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


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

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

Technotrooper wrote:
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.

My book did not have this. There is one section where NPC's might join up for small part of the book, but there are no continual "tag a longs". I did not even have the tag a longs hang around when the book told me too. The players did not need the help.


Look, if you don't want the damn GM (N)PC tagging along, at least one of you should have built a rigger or hacker or face, instead of me having to cram them into an all-in-one Swiss-army utility character. {left eye twitch starts again}

And no, no one in Seattle will sell you all Panther assault cannons again.


wraithstrike wrote:
My book did not have this. There is one section where NPC's might join up for small part of the book, but there are no continual "tag a longs". I did not even have the tag a longs hang around when the book told me too. The players did not need the help.

It's only for the portion of the adventure they are in, not the whole AP. But it still gets a little much for me and my players. When another 4 NPCs joined the party at one point, a player said, "Well, there goes the action economy!" I think it is annoying for the players to wait so long for their turns to come up in combat with so many other NPC participants.


I know exactly the section.

The way I got around it was by having an attack from two groups of ogres go after Turtleback Ferry. The PCs handled one, the NPCs and cohorts faced the second. The townsfolk were so worried that they asked if the Black Arrows and Cohorts could remain behind to watch the town. The heroes then went and liberated the Keep on their own.

Later I offered a deal to my two players with Leadership - I'd give them a free Feat and they'd give up the combat aspects of their Cohorts. Basically the Cohorts exist for roleplaying elements and to interact with the players, and watch the rears of the players (so that they can't be ambushed from behind). But they don't actually fight or the like.

It worked out well. And I'm disallowing Leadership for any group that has more than two players in the future.


I've never allowed Leadership, it adds nothing but headaches:)


I didn't know better. :/

Now I do. And my correction was accepted by the players (including the reason - that the cohorts were increasing the time needed for the fights and I was making things tougher to compensate for the extra bodies which slowed things even further).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to avoid my usual semantic rant about NPCs vs. DMPCs. (Search "DMPC" if you want to review my obsession with hair-splitting).

I want to add to the discussion that having NPCs fighting alongside PCs has an extremely negative effect on the combat experience. The length of turn is already too long for casual play -- everyone needs to be on top of the game and the rules to finish a decent sized combat in under two hours. Now you're increasing the number of GM turns to include both sides of the battle, which is a kind of GM solitaire with occasional player intervention. Or you turn over the NPCs to the party, meaning those players must now master statblocks they did not create.

I find the presence of fleshed-out NPCs to be a boon to the roleplaying aspects of the game, but Pathfinder combat is too grindey to sustain large combats. And more party-NPCs (which the OP refers to as DMPCs) means larger combats, at the very least.

This approach in writing adventures takes an unfortunate weakness of the Pathfinder RPG mechanics and exacerbates it.


GrayWolfLord wrote:

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.

Sorry you had a lousy time with this game. This is a challenging adventure to run. As much as I hate to say it, I think your GM mis-read a couple of lines in the GM notes and ran in a direction that wasn't intended by the writers.

I've read WotR, but have not yet run or played it. Looking at the initial encounters of The Worldwound Incursion, the PCs end up with three fellow survivors trapped in underground caverns, looking for an escape back to the now-ruined city of Kenabres. These NPCs are there as roleplaying encounters. They have extensive backgrounds and motivations for the GM to have enough information to play them effectively. They have information to share with the PCs, but are also a source of conflict: They end up arguing with each other, and possibly also with the PCs.

The purpose of the encounter is for the PCs to take charge of the situation, sort out the NPCs' differences, and get everyone on the same page. Again: the encounter is structured for the PCs to negotiate common ground for everyone, and to assume leadership positions over the NPCs. Part of that is to use the NPCs' skills and resources to everyone's advantage.

There is a line in the GM notes for the adventure that reads, "The three NPCs interact with each other as much as with the PCs..." I take that to mean that the NPCs argue with each other as much as they argue with the PCs, NOT that the NPCs are there to hog the spotlight. (Alas, I think your GM took it to mean the latter-- which is basically never a good choice.)

To minimize the specter of the GM looking to the right and speaking on one funny voice and then looking to the left and speaking in a different funny voice, inter-NPC conflict can be handled third-person, off to the side. You then switch to first-person when an NPC interacts with a PC.

