me and our group as players.

As for the post, I typically don't parse so it's easier for me to respond to one big statement rather than parses.

Also I don't put spoilers normally out for no reason. I mean, if we get down to it, most of those that you list as romance options in the other thread, wouldn't really count as Romance options in what I regards as romance options...but I don't go into details or respond due to the parsing and long work on it.

However, since you request specifics...I'll go into light detail...

** spoiler omitted **...

I'll weigh in on this, as I ran this adventure a few months ago, with different results

Spoiler:
First, looking at the specific examples you gave in the first session, shorter NPC text blocks would not have made a lick of difference. Each of those are part of the encounter they appear in. The design was to present a situation and have the PC's try to solve it. That's the key here: the NPC's don't actually make ANY decisions. They were specifically designed to give the PC's a chance to shine because the NPC's were, frankly, helpless without them. (Anevia's worrying about her wife leads to an argument between her and Horgus. If the PC's don't intervene, one of them might leave and get themselves killed. Anevia and Ara's argument about the bodies is really just flavor to show the stress of the situation, and should easily be dispensed with basic RP or diplomacy) I'm not sure why that didn't work in your session, whether the GM was focusing too much on getting all the info dumped, or if it was too expository, or what, but in my campaign, the player left the underground loving the NPC's.

For the second part, I really don't know what was going on there. There is absolutely nothing in the AP about needing to take the NPC's with you in the city sandbox. In fact, I'm certain that it specifically states in the adventure that after you find Irabeth, the NPC's all go their separate ways (Ara to Blackwing Library, Anevia stays with Irabeth, and Horgus returns to his home). Any issues you had here, I'm sorry to say, can be placed squarely on the GM.

I'm curious if your GM is new, or if he has experience. Juggling this many NPC's, along with a very aggressive leveling track makes this a very difficult adventure to start with. That may be why there was such a negative experience.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why in the world did you pick that adventure path in the first place?

I would not be surprised if the answer to that question is, "because it's the Mythic Adventures AP".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:

I can't recall one NPC from a Pathfinder adventure I would call a Mary Sue.

And characters with rich backgrounds don't work as allies?! I know that having background material to draw upon when conversing with those allies has only helped immersion and further illustrating the world. As a player, I greatly appreciate it because it helps a LOT with investment.

Right. Those NPCs in many games (not all, there are people who do not use them like this) become lovers, business partners, allies, life long foes, foils and so on. The information can be moved to another adventure, can be used as inspiration for new PCs and NPCs alike, and can help grow a world.

That's what I and my players are looking for in a role-playing game. Otherwise, you can carve the names and background information off and leave the stats and sell a cut-down version of the AP for those interested in less romance, RP or whatever the bone of contention is and more adventuring. And I bet it would sell too. There is no One Way to play.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Auxmaulous wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:


I'll just state that I interpreted the adventure notes dramatically differently than your GM did. Yes, there are a couple of places where the NPCs talk amongst themselves, but not a ton that I recall, and I definitely didn't interpret them as that bossy or overbearing.

before....

Charlie Brooks wrote:
You've mentioned the Wrath of the Righteous NPCs, but I'm not seeing it.

Two different issues. The NPCs talking to each other does not equal the NPCs taking over the game (unless the GM chooses to have those conversations run on). And again, it's very easy to just cut those conversations. None of them are plot-essential.

In other words, I still fail to see how the NPCs in Wrath of the Righteous are stealing the PCs' thunder.

Minor Wrath spoilers:
If anything, the first book runs the risk of being a babysitting quest since they are crippled. Beyond that, the PCs have mythic power and the NPCs don't, so it's very difficult for any of them to overshadow the PCs.

Quote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
I imagine that the heavy-handedness of the NPCs depends largely on how the GM interprets the text

Bolded yet again.

Seeing quite a bit of "blame the DM/stupid DM" in many of these responses. Makes sense why people would want to avoid this echo chamber.

I'm not suggesting a "blame the GM" attitude. But it is worth noting that the GM has control over how long those conversations go on or even whether they're role-played out or just summarized.

Following the cues in the first book of Wrath of the Righteous, I ended up having two instances where the NPCs talked to each other. Neither lasted more than a minute, and both involved PC interaction as well. Had there been no interest in the conversation, I could just as easily have cut the scene down to, "Horgus says something to Anevia and she flips out at him."

That's the power of a GM. It doesn't mean that a GM who lets those scenes run on is a bad GM or anything of the sort. It does mean that those scenes are very much open to interpretation. There is no boxed text that has the NPCs talking and no script to follow. How far those scenes run on is up to the GM and, to a lesser extent, the PCs.

The exact preferences in this vary from table to table. If you want to argue that the adventure didn't give the GM enough instruction, that's another matter. But, having both read and run this adventure, I can tell you that there is no point in the text that really pushes for a long scene where the NPCs talk to each other and the players just watch.

Quote:

What’s the tally? :

-Bad GM/DM is the cause

Not what I'm trying to imply. I'm saying I interpreted the text differently, and my run-through of the game went much more smoothly. There are plenty of times that I've misread an adventure or interpreted in a way that became an issue in my gaming group, and I like to think that doesn't make me a bad GM.

Quote:
-Poor reading comprehension

Also not what I was implying. Text can be interpreted in many different ways. My interpretation was extremely different than the interpretation of the GM in question.

Quote:

-Implied Homophobia/bigotry

-Bad guy NPC write-ups are important TOO! (yet no one was arguing against that)
-You must be a computer gamer/mmo fan
-Rollplayer vs. Roleplayer

I'm going to assume these are in response to something somebody else said, or else there is a major communication breakdown between you and I.

