GreyWolfLord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread people were talking about Paizo's "Agenda" and got me thinking, I'm not bothered by that, but there IS something that sort of annoys me. You know what bothers me FAR more than anything related to that...inserting a LOT of obvious DMPCs into the AP. Personally I want the adventure to be about the PC's, not the NPC's and including a bunch of NPC's as rote to be with the party is not my cup of tea.
As a GM I don't want to play a character or steal the spotlight from the other players. I don't have a problem if it's a possible replacement for a player if we don't have enough, or a replacement if one of the party members dies, but as a group that journey's with the PC's...not my cup of tea.
As a player, it REALLY annoys me if the GM has a bunch of NPC's they play as part of our party. If they want to play that bad, just let someone else GM and create your own character instead of hijacking our party with yours.
Maybe it's because I didn't GM it, but in our recent excursion with WotR, it seemed as if there was an overabundance of these DMPC's, which was annoying. Who is this game for? The DM only, to be the spotlight, the champion, and everything, or for the players and the GM.
It seemed to me as if it's starting to show (though I admit, it may have only been our GM, or maybe an AP specific thing) an overabundance of DMPCs in the APs, which is something I don't really like.
Am I wrong on this? If this is a trend, do people really want all these DMPCs?
Wyrd_Wik |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see what you're getting re the proliferation of supposed DMPCs. Many of the APs have an ongoing supporting cast which is a good thing in my mind. The only case I can think of is perhaps Ameiko in JR. Really its up to the DM and the group how they use friendly NPCs. Sometimes they're just like Q; you get some fancy gear from them, others provide some intelligence and if the group is inclined maybe some extra muscle.
I'm running JR and I often use the caravan NPCs in the first few books as one would volunteer to go with the "away team" but I think its pretty clear the campaign is about the PCs. Granted my group helps that Ameiko is one of the group's PCs. So while I haven't read RoW I did sub for WoTR and did notice again a 'supporting cast' that by certain DMs could be twisted into a gallery of DMPCs but I don't think Paizo presents that as a default assumption.
GreyWolfLord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take WotR. Right from the beginning you have a group of PC's that are there. One makes sense, but a whole group of them to be with you and travel with you. Is this our game...or the DM's travelling troupe which we just happen to be tag alongs with? To make it more odensome, one of them is connected to the "questgiver" and hence, that one will always go on the quest and urge us to do the other one's bidding.
I mean...maybe it was just the DM, but if not...why do we need such heavy handed DMPC's in the group?
As side characters, that's one thing, but part of the group? If we wanted another player, we'd get more players without having the DM play a couple of them so we can tag along with the DM's set adventure.
GreyWolfLord |
AH, So it looks like the GM choose option 2 there. It was just rather annoying.
RotR did it really good with PC's that guide you, but aren't really people that become "the party" as you would.
The do good development on the different PC's in Sandpoint, and their interactions, but not overbearing (so that they are not your constant questgivers and pointmen and all the other people are urging you to go along with them, which was how the GM portrayed the NPC's in WotR).
So basically, I love NPC development, but not NPC's as a constant part of the party, nor even inspiration to have them there except in exceptional circumstances. Let us have our own parties and keep the DMPC's to a minimum.
captain yesterday |
i totally get what you're saying, i'm with you and all, i've found that while pathfinder does include them sometimes in the story, WotR, Serpent's Skull and Jade Regent being the main ones (the rest seem not so much) except for Jade Regent they aren't as integral to the story in fact in my foray thru Serpent's Skull the other NPCs didn't make it thru part one of book 2:)
Deadmanwalking |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In WotR...there are a lot of NPCs that can wind up tagging along, but with one exception (who doesn't even show up until relatively late in the AP), they basically can't fall into the whole 'overshadowing the PCs' problem that's one of the worst things about DMPCs because they are not Mythic and the PCs are. They basically can't steal your thunder, given the serious power disparity.
Nor are any of them expected to be forced on the PCs. The PCs take who they want with them, nobody else.
lastblacknight |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have used a GM-NPC on occasion; usually to fill a role (or two via mutliclass) for the party which isn't filled by the PC's. The balancing act is to ensure their relevance in the group (and not simply be a doormat) without being heavy handed.