Example:
GM: "Aneiva and Horgus are having a whispered argument about something again. As you continue down the cavern passage, their voices increase in volume from quiet whispers to stage whispers, and you hear a few snippets about 'lost profits,' 'conspiracy,' and 'Irabeth.' You're now afraid that the din might attract unwanted attention from elsewhere in the tunnels. Arvashinal seems to think so too, and turns to them with an angry 'SHHHH!!' What do you do?"

That said, I can see immediately that this would be a very challenging series of RP encounters to run. A good GM is going to have to balance the needs of the story against the needs of the players.

GWL, you say that you and the other players told the GM point-blank that you weren't having fun with the way he was handling this encounter. A good GM takes that kind of feedback to immediately adjust his play style to dial back the emphasis on the NPCs. (And, honestly, I would not have run this encounter the way you described your GM running it.)

"But that's how it's written!" is not a good excuse to run a game where the players aren't having fun. Especially when the players tell you that they're not having fun. A poor craftsman blames his tools.

Like I said, based on my reading of it, The Worldwound Incursion requires varsity-level GM skills to pull off successfully. I would not recommend this module to an inexperienced GM. I would also recommend only running it for players that the GM already knows and has a good rapport with.


GWL:
One other thing about the three NPCs at the start of The Worldwound Incursion: None of them are intended to be combatants! The PCs, and the PCs alone, are supposed to be doing the fighting.

In a video game RPG, this would be an escort mission.

Aneiva is built as a melee combatant, but she has a fractured femur and can barely walk, much less fight. Horgus is an Aristocrat, and has no weapons, nor any reall skill with them if given one. Arvashinal is blind and can't target opponents with spells effectively (although he does have some buffs that he can use for the PCs' benefit.)

If your GM had them all fighting alongside you, and then made the choice to beef up the opponents because you had three allies, then he really misread what was written!


captain yesterday wrote:
I've never allowed Leadership, it adds nothing but headaches:)

For me, Leadership has two uses only: 1) Bringing the party up to 4 characters if I only have three players, or 2) Filling in a gap in the party after a player has resigned from the game.

In both cases, I tend to let the character of my most mature player take Leadership as a bonus feat. (i.e. the player I think has the best chance of RPing two characters well)

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I want to add to the discussion that having NPCs fighting alongside PCs has an extremely negative effect on the combat experience. The length of turn is already too long for casual play -- everyone needs to be on top of the game and the rules to finish a decent sized combat in under two hours. Now you're increasing the number of GM turns to include both sides of the battle, which is a kind of GM solitaire with occasional player intervention. Or you turn over the NPCs to the party, meaning those players must now master statblocks they did not create.

This is one of those statements that reminds me that I play a very different style of Pathfinder than most others on this board. Unless the battle is a set-piece that's supposed to take a large portion of the session, I haven't had too many fights last beyond an hour (in a campaign that's currently 14th level with 2 mythic tiers).

Not sure where the big divergence is between the play styles, though.

As to NPCs involved in combat, I've had a lot of success with players taking control of an NPC during a battle. It keeps them involved in longer battles and also lets them try out different mechanics than the class they're currently playing.


I do wonder, sometimes, why more system mastery has lead to slower turns at my table.

I think it has something to do with action economy options (Summons, Animal Companions, Enchantments, Eidolons) which are heavily favored in my groups. We all recognize the problem, but nobody's willing to take the hit on their character concept just to keep things moving fast.

By all rights, things that grant additional actions should be the most costly options in the game, and they generally aren't.

I don't claim that my experience speaks for everyone, but in the 4-5 different groups I'm exposed to, Pathfinder certainly has this reputation. It runs poorly for large groups, and has huge demands on the GM. The thing we enjoy most about it -- the character building -- is more or less inextricable from the problem. It's destined to become more and more inaccessible and cumbersome, but we got in at the ground floor so it's still worth it to some of us.


Yeah. Actually ran into something like this for my last game on Sunday.

Though to be honest, my players (even the experienced one) in the RoW game aren't experts or even close to it. I wrote out "cheat sheets" with the pertinent information upfront for the characters... and instead learned that some of my players (who are brilliant in other areas!) have trouble with basic math. ^^;;

But going through Hero Labs takes a huge amount of time to click all the right fields.