Digital Products Assistant

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys, let's try to dial this back and tone down the hostility. Personal insults aren't helpful to any conversation, so drop it please.


This does of course lead me to want to indulge in something I've done in my Reign of Winter campaign - recruiting PCs to do some of the roleplaying of NPCs. I'm having one player do most of the roleplaying of Nadya (and even controlling her in combat at this point) and it worked out quite well. Given I was running two GMPCs at the time (one has gone on hiatus because the player she was associated with has not been able to join the game in four months now so...) it made a lot of sense to help lessen my GMing burden.

I know another of my players would likely leap at the chance, and a third does a good grumpy older man impersonation, so I could just give each player a write-up on the character in question and let them have fun with these interactions and arguments. :)


T101

YEah. Always try to let players introduce/takeover the npcs. Other people who GM in our group don't do this as much as I would like.

I am all for empowering players, let them lead the narrative.....don't like terms like 'the power of the gm'. It's everyone's game

I appreciate Paizo need to stick to certain formula and appeal to a wide range of tastes, ages,styles from newbies of younger age to older gents like myself


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe that there are two smaller issues that together make a bigger issue with the NPC's in the early books of WotR. The first issue is the number of NPC's the PC's are forced to take along, and all the personal drama between them that isn't to everyone's taste. This I think holds for the first two books in the AP. In the first book the boatload of NPC's is required, in the second it is highly encouraged and the players are rewarded if they are taken along.

Then there is the fact that one of those NPC's is Irabeth who starts out several levels ahead of the players, has a lover as another party NPC, and is eventually promoted to the nobility where she starts giving the pc's quests in book 3. She requires a bit of judicious handling on the part of the GM, so that the pc's don't feel outshined by her extra levels in book 1, don't feel like her sidekicks (if she is placed in charge of the troops as suggested) in book 2, and don't feel like her errand-boys and girls in book 3 when she is given command of the city the players liberated and starts sending them on quests.

I would not call Irabeth a Mary Sue, but I do think that depending on the party, she may require careful handling by the GM, because I -can- see how she could come across as a GMPC.

Silver Crusade

The only characters I've run as "GMPCs" are when nobody in the group wanted to play a healer (pretty much a healbot who says things from time to time) because "that's boring"... I don't run with that group anymore. From now on I let my boyfriend run the iconic cleric to keep the party on their feet.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
P Tigras wrote:
I believe that there are two smaller issues that together make a bigger issue with the NPC's in the early books of WotR. The first issue is the number of NPC's the PC's are forced to take along, and all the personal drama between them that isn't to everyone's taste. This I think holds for the first two books in the AP. In the first book the boatload of NPC's is required, in the second it is highly encouraged and the players are rewarded if they are taken along.

This is true to some extent. It is indeed an AP where you can wind up with a lot of NPCs tagging along, if you like.

P Tigras wrote:
Then there is the fact that one of those NPC's is Irabeth who starts out several levels ahead of the players, has a lover as another party NPC, and is eventually promoted to the nobility where she starts giving the pc's quests in book 3. She requires a bit of judicious handling on the part of the GM, so that the pc's don't feel outshined by her extra levels in book 1, don't feel like her sidekicks (if she is placed in charge of the troops as suggested) in book 2, and don't feel like her errand-boys and girls in book 3 when she is given command of the city the players liberated and starts sending them on quests.

Uh...by the time the PCs meet Irabeth they're one level behind her, and she has standard NPC stat distribution and wealth...so that doesn't exactly make her more powerful than them, IMO (both they and she would be the same CR, rules-wise). And then the PCs gain a level and become Mythic...while she does not.

The other issues are more legitimate, but I think overstated. At no point is she given authority over the PCs, not even if in charge of the army or the city. She's not able to give them orders, only make requests. Which should ameliorate that problem quite a bit.

P Tigras wrote:
I would not call Irabeth a Mary Sue, but I do think that depending on the party, she may require careful handling by the GM, because I -can- see how she could come across as a GMPC.

That's definitely possible, but doesn't seem especially common. I certainly haven't heard vast numbers of people complaining about that aspect of her character (there've been a couple of vocal ones, in this thread especially...but not any great number of people). Which seems to leave table variance/GMing style as at least as much the reason for that as the adventure itself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always preferred games where there's an NPC to escort/be an ally/otherwise tagging along with the party. As GM, it means I can interact more with the players throughout the whole game and not just when they're in town. I also find it leads to a more interesting story as there's more group dynamics at work than just the established party. NPCs that just get met in town and never seen again are just throwaway NPCs, I enjoy having the time to develop their character, relationships, and generally contribute to the story.

As an aside, while I hate the term GMPC anyway, these characters don't feel like they meet the definition anyway. A "GMPC" to me would be one that's a full party member but played by the GM, not just an NPC who is along for storyline reasons.

From the player side, I have no problem with an NPC being superior to me at lower levels. It helps remind me where my character stands in the world, that they're not (yet) some kind of all-conquering hero, and makes the story feel far more realistic. It just adds to the feeling of character growth as I can watch my PC become that NPC's peer and eventually surpass them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
The fact that the encounters are not challenging is a separate but just as important issue (more mechanical/meta).

Have you considered the possibility that Paizo are not, in fact, reducing the CR with successive APs, but that you and your gaming group are getting more experienced and therefore better at overcoming them?