In smaller groups sometimes a GM-NPC is necessary; you'll need a decent back-story, something with real depth (so there character is clearly defined).
Their role should simply be back-up; mechanically I let the players make their rolls; I choose their spell selection (travelling & battle list's). And they have the PC's talk tactics in-game as they get to 'know' each other.
It's never been an issue at my table; the NPC is never there to outshine a PC's and their motivations are always clear (even if they backstory is more of a slow reveal).
Another advantage is; if a PC dies there is an option of the player running the GM-NPC until a new PC character can be introduced into the story without spoiling the flow.
Googleshng |
I can't think of anywhere beyond Jade Regent where it's really an issue, and there, there's really nothing in the AP that necessarily forces them along on the actual adventures. That said though, there's something to be said for writing them out entirely and just given what plot relevance they have to some of the PCs. Although at that point Kingmaker may be more of what you're looking for come to think of it.
DM_aka_Dudemeister |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Jade Regent game is one of the most fun games I've ever had the pleasure of running. Right now the player's caravan stands at roughly 16 named NPCs, and 11 unnamed NPCs. Most recently one of those characters has had a character arc of her own.
My players won't stop talking about how much they love seeing Zaiobe's development and the effect they've had on her in the time since they first met her.
She's not a DMPC, she's a fully fleshed out NPC, with her own internal life beyond that of the PC's own goals and desires and it's made the players feel like the world around them is just a little bit more real, and the game more entertaining for having such a story within.
Mikaze |
9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Letting my eyes glaze over after the first post with all the appearances of Jade Regent and Wrath of the Righteous in this thread. Playing in(and enjoying) both.
Am I wrong on this? If this is a trend, do people really want all these DMPCs?
Personally, I totally want those fully fleshed out NPCs. I don't see an NPC becoming a GMPC just because they have a big or highly visible role in the campaign.
And honestly, those characters are a huge part of the draw the APs have for me, whether I'm GMing Curse of the Crimson Throne or playing Jade Regent and Wrath of the Righteous. When I play the game, I want to immerse in the world. And fleshed out NPCs you can invest in and care about one way or another is a critical part of that. I would be bored to tears if they were nothing more than props or worse, completely disposable names like what the old DCC tagline used to tout as a virtue. I've never been interested in that kind of game, so that particular "old school" paradigm is something I'm happy to leave behind.
There are entire product lines that cater to that style of play of course, like the aforementioned DCC modules. I'd rather see Pathfinder continue doing its thing rather than dumping one of the big things that drew me, and a lot of other folks I'd wager, to it in the first place.
(and honestly, hearing WotR compared to Jade Regent as far as NPC richness just makes me even more excited to have just started playing it as well :D)
Lloyd Jackson |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreeing with what others have said, I think there is a significant difference between DMPCs and persistent NPCs, at least for me.
I don't know how to explain that difference, but it's there. DMing and PCing at the same time is bad, awkward, and gives me a headache. Persistent NPCs are a lot of fun and I can be half a dozen with no problem.
Matthew Downie |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad DMPCs are when the GM cares about their PC too much - they want to win, save the day, hog the glory. This is a distraction from the main duties of the GM (providing a fun challenging adventure for the players) and a conflict of interest.
Nothing in any of the APs that I have seen encourages this type of DMPC.
Deadmanwalking |
Agreeing with what others have said, I think there is a significant difference between DMPCs and persistent NPCs, at least for me.
I don't know how to explain that difference, but it's there. DMing and PCing at the same time is bad, awkward, and gives me a headache. Persistent NPCs are a lot of fun and I can be half a dozen with no problem.
This.
NPC companions/allies of the PCs are great, and add a lot of flavor, as well as occasionally allowing the GM to steer the PCs slightly in useful directions (very handy in an AP). They also allow the PCs to accomplish things, like winning their friendship, love, or respect, or ferreting out their treachery, or just having fun finding out more about them.
It's when the GM becomes invested in a particular character and starts thinking of them as 'their PC' that you really start having problems, IMO. That tends to lead to that character stealing serious spotlight time from the actual PCs...which is definitely not what most players enjoy in their games.