And as the players become more experienced, they take more time to search through spells to use, abilities they have, and the like. I will admit to missing some of the simplicity of original AD&D, which lacked feats and skills and the like. And yet I see why skills and feats are helpful and make the game more diverse.


honestly i do as much as i can to dissuade from animal companions and outright forbid summoners in my games, it does make things move along better:)


captain yesterday wrote:
honestly i do as much as i can to dissuade from animal companions and outright forbid summoners in my games, it does make things move along better:)

But (bringing it back on topic) the addition of party-NPCs in an Adventure Path is not so easily dealt with.

Of course, you can sideline these characters during actual combat, but that's hardly an ideal solution.

It's just something for the writers to be cognizant of -- certain plot elements can interact with the system's weaknesses. I definitely count large parties as a weakness of the Pathfinder mechanics.


yep totally agree there:)


Published NPCs are not GMPCs. A GMPC is character I as GM make to play in an AP along with characters. The NPCs in the AP are just that, NPCs. They are there for the players to interact with. Some provide information, some provide boons, some help in a fight, some manage the base of operations. NPC can flesh out the story and give shape to an AP. In the end they are NPCs and the players are free to ignore them if they want though that would be detrimental but not fatal. There are rewards for those that like role play with the NPC just as there are reward for those just want to be immersed in the combat.

Sounds to me that the problem here is not GMPC or NPC but that you don't care to role play for information and boons. There is some merit to that. Not everyone one wants to jump through role playing hoops. A good GM should notice that and be able to balance it with those who like a good NPC and those who could care less.

I'm running WotR, the NPCs are there as window dressing. The NPCs are resource for the PC. One in particular is the party lacks a skill monkey so a lot of the time loot is identified by the NPC when the PCs get back to town. Appraisal is done there as well along with decipher books and languages. I use the rogue NPC to allow the PC to have greater shopping ability via Black Market ties for example. I don't role play that out though I could if the players were interested, they aren't though. Se we don't, it's just assumed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
honestly i do as much as i can to dissuade from animal companions and outright forbid summoners in my games, it does make things move along better:)

But (bringing it back on topic) the addition of party-NPCs in an Adventure Path is not so easily dealt with.

Of course, you can sideline these characters during actual combat, but that's hardly an ideal solution.

It's just something for the writers to be cognizant of -- certain plot elements can interact with the system's weaknesses. I definitely count large parties as a weakness of the Pathfinder mechanics.

In those situations where there are a bunch of NPCs working with the party (e.g. "Retaking Rannick" section of Hook Mountain Massacre) my usual solution is to break up the party into two groups: the PCs and NPCs. If there's any way I can do it, I have the NPCs fight their own set of enemies. I don't roll out the combat-- that's boring and a waste of time. I just hand-wave the results of the fight, depending on how the PCs are doing and the needs of keeping the game moving. So, if the PCs are mopping the floor with the bad guys, the NPCs get into trouble and need the PCs to help them out. If the PCs are having some real trouble, the NPCs can also be having trouble, or they can win and give the PCs a helping hand.

If I do have PCs and friendly NPCs in the fight, I'll usually have the NPCs just move around to give PCs better positioning and/or flanking. I'll also have the NPCs take the Aid Another action instead of making attack rolls to give the PCs an advantage in numbers, but still rely on the PCs to do the heavy lifting of the fight. That keeps the spotlight on the PCs, and keeps the game moving.

If I run a party of 6 PCs, I flat-out disallow animal companions/special mounts/Leadership feat. (I always ban the summoner.) In that case, I will try very hard not to introduce friendly NPCs into the party.


I've found that when major NPCs (potential GMPCs) join the party for something, they typically do so only for a little while (maybe one or two encounters), and they take a definite supporting role. For example, the NPC cleric mainly moves around casting healing spells, and npc warriors will make heavy use of the aid another action. I don't want my NPCs to upstage the players.

I have had a couple scenarios where the NPCs were pretty darn important. In those cases, my players acted as generals and dictated what the NPCs did (stand guard on this wall, heal, etc.) as the scenario unfolded.

151 to 169 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.
Recent threads in General Discussion