Because if they raise the difficulty and keep on doing so, assuming their readers need bigger and bigger challenges, then beginners like me and my players won't be able to start at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if part of the problem isn't that any urgent request from a prominent NPC in an AP functions as a de facto order, in that refusal likely derails the adventure. Some players simply cannot abide being told what to do, so the game has to either be a sandbox, or a railroad with invisible tracks.

I mean ... it's an Adventure Path ... and we all know what happens when yo uleave the path.

"Dogs and cats living together ... mass hysteria!" :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Player: "So, what should we do next, guys?"

GM through NPC: "Why don't you investigate those cultist locations we found out about when you captured those notes?"

Player: "Stop having the NPCs boss us around!"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cheryl Tunt (from Archer): You're not my Supervisor!!!


Tangent101 wrote:

Player: "So, what should we do next, guys?"

GM through NPC: "Why don't you investigate those cultist locations we found out about when you captured those notes?"

Player: "Stop having the NPCs boss us around!"

You know that's not the issue and nobody is saying your example is wrong...

GM as npc: why don't you investigate cultists etc

Player: ok. In 3 days when we are prepared

GM as npc: no you have to do it today, the mod says that is the best time. I will accompany you

Player: actually we prefer to do this our way, without outside help

GM: but the mod says so (if this guy doesn't go with you he won't discover xyz......

It's this sort of thing that is bad.....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In which case it's a GM trying to force the situation, not a situation of Paizo crafting bad NPCs.

Though honestly, why low-level characters would take three days to prepare I'm not sure. They don't have the resources to make much in the way of magic items, outside of maybe potions (which tend to be more expensive than they're worth).

Wrath of the Righteous Spoilers:

And let's look at the situation: You have a city under siege by demonic hordes. The Wardstone is shattered and in enemy hands. You need to get information in order to know what the enemy plans are. So you're going to spend three days "preparing" rather than investigate leads? Don't forget, p. 40 of The Worldwound Incursion under "A Safe Haven" states "any PC who has hit point damage or ability score damage can have that damage healed for free during a stay [at Defender's Heart]."

So why are the players taking three days to prepare? Seriously, spending the night to recover spells is all that's needed. Crafting magic items at THIS point is not realistic.


Ah. You specific about a specific mod?
Didn't realise. I was being more general

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I do think there are some issues with the NPCs, but not because they're written to take over the game.

Instead, I think having all those NPCs adds more work for the GM, which can cause the game to drag.

I compare it to a clunky combat encounter. Rather than say, "There shouldn't be combat encounters in the adventure paths," I'd rather see those flaws ironed out in the future.

Similarly, I'd like to see Paizo continue to tweak and improve the NPCs/role-playing parts of the adventure paths. I think Wrath of the Righteous is an improvement over Jade Regent in this regard, and I expect future adventure paths to continue improving on this.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Player: "So, what should we do next, guys?"

GM through NPC: "Why don't you investigate those cultist locations we found out about when you captured those notes?"

Player: "Stop having the NPCs boss us around!"

You know that's not the issue and nobody is saying your example is wrong...

GM as npc: why don't you investigate cultists etc

Player: ok. In 3 days when we are prepared

GM as npc: no you have to do it today, the mod says that is the best time. I will accompany you

Player: actually we prefer to do this our way, without outside help

GM: but the mod says so (if this guy doesn't go with you he won't discover xyz......

It's this sort of thing that is bad.....

I don't know how prevalent this style of GMing is, but I see an issue if the GM is acting as though his hands are tied by what the module says. Maybe the adventure paths need to occasionally remind GMs about the, "This is your game" rule from the Core Rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I seem to have the reverse issue. Something that bothers me a bit is having friendly NPCs around, but not being able to use them for whatever reason. It's a bit of a verisimilitude problem for me because it's essentially "You cannot use these NPCs to help you because of reasons." It's like, why bother having these relationships with NPCs if I can't take some adventuring. Granted, having Leadership would mitigate it, but again, it's a real disconnect for me when we ask the captain of the guard for help and he's like "Sorry, I cannot help you because you don't have the proper feat for it." It's probably why I don't mind PCs simply having NPC tagalongs when I GM. On their own accord of course.

This is a very minor peeve of mine though. Nowhere near enough for me to be concerned.


That's actually one thing the Runelords Anniversary Edition did: I believe it mentioned that the group could try to recruit Shalelu to help them clear out Thistletop. My group did, though to be honest Shalelu was not completely useful as she has a weakness to the howl of certain flying dogs! ;) (To be honest, half of the group failed their saves, including the frontline barbarian, and they only survived because of the quick thinking of the Bard using Bardic Song to allow new saves and fast-talking me into letting her do that. Even with that, Shalelu failed her save a second time and fled! ^^ And then when the THIRD Hound was encountered... yeah, she ran once more!)

GMs can usually come up with reasons why an NPC either can't help... or that the players don't want him or her to help (ie, taking a significant share of the treasure).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
thenovalord wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

Player: "So, what should we do next, guys?"

GM through NPC: "Why don't you investigate those cultist locations we found out about when you captured those notes?"

Player: "Stop having the NPCs boss us around!"

You know that's not the issue and nobody is saying your example is wrong...

GM as npc: why don't you investigate cultists etc

Player: ok. In 3 days when we are prepared

GM as npc: no you have to do it today, the mod says that is the best time. I will accompany you

Player: actually we prefer to do this our way, without outside help

GM: but the mod says so (if this guy doesn't go with you he won't discover xyz......

It's this sort of thing that is bad.....

I don't know how prevalent this style of GMing is, but I see an issue if the GM is acting as though his hands are tied by what the module says. Maybe the adventure paths need to occasionally remind GMs about the, "This is your game" rule from the Core Rulebook.