Charlie Brooks RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32 |
I'm running both Jade Regent and Wrath of the Righteous, and while all the extra NPCs makes for some extra work on the GM's part (since I have to give them scenes so they don't just fade into the background), I don't think they're a major problem in the adventure paths.
If you're GMing the game, you can pretty much dispense with any of the NPCs you want. None of them from my reading so far are all that plot essential. Even Ameiko, who is definitely the most plot-essential NPC, can be removed in the first book if desired.
I think the issue will have more merit if future adventure paths design themselves around the assumption that the NPCs are playing a major part in the story. Right now, it seems like they're helpful additions but not necessary if you want to just remove them.
pennywit |
I sort of saw this issue incoming when I started GMing Kingmaker -- from the first modules there are several NPCs who could become GM PCs if you're not careful. My solution was to make them clearly subordinate to the PCs. In one major set-piece battle, for example, two of these NPCs were present, but they were there mostly as resources, and it was up to the players to decide where to place these NPCs and what they should generally do during the battle. (Support, heal, cover a wall, etc.)
Mortagon |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem having fleshed out npc's in my game but sometimes it feels like Paizo goes kind of overboard with their npc's. I would prefer shorter backstories, maybe a quarter a page or so and that all npc's would be expendable and not crucial to the plot or story. I would prefer that their importance and story in the Campaign was up to the GM.
I also don't like it when pc's are forced to babysit (or adventure) with npc's unless it makes sense (like in the first part of WotR and SS)but most of the time I think it's an unnecessary burden for both the players and the GM. I sometimes see a bit of favoritism in Paizo's npc's (Ameiko and a certain character in Demon's heresy comes to mind)which I really dislike since I think the special ones should be the player characters.
Tirisfal |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think fully-fleshed out NPCs are just as important to the adventure as fully-fleshed out enemies. Caring about the folks around you will get you more engrossed in the story, and will get you more motivated to save the world around you. It's up to the GM to carefully carry the NPCs across the adventure, and it's ultimately up to them how strong a role they have, no matter what the AP says.
As far as WotR goes (because I haven't read any of the others mentioned here),
Now, my questions for the OP are, is your GM and the rest of your party having fun? And have you talked to your GM about scaling the NPCs' involvement back a bit?
Tangent101 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Investing in an NPC and thinking of them as "their" PC is not bad unless the GM is unethical enough to "gift" the NPC with magic items, nerfing rolls against the NPC, and so forth.
For instance, in the Runelords game I'm running, I have a GMPC - an Arcane Trickster that I'm rather fond of. I've nearly killed her several times, I have her rushing into combats where she honestly isn't suited to it and is going to get herself killed, and I don't pull punches when the enemies are hitting her. And I am absolutely puzzled in that the players have been giving her magic items - specifically items to boost her armor class and the like. (Probably so she doesn't die on them, especially as she's the trap-finder - fortunately there's a Thief Trait that allows for meta-knowledge on traps.)
The GMPC doesn't detract from the game, the others don't consider her to be a Mary Sue or the like, and the character gives me a means of interacting with the players and sometimes hint at things. Primarily it's because I will kill her if the dice fall that way (and I will fudge rolls for the players unless they do something stupid). And I have killed off GMPCs in the past when I realized they were starting to compete with the players (in fact, I once crafted an entire encounter around killing off that GMPC - doing so, I ended up watching the party go into full retreat (their first ever) because they had lost the GMPC on the first round.
So that's the thing. If you are an ethical GM who will kill off the GMPC if the story calls for it or if the character is getting disruptive, then GMPCs are not a problem. And if a player has a problem with the GMPC, you have to take a look at the player: do they have a legitimate grief, or are they just trying to piss you off? And yes, I had a campaign end after one player nearly killed the GMPC (who kind of got in over her head and nearly died in combat - the disruptive player took advantage of that to try and smother her, and the resulting "WTF?!?" from the others in the gaming group caused the group to split and I just ended that campaign rather than try to rebuild.
GreyWolfLord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think fully-fleshed out NPCs are just as important to the adventure as fully-fleshed out enemies. Caring about the folks around you will get you more engrossed in the story, and will get you more motivated to save the world around you. It's up to the GM to carefully carry the NPCs across the adventure, and it's ultimately up to them how strong a role they have, no matter what the AP says.