Yeah, we need to remember that at the end of the day these things were written with the intention of having a human GM in there to tweak things (or sometimes to take a chainsaw to them) when they don't work out exactly as planned. There's more than a few instances in this hobby where people just try and blame "bad design" when they're not using something in the manner it was designed to be used. Sometimes people need to be reminded that a nail isn't badly designed when it falls out of a threaded hole, and that sometimes the responsibility goes back on them for not thinking to use a screw instead.

If every likely player action/inaction were taken into account in a module, we'd need 64 pages just to cover 30 minutes of play. Sometimes things are just assumed to be dealt with by a human GM because, well, that's why you have one.


isaic16 wrote:
I'm curious if your GM is new, or if he has experience. Juggling this many NPC's, along with a very aggressive leveling track makes this a very difficult adventure to start with. That may be why there was such a negative experience

I honestly don't know. This was one of the rare occasions that I tried gaming with people that are not my normal group. It was more an FLGS pick up thing, so I have no idea on the GM's background, and didn't really inquire how much they had GM'd previously. After the end of the game, the style that it was run in wasn't really my cup of tea, so I've not gamed with them since that AP to tell the truth.

I have my own group that we've done PF now, and a new group I'm trying out, but they aren't PF players so they are playing a different RPG game currently.

P Tigras wrote:

I believe that there are two smaller issues that together make a bigger issue with the NPC's in the early books of WotR. The first issue is the number of NPC's the PC's are forced to take along, and all the personal drama between them that isn't to everyone's taste. This I think holds for the first two books in the AP. In the first book the boatload of NPC's is required, in the second it is highly encouraged and the players are rewarded if they are taken along.

Then there is the fact that one of those NPC's is Irabeth who starts out several levels ahead of the players, has a lover as another party NPC, and is eventually promoted to the nobility where she starts giving the pc's quests in book 3. She requires a bit of judicious handling on the part of the GM, so that the pc's don't feel outshined by her extra levels in book 1, don't feel like her sidekicks (if she is placed in charge of the troops as suggested) in book 2, and don't feel like her errand-boys and girls in book 3 when she is given command of the city the players liberated and starts sending them on quests.

I would not call Irabeth a Mary Sue, but I do think that depending on the party, she may require careful handling by the GM, because I -can- see how she could come across as a GMPC.

That could be a possibility. I was only a player so don't know the complexities of the first three parts, but what you say could have been some of the harder aspects the GM was trying to handle.

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I do think there are some issues with the NPCs, but not because they're written to take over the game.

Instead, I think having all those NPCs adds more work for the GM, which can cause the game to drag.

I compare it to a clunky combat encounter. Rather than say, "There shouldn't be combat encounters in the adventure paths," I'd rather see those flaws ironed out in the future.

Similarly, I'd like to see Paizo continue to tweak and improve the NPCs/role-playing parts of the adventure paths. I think Wrath of the Righteous is an improvement over Jade Regent in this regard, and I expect future adventure paths to continue improving on this.

I'm not sure, but that could have been an issue with the GM also. I wasn't GMing so I'm not certain of all the complexities of the AP to tell the truth, just how it came out and how it was presented.

From what I gather, having the NPC's talk amongst themselves was actually written into the module (both what we saw I action and the GM response to my query, as well as what people have written here). No offense, but having a GM talk to themselves, is like watching the GM play with themselves. Maybe some would get a kick out of it, but I go to RPGs to get to play myself, not watch the GM do everything instead. That's why I do TTRPGs and not FPS rail games which has a bit on rails, and then a cutscence (actually, I do play FPS games on rails...but for different reasons than TTRPGs).

I just don't get a kick out of the GM playing with themselves in front of me.

I suppose that's more of what I'm looking at in some ways. I play for interactions, not theater watching. I can go to the movies for that, and normally they are better actors than the GM (that's normally...).

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, when a player acts out a conversation between him/herself and their cohort/eidolon/animal companion/familiar/intelligent magic item you're going to tell them to stop with the thespian masturbation? ;-)


Yes, cos that's what we have been discussing in this thread..................No. He is a player so I enjoy a small skit like that made up on the fly

Obviously if the eidolon gets to big for his boots that's another thing


So in other words the purpose of the GM is to roll dice, tell you the results, and in essence be your computer for the roleplaying game, sans roleplaying.

Why are you playing Pathfinder instead of a computer game again? Oh yeah. Captive audience.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

From what I gather, having the NPC's talk amongst themselves was actually written into the module (both what we saw I action and the GM response to my query, as well as what people have written here). No offense, but having a GM talk to themselves, is like watching the GM play with themselves. Maybe some would get a kick out of it, but I go to RPGs to get to play myself, not watch the GM do everything instead. That's why I do TTRPGs and not FPS rail games which has a bit on rails, and then a cutscence (actually, I do play FPS games on rails...but for different reasons than TTRPGs).

I just don't get a kick out of the GM playing with themselves in front of me.

There are a few WotR pbp.s running on the boards. Perhaps browsing them might examples of how some different GMs play in different ways (the early encounters at least). Maybe a better idea of what might be in the module and what's embellishment by different GMs.

I don't much like talking to myself, but it's an odd world if NPCs only ever talk to the PCs as well.


T101
Well rather that than the one 'extreme or the other you keep' you keep introducing.

I like
GM: here are some choices ( real choice, not the illusion of choice)
Players... we pick choice x, and play that out, npcs and all


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

So in other words the purpose of the GM is to roll dice, tell you the results, and in essence be your computer for the roleplaying game, sans roleplaying.