As far as WotR goes (because I haven't read any of the others mentioned here),
** spoiler omitted **
Now, my questions for the OP are, is your GM and the rest of your party having fun? And have you talked to your GM about scaling the NPCs' involvement back a bit?
Well, for WotR, it ended up in a TPK, party wipe...
And no, we didn't like the GMPC's. They basically were used to hound us to "obey" the other GMPCs orders to the letter.
There was no room for anyone who really wasn't Lawful and wanted to listen to these NPCs.
I'm not certain how it was written, but it really irked me that here we were, the heroes, but basically it was such and such a GMPC leader...and their merry band of heroes on call...we were the heroes on call as it were.
And then there WAS babysitting. There were "favored" characters in the campaign, and if they died, we were implored to help bring them back due to "love" and other things (NOT OUR LOVE...mind you, their loved ones...who if they had a smidgeon of common sense wouldn't send their loved ones out to be killed with us on our excursions after the first time their "loved" ones were killed).
It was only halfway focused on us. It was like the AP was written with a story told about the NPC's (like one such paladin and her excursions against a particular foe in one of the parts of the AP...I mean...is this HER story or OURS?).
So, it could have been a heavy handed GM...but a lot of it really seemed written into the AP that way and would have had to be modified by the GM to be different?
I just know, it was kind of irking that instead of a story about us (the PC's) it seemed more like a split story with the NPC's taking center stage with their stories at some points.
Lord Snow |
None of the NPCs in any adventure path are written as GMPCs, and honestly interpreting them in that way is kind of silly. Sometimes NPCs will be very important for the story, but that's very different from an NPC who joins the party and effectively acts as another PC.
Now, if what the OP meant was NPCs who are important to the story... it's incredibly hard to make the PCs themselves important to the stories without limiting the players' options too much. It's important that stories in APs have a human element (well, any other intelligent races also count), and for that it's important to have central NPCs in it.
I very much like NPCs in Paizo's APs, and I think Curse of the Crimson Throne is the best AP partially because of the incredibly strong, varied and interesting cast of supporting NPCs there. WotR gets bonus points from me as well because of it's emphasis on both allies and villains as fleshed out characters. Other APs, like Carrion Crown or Reign of Winter, are lesser on that regard, because there are less NPCs to hang on to. Mummy's Mask is looking to be that way, too.
Mikaze |
16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I'm starting to consider GMPC to be as abused and meaningless a term as "Mary Sue". Or "emo".
Especially since it seems to ultimately come down to be "character I don't like".
NPC in a position of authority? GMPC!
NPC with a fully fleshed out backstory? GMPC!
NPC with a unique background? GMPC!
NPC suggested to be loyal to the PCs and support them? GMPC!
NPC with suggested character development and reactions to the PCs actions? GMPC!
NPC important to the setting? GMPC!
NPC that's more a part of the scenery than an actual NPC meant to be interacting with the party? GMPC!
Does that NPC have highlights in her hair? Oh you better believe she's getting called a GMPC.
Just a trend I've started noticing almost right after getting involved with the game.
edit-WOW that came out bitter.
Lord Snow |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tirisfal wrote:I think fully-fleshed out NPCs are just as important to the adventure as fully-fleshed out enemies. Caring about the folks around you will get you more engrossed in the story, and will get you more motivated to save the world around you. It's up to the GM to carefully carry the NPCs across the adventure, and it's ultimately up to them how strong a role they have, no matter what the AP says.
As far as WotR goes (because I haven't read any of the others mentioned here),
** spoiler omitted **
Now, my questions for the OP are, is your GM and the rest of your party having fun? And have you talked to your GM about scaling the NPCs' involvement back a bit?
Well, for WotR, it ended up in a TPK, party wipe...
And no, we didn't like the GMPC's. They basically were used to hound us to "obey" the other GMPCs orders to the letter.
There was no room for anyone who really wasn't Lawful and wanted to listen to these NPCs.
I'm not certain how it was written, but it really irked me that here we were, the heroes, but basically it was such and such a GMPC leader...and their merry band of heroes on call...we were the heroes on call as it were.
And then there WAS babysitting. There were "favored" characters in the campaign, and if they died, we were implored to help bring them back due to "love" and other things (NOT OUR LOVE...mind you, their loved ones...who if they had a smidgeon of common sense wouldn't send their loved ones out to be killed with us on our excursions after the first time their "loved" ones were killed).
It was only halfway focused on us. It was like the AP was written with a story told about the NPC's (like one such paladin and her excursions against a particular foe in one of the parts of the AP...I mean...is this HER story or OURS?).
So, it could have been a heavy handed GM...but a lot of it really seemed written into the AP that way and would have had to be modified by the GM to be different?
I just know, it was kind of irking that instead of a...
That is not at all the way the AP is written, and it seems the problem you have is more with your GM's style (which from the sound of it I don't like either) than with the APs as written. The NPCs of WotR are supposed to be a support cast, and they are also not really supposed to adventure with the party much. The spotlight should always be on the PCs, with the NPCs being there to be interacted with.
thenovalord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine until the only way to do the mod is the way the npcs says. It is likely the way the GM uses them as well
In serpents skull no matter what we have done the npcs/factions remained prominent. In book 5 + 6 the pc's can go and have a holiday and let the npcs get on with it
I see the term as a GMPC as an npcs that becomes the driver, you can't get rid off, is mission critical etc.
It could also be me. I like player driven games, with players making up npcs as needed for the scene etc. Or written in npcs become more player controlled....... Kingmaker was excellent for this
Deadmanwalking |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for WotR, it ended up in a TPK, party wipe...
And no, we didn't like the GMPC's. They basically were used to hound us to "obey" the other GMPCs orders to the letter.
There was no room for anyone who really wasn't Lawful and wanted to listen to these NPCs.
I'm not certain how it was written, but it really irked me that here we were, the heroes, but basically it was such and such a GMPC leader...and their merry band of heroes on call...we were the heroes on call as it were.
And then there WAS babysitting. There were "favored" characters in the campaign, and if they died, we were implored to help bring them back due to "love" and other things (NOT OUR LOVE...mind you, their loved ones...who if they had a smidgeon of common sense wouldn't send their loved ones out to be killed with us on our excursions after the first time their "loved" ones were killed).
It was only halfway focused on us. It was like the AP was written with a story told about the NPC's (like one such paladin and her excursions against a particular foe in one of the parts of the AP...I mean...is this HER story or OURS?).
So, it could have been a heavy handed GM...but a lot of it really seemed written into the AP that way and would have had to be modified by the GM to be different?
I just know, it was kind of irking that instead of a story about us (the PC's) it seemed more like a split story with the NPC's taking center stage with their stories at some points.
This is pretty much just not the way WotR is written. Like at all. There's some built-in babysitting early on...but none of the other things you list are remotely appropriate or suggested by the AP. So...bad GMing, not an AP issue per se.
GreyWolfLord |
Part of it I think was the GM perhaps, but I bought part 6 as PDF (due to party wipe, we didn't get to that part, wanted to see how it ended), and it seemed some of the characters that GM used WERE pretty heavily input into the AP...like VERY...
They didn't seem like a big part of 6, but from how they were written, it does seem they were made to go with the party and adventure (as well as ORDER...) the party around from the very beginning.
Part of it is how the AP's may show the NPC's and try to get the GM to be part of the party...but you know what, if a GM wants an NPC that much to be in the adventure and more indispensable than the PC's...perhaps that GM should be a player instead of a GM.
I'm not certain with all of WotR, but I think perhaps they should have MULTIPLE hooks on how to get characters onto a quest or where they should go...instead of having a leader be the divine inspiration to try to send you on the quest (or that's how it seemed for several of the things in the AP).
At the end I guess it sounds like it may be the PC's quest (part 6) but prior to that I think it was played out that it was so and so's quest which they wanted you to tag along or do, or such and such...with certain leaders being at the forefront and basically guiding you to do what they needed to be done, instead of initiatives by the PCs in figuring out what might need to be done next.
I suppose part railroading...but using GMPC's in order to railroad and hence those NPC's are having the real quest and we just are the call upon heroes.
I mean, there were characters that may be disposable, but because of how they were written, do you really think a central NPC to the AP would simply let their wife die and say...oh well...that's life?