Why are you playing Pathfinder instead of a computer game again? Oh yeah. Captive audience.

Please. Let's not get too gratuitous here.

He said he wanted interaction, not to watch the GM talk to himself. In other words he wants to be part of the roleplaying, not just an audience.

Now, I don't really have a problem with a GM doing NPC-NPC interaction, as long as it's relatively short and done well. (I've seen it done really well on occasion. And I've seen it be incredibly boring, probably more often)
But you're completely misrepresenting the argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenovalord wrote:

T101

Well rather that than the one 'extreme or the other you keep' you keep introducing.

I like
GM: here are some choices ( real choice, not the illusion of choice)
Players... we pick choice x, and play that out, npcs and all

To some extent any published adventure, especially long ones like APs, are going to be about the illusion of choice. If it's well done and well run, there will be meaningful choices, but still limited. There are only so many things written up as part of the AP. If you go too far off the tracks, you're not playing the AP anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

So in other words the purpose of the GM is to roll dice, tell you the results, and in essence be your computer for the roleplaying game, sans roleplaying.

Why are you playing Pathfinder instead of a computer game again? Oh yeah. Captive audience.

Please. Let's not get too gratuitous here.

He said he wanted interaction, not to watch the GM talk to himself. In other words he wants to be part of the roleplaying, not just an audience.

Now, I don't really have a problem with a GM doing NPC-NPC interaction, as long as it's relatively short and done well. (I've seen it done really well on occasion. And I've seen it be incredibly boring, probably more often)
But you're completely misrepresenting the argument.

Except the argument is fallacious.

"Paizo should not include detailed NPCs in their modules/APs because GMs might abuse them and use them as GMPCs."

That is the fundamental argument.

People add in little things like "I don't like seeing the GM talking to himself" as if the game is supposed to revolve around the players with NPCs existing only to interact with them. Even Elder Scrolls: Skyrim has moved away from this (and Elder Scrolls: Oblivion started to) with characters chatting with one another, even if with a limited venue of discussion. And then they turn around and show themselves to be two-faced by stating "it's okay for a Player to do this with their Cohort/Familiar/Summoned Weirdly-named-Critter" even though the GM isn't supposed to.

So. In essence that argument is: the GM exists only to give the players and their characters meaning, rather than to show a rich and varied world around them.

Let's consider a possible roleplaying scenario. The PCs head to a town gate, where there are two guards. With roleplaying, the GM could have one guard refuse entry, the second question why, and the two guards talking back and forth. In doing so, the players learn about a situation in the town which is an adventuring hook. To do so, the GM is talking to himself with the dialogue between the two guards.

Alternatively the GM says "the guards refuse to let you enter. Roll a Diplomacy check to see if you can find out what's going on."

The second may be short and to the point and allow the PCs to remain central to the plot... but the first allows the players to interact and be a part of the world. They are NOT playing a slow version of a computer game. They are in a world that is built around their minds and that of their friends and the GM.


Tangent101 wrote:

So in other words the purpose of the GM is to roll dice, tell you the results, and in essence be your computer for the roleplaying game, sans roleplaying.

Why are you playing Pathfinder instead of a computer game again? Oh yeah. Captive audience.

No, you're wrong.

Please represent what I stated.

It's right there above what you wrote. Do you need me to interpret what interactive means?

I want interactivity with the group and the GM. About 50% of that AP we are discussing, was GM talking to themselves....AS PER WHAT WAS INSTRUCTED in the book. Now I don't have the book myself, but I have no reason to doubt what the GM stated...as the GM stated that the AP itself said that almost 50% of the NPC interactions were to be between themselves on the first part. If I recall, he even read the part and it said something like the NPC's interact as much with each other as the PC's.

I thought it odd, but the GM stated it so matter of factly that the AP instructed them that way under NPC interactions...I'm not really doubting what the GM stated. The fact that he felt he had to read it to back himself up...makes me actually believe that's the actual instruction of the AP.

Now, when a little under 50% of the game is the GM playing with their own NPC's it becomes more of a GMPC spotlight with the GM's little party becoming their own group and the stars of this show. We watch the GM do their thing.

I personally prefer a MORE interactive group than something like that. That's not interaction overall, that's watching the GM do their own theater as we wander the dungeon with their own little party instead of our own.

If that's indeed what the AP instructs, then most of what people are stating doesn't seem to ring true about the AP itself...as the AP instructs how much interaction the NPC's are supposed to have.

Now I suppose it IS up to the GM to tailor that, which could have been completely my GM as well. Instruction like that may be difficult to pull off, as some seem to have indicated.

You can have the NPC's be people who do absolutely nothing, but that's not what I was talking about. I enjoy well fleshed out NPC's...I just don't care for GMPC's.

So, if you have a bunch of NPC's walking around with you, at least have them interact with US, the PLAYERS...instead of the GM running their own separate group who get to be just as much the stars as we are.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

So in other words the purpose of the GM is to roll dice, tell you the results, and in essence be your computer for the roleplaying game, sans roleplaying.

Why are you playing Pathfinder instead of a computer game again? Oh yeah. Captive audience.

No, you're wrong.

Please represent what I stated.

It's right there above what you wrote. Do you need me to interpret what interactive means?

I want interactivity with the group and the GM. About 50% of that AP we are discussing, was GM talking to themselves....AS PER WHAT WAS INSTRUCTED in the book. Now I don't have the book myself, but I have no reason to doubt what the GM stated...as the GM stated that the AP itself said that almost 50% of the NPC interactions were to be between themselves on the first part. If I recall, he even read the part and it said something like the NPC's interact as much with each other as the PC's.

I thought it odd, but the GM stated it so matter of factly that the AP instructed them that way under NPC interactions...I'm not really doubting what the GM stated. The fact that he felt he had to read it to back himself up...makes me actually believe that's the actual instruction of the AP.

The first question I ask here is - why, when it was obvious the players didn't want to either involve themselves in the NPCs conversations or spectate them, didn't the characters simply walk away and not listen, thus forcing the GM to have the NPCs have those conversations with themselves off-camera?

I'm not aware of anything in any AP that says "the players *must* witness this conversation or the adventure is going to collapse" - sure, they're listed as NPC interactions, but there's nothing that says that can't happen off-camera if nobody is prepared to stand and watch, and there's nothing that says the PCs can't get involved in the conversations too (just as I'm butting in right here with my opinion, for example :D)

Now, perhaps my personal standards for GMs are too high (and I'm all too aware that this may well be the case), but personally I'd expect even a fairly new GM to know when to just write off something that the AP says as a bad idea for their table, even if it meant a bit of prodding from the players to get them to do it, and that a conversation between two NPCs can easily be turned into a group conversation if someone from the group chooses to take part in it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I want interactivity with the group and the GM. About 50% of that AP we are discussing, was GM talking to themselves....AS PER WHAT WAS INSTRUCTED in the book. Now I don't have the book myself, but I have no reason to doubt what the GM stated...as the GM stated that the AP itself said that almost 50% of the NPC interactions were to be between themselves on the first part. If I recall, he even read the part and it said something like the NPC's interact as much with each other as the PC's.

I thought it odd, but the GM stated it so matter of factly that the AP instructed them that way under NPC interactions...I'm not really doubting what the GM stated. The fact that he felt he had to read it to back himself up...makes me actually believe that's the actual instruction of the AP.

Wow. No, that's not official at all. There's some inter-NPC dialogue like that in volume 1 (where babysitting and mediating between the NPCs is supposed to be a thing)...but far less than 50% of the AP (in fact, it's less than two pages total)...and there is literally none in any later volumes (because volume 2 is focused elsewhere and in volume 3 and on only one NPC is even assumed to be with you...you can bring the others, but there's no dialogue because it's not assumed). And even in volume 1...there's almost no written dialogue (there are general descriptions of the conversations and I think maybe a sentence or two in quotes, but nothing more).

Now, the AP does include, for the benefit of the GM, a lot of background on what is going on, and a GM could turn that into inter-NPC conversations if they liked (thus reading it from the book)...but that's not remotely the default assumption or anything the AP advises. That info is there in case the PCs do investigative work or something...not for the GM to just read out, whatever justification he was using.

In short, this is not something written into the AP. Your GM for WotR was doing a variety of modifications that I deem ill-advised, and that certainly didn't mesh with your gaming style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the NPC sections in the first part of WotR, superficially your GM was right.
There is a line "The three NPCs interact with each other as much as with the PCs..." Various instances are given where they react to things along the way. Several of them will also order the PCs around and demand they do things.

Looking a little closer, the trick is that all those NPC interactions are opportunities for the PCs to intervene. That's what they're there for. They're not supposed to be cut scenes for you to watch and wait for them to end. You're supposed to get involved. When they try to give orders, that's them giving orders, not the GM. Talk them out of it, if you want to keep them happy. Ignore them if you must.

If you're friendly and diplomatic you can get and keep all of them friendly and they'll pretty much listen to you and do what you want. If you basically blow them off and ignore them, they're not going to be friendly and will just be a PITA.

All of this ties into the AP's theme of redemption as others have said. The sometimes obnoxious NPCs snapping at each other is a challenge you're supposed to overcome. You're supposed to start them on the path in this episode.

I don't know if your group just wasn't interested or if the GM presented it badly, but I don't see anything wrong with the way the AP is set up. I haven't run it or played in it, but from other's reports they just haven't had the same issues or the same reaction you did.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
If you're friendly and diplomatic you can get and keep all of them friendly and they'll pretty much listen to you and do what you want. If you basically blow them off and ignore them, they're not going to be friendly and will just be a PITA.

I think it's worth noting that they don't even get into the prolonged PITA category.

Volume 1 Spoilers:
Each NPC has a Diplomacy DC and starting attitude listed. If the PCs do blow off the NPCs or tell them to go shove it, that moves their attitude to unfriendly or hostile. At hostile, they go off on their own (possibly getting killed at the GM's discretion).

So if the PCs repeatedly tell Anevia they don't want to go find her wife or put Horgus in his place, the module as written states that said NPCs will just sneak off and leave the group.


Gorbacz wrote:
So, when a player acts out a conversation between him/herself and their cohort/eidolon/animal companion/familiar/intelligent magic item you're going to tell them to stop with the thespian masturbation? ;-)

Well I mean is it really appropriate to play with yourself in front of everyone else at the table? Do they really need to see that?

....that came out wrong. Leaving now.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I want interactivity with the group and the GM. About 50% of that AP we are discussing, was GM talking to themselves....AS PER WHAT WAS INSTRUCTED in the book. Now I don't have the book myself, but I have no reason to doubt what the GM stated...as the GM stated that the AP itself said that almost 50% of the NPC interactions were to be between themselves on the first part. If I recall, he even read the part and it said something like the NPC's interact as much with each other as the PC's.

I thought it odd, but the GM stated it so matter of factly that the AP instructed them that way under NPC interactions...I'm not really doubting what the GM stated. The fact that he felt he had to read it to back himself up...makes me actually believe that's the actual instruction of the AP.

Wow. No, that's not official at all. There's some inter-NPC dialogue like that in volume 1 (where babysitting and mediating between the NPCs is supposed to be a thing)...but far less than 50% of the AP (in fact, it's less than two pages total)...and there is literally none in any later volumes (because volume 2 is focused elsewhere and in volume 3 and on only one NPC is even assumed to be with you...you can bring the others, but there's no dialogue because it's not assumed). And even in volume 1...there's almost no written dialogue (there are general descriptions of the conversations and I think maybe a sentence or two in quotes, but nothing more).

Now, the AP does include, for the benefit of the GM, a lot of background on what is going on, and a GM could turn that into inter-NPC conversations if they liked (thus reading it from the book)...but that's not remotely the default assumption or anything the AP advises. That info is there in case the PCs do investigative work or something...not for the GM to just read out, whatever justification he was using.

In short, this is not something written into the AP. Your GM for WotR was doing a variety of modifications that I deem...

I think the Jeff confirmed it...but

Yes or NO

Does it state

"The three NPCs interact with each other as much as with the PCs"

That's a basic YES OR NO question.

IF yes, then I can actually see why the GM would interpret it just as it was written.

Which comes into the entire...I don't like GMPC's in my AP.

That should be a GM call...and you're right, the GM can change it...but it should be a GM CALL...not something pushed by the AP itself.

NPC interactions are fine...but specifying something like that...NOT COOL...

And though I didn't really continue with that group after the AP...I wouldn't blame any GM for interpreting a line like that exactly as the group GM did for that AP.

This is what I'm talking about...don't have GMPC's in an AP. Don't create or encourage a situation which inspires GMPCs. It's about the PC's...leave it about the PCs. If you want to have something like this to show the PC's aren't the center of the world yet, leave it as singular encounters with various others...don't create another group for the GM to basically play PC party with outside of the actual players.

An NPC with a lot of background and that can contribute can be nice...as long as they remain an NPC...a GMPC is one that hogs just as much time as the players if not more...and wording like that (and I suppose other things in the AP come about like this as well) can do a lot to inspire GMPC's overall.


thejeff wrote:

Looking at the NPC sections in the first part of WotR, superficially your GM was right.

There is a line "The three NPCs interact with each other as much as with the PCs..." Various instances are given where they react to things along the way. Several of them will also order the PCs around and demand they do things.

Looking a little closer, the trick is that all those NPC interactions are opportunities for the PCs to intervene. That's what they're there for. They're not supposed to be cut scenes for you to watch and wait for them to end. You're supposed to get involved. When they try to give orders, that's them giving orders, not the GM. Talk them out of it, if you want to keep them happy. Ignore them if you must.

If you're friendly and diplomatic you can get and keep all of them friendly and they'll pretty much listen to you and do what you want. If you basically blow them off and ignore them, they're not going to be friendly and will just be a PITA.

All of this ties into the AP's theme of redemption as others have said. The sometimes obnoxious NPCs snapping at each other is a challenge you're supposed to overcome. You're supposed to start them on the path in this episode.

I don't know if your group just wasn't interested or if the GM presented it badly, but I don't see anything wrong with the way the AP is set up. I haven't run it or played in it, but from other's reports they just haven't had the same issues or the same reaction you did.

The GM was pretty strict on the wording. We tried to get involved, but I think he truly tried to make the NPC's do exactly as it stated and have them interact as much with each other as us...so even if we said something, he'd act out them saying just as much.

And of course, this was JUST the first little part, there was more obnoxious things later that came up with the entire GMPC thing.

Trust me, I questioned him on it quite strongly as I was pretty fed up with his entire acting with himself instead of interacting more with us...and that's of course how I know about the entire NPC interaction type thingy written up.

After that, since it was written right there as he read it to us...there wasn't much to do at that point except shrug my shoulders and think...WTH.

I think there are those out there that follow the APs pretty closely to how they are worded. To assume that all GM's simply modify on the fly...is a nice thought, but I'm not so certain it holds true. I think many GM's do APs and modules specifically so they DON'T have to come up with a lot of stuff on their own. Like the GM that ran WotR for us, it could be the same situation where they read it like it's written and take it as a face value statement.

Some players are good with it, however (this is probably a play style thing) if it feels like I'm being led by the nose...I'll probably start trying to do the exact opposite...which is why my characters many times play CG (which is still good by the way) or even CN (not that AP though). I don't like being pushed. Maybe a gentle nudge, perhaps even a few strongly suggested options...but not something where it seems it's one way or the highway type thing. GMPC's tend to have their own opinions and sometimes work on things that the group itself do not want to do exactly. At times it feels more like the GM pushing an agenda or THEIR story of the NPC's rather than that of the players.

It felt that way a lot of that specific AP. I don't like that.

Liberty's Edge

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think the Jeff confirmed it...but

Yes or NO

Does it state

"The three NPCs interact with each other as much as with the PCs"

That's a basic YES OR NO question.

IF yes, then I can actually see why the GM would interpret it just as it was written.

Okay, let's look at the full, actual, quote here:

Wrath of the Righteous wrote:
The three NPCs interact with each other as much as with the PCs-specific examples of this interaction appear in the adventure, but you can use the following notes to guide additional interactions between them or to reveal personality traits and bits of NPC history to the PCs as you wish.

So...they interact as much with each other as the PCs, but the GM clearly only has to have that be 'on-screen' interactions as specified (which isn't much), or when he wants to impart info to the PCs. The PCs are also specifically supposed to interject into these interactions, so if he shut that down, he was doing it wrong. And there's that line about "as you wish." making it all pretty clearly a GM call.

And it's clearly only for the first chapter as well, making continuing doing it thereafter...really dicey.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Which comes into the entire...I don't like GMPC's in my AP.

That should be a GM call...and you're right, the GM can change it...but it should be a GM CALL...not something pushed by the AP itself.

NPC interactions are fine...but specifying something like that...NOT COOL...

And though I didn't really continue with that group after the AP...I wouldn't blame any GM for interpreting a line like that exactly as the group GM did for that AP.

Read the whole quote. I would. It's clearly a note that these are people and interact, not a mandate of any sort.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

This is what I'm talking about...don't have GMPC's in an AP. Don't create or encourage a situation which inspires GMPCs. It's about the PC's...leave it about the PCs. If you want to have something like this to show the PC's aren't the center of the world yet, leave it as singular encounters with various others...don't create another group for the GM to basically play PC party with outside of the actual players.

An NPC with a lot of background and that can contribute can be nice...as long as they remain an NPC...a GMPC is one that hogs just as much time as the players if not more...and wording like that (and I suppose other things in the AP come about like this as well) can do a lot to inspire GMPC's overall.

I'll, again, argue that the NPCs in question are a challenge, not GMPCs, you're intended to need to unite them and convince them to help you. They're a roleplaying encounter, and that's clearly the intent, reading the AP volume as a whole rather than a single quote in isolation.


As Deadmanwalking said, they are NOT GMPCs. They are NPCs. They are NPCs interacting with one another instead of the players. They are NPCs who have a history with one another and honestly don't like each other.

A GMPC is an NPC that the GM uses as a member of the party. I have several in my games - an Arcane Trickster for my Runelords game and a Paladin and a Druid for my Reign of Winter game

Spoiler:
(the Druid was supposed to get kidnapped by slavers but when I started running the Runelords game I so fell in love with Paizo's APs that I said "eff it" and switched from rerunning Night Below to running RoW with just higher-level characters - the game hadn't reached the point where the Druid would be kidnapped and another player had her as a lover so... I got stuck with an extra GMPC. (Sadly that player can't attend because of work now, so her character and the GMPC Druid have been put on hiatus, giving me a serious break)).

These three are GMPCs because they are regular parts of the gaming group. They get a share of the XPs, a share of treasure (though I have no part in determining what treasure they give the GMPCs and have argued against some treasure splits that I felt were too generous for said GMPCs), and are a constant part of the game.

The three NPCs in Wrath are just that: NPCs. They don't split the XPs with the party, they don't get any party treasure, and they will not remain with the group unless the players take the Leadership Feat and recruit them as Cohorts.

Liberty's Edge

Tangent101 wrote:
The three NPCs in Wrath are just that: NPCs. They don't split the XPs with the party, they don't get any party treasure, and they will not remain with the group unless the players take the Leadership Feat and recruit them as Cohorts.

This last bit isn't quite true. You can (not must, but can) bring them along with you without buying Leadership, and they'll rise in level to remain vaguely relevant (though they don't ever become mythic, or equal the PCs). Call it a perk of the AP.

The rest of your summary remains accurate.


To add my two coppers re the batch of NPCs in the first volume of WoTR. I can't speak for the author, but my clear feeling from this and the second volume that these recurring NPCs were there for the players to recruit as friends and to guide them, finesse them into a working unit. The AP is pretty much a military campaign and this is the first example where the PCs effectively have people working under their command (though they have to try to earn the respect of this rag-tag group or manage their often clashing personalities).

So I feel the notion that these are GMPCs is not only erraneous but very much the opposite of their intended role. These people are there to be the first followers of the party and give them the players an opportunity to demonstrate their leadership and guide by example.

That said, in the hands of some GMs that could morph into what the OP has described. So I think this specific example is more of a matter for that individual GM. I still don't see any sort of "GMPC" trend in Paizo's Aps. There's no Elminster running around, that's for sure.


This whole DMPC thing is non-sense.

Questions to consider:

Is the.DMPC needed?
Could that DMPC be turned over to a player?
Is the DMPC of equal level to the party?
Does the experience level of my players require I use a DMPC?
Does my gaming format require a DMPC?


I created a simple NPC out of the need for the players to have more information in my Kingmaker campaign. Since they found him amusing I decided to have him appear once in awhile. A knight-errand sort of cavalier, his might curiosity and bravery is only overshadowed by his total lack of direction. This allows the pc's to stumble upon him every few months or years. He comes from Varnhold and basically serves as a quest giver. The PC's know he is a bad-ass, perhaps even more then them (but not the group combined). His highlight will come in the tourney in book 5, and perhaps as one of many groups handling the events of book 6.

Being stronger then the PC's is 1 thing you can do while not overshadowing them, it's how I manage to have a level 14-15 Cavalier be cool with my lvl 12 group. He's always there to help with some things, but not everything, and he has his own motivations anyhow.


Our party of 4 PCs currently playing Rise of the Runelords has 5 GMPCs traveling with them. It does get a little ridiculous when there are more GMPCs in the party than PCs. As the GM, I try to split the party into teams and have some of the action occur "offstage" so the combats don't become too unwieldy. But the AP itself will say, "Three more people join the party" and then assume they are with the PCs in future scenes.

Liberty's Edge

I enjoy having an NPC tag along but not get involved in combat; like a torchbearer or something just in case I need to nudge the PCs a little bit, or have a little fun with them. In my (heavily modified) Runelords game they had someone traveling with them to "chronicle" their adventure and he ended up being the BBEG :)

101 to 150 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / I'm not so certain I want DMPC's in AP's All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.