Or would it be more like our GMPC who has them ask us to help them raise said spouse?
Maybe I'm just to CN to have GMPC's in the party and feel like I'm being railroaded or some such stuff.
Deadmanwalking |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it I think was the GM perhaps, but I bought part 6 as PDF (due to party wipe, we didn't get to that part, wanted to see how it ended), and it seemed some of the characters that GM used WERE pretty heavily input into the AP...like VERY...
You mean the eight on that first page? They're important, sure...but it's supposed to be entirely up to the PCs how many they actually take with them.
They didn't seem like a big part of 6, but from how they were written, it does seem they were made to go with the party and adventure (as well as ORDER...) the party around from the very beginning.
At no point are any of the NPCs who are with the party and adventuring put in command of them. Quite the reverse in most cases.
Part of it is how the AP's may show the NPC's and try to get the GM to be part of the party...but you know what, if a GM wants an NPC that much to be in the adventure and more indispensable than the PC's...perhaps that GM should be a player instead of a GM.
That's...really not the motivation there. The intent is to focus on the whole "You're Good people, you help other people out and make friends. This can be very useful to you, if you like." As well as giving you people to care about and interact with.
I'm not certain with all of WotR, but I think perhaps they should have MULTIPLE hooks on how to get characters onto a quest or where they should go...instead of having a leader be the divine inspiration to try to send you on the quest (or that's how it seemed for several of the things in the AP).
That is very much not how that's supposed to go.
At the end I guess it sounds like it may be the PC's quest (part 6) but prior to that I think it was played out that it was so and so's quest which they wanted you to tag along or do, or such and such...with certain leaders being at the forefront and basically guiding you to do what they needed to be done, instead of initiatives by the PCs in figuring out what might need to be done next.
That is, again, not how the AP is supposed to be structured at all.
I suppose part railroading...but using GMPC's in order to railroad and hence those NPC's are having the real quest and we just are the call upon heroes.
Again, not how that AP is supposed to go.
I mean, there were characters that may be disposable, but because of how they were written, do you really think a central NPC to the AP would simply let their wife die and say...oh well...that's life?
No...but I'd expect that, in a normal game, since you chose to bring her along you either like her enough or find her useful enough to want to Raise her.
Or would it be more like our GMPC who has them ask us to help them raise said spouse?
That'd be an expected request, yeah. On the other hand, she would've stayed somewhere somewhat safer if the PCs didn't bring her along on their dangerous escapades...so it's not an unreasonable one.
Now, neither of those seem to have applied in your game, where you got stuck with NPCs whether you wanted them or not...but that's not the way that's written at all.
Maybe I'm just to CN to have GMPC's in the party and feel like I'm being railroaded or some such stuff.
APs all involve at least a little railroading...but the NPCs in WotR aren't a particularly big part of it, for the most part. That was your GM's doing, not the AP's.
Jaelithe |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I'm starting to consider GMPC to be as abused and meaningless a term as "Mary Sue". Or "emo".
Especially since it seems to ultimately come down to being "character I don't like" ...
[Mikaze's comments. See above.]
Just a trend I've started noticing almost right after getting involved with the game.
edit-WOW that came out bitter.
Not really. I'd say it was acerbic, but entirely on point ... and largely correct.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher |
I agree. Too many mods where it is about the NPCs, and the PCs tag along and are sometimes given permission to do stuff. Serpents Sk especially
The pc's should develop.they should be mission critical. Any npc should be allowed to die, leave, be ignored, etc and the game should still work.
Well, that wasn't what I took from reading Serpent's Skull at all. Yes there are NPC survivors as well as PCs, but they shouldn't be leading the party and making decisions. And I don't think there are serious consequences for the group if they don't survive. I think mostly, they should be left behind securing a camp, and perhaps hunting or gathering while the PCs explore and deal with hazards. Taking them with the exploring group should be entirely optional.
Tangent101 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh noes! You mean the Mary Sue PCs aren't the sole heroes to save the day but actually WORK with others?!? Noes, don't tell me it's so!
It sounds to me like it's an issue of GMs still learning the ropes rather than the NPCs themselves. It may be that the GM wanted to play the game instead of run it, but no one else wanted to run it. Or it may be an inexperienced GM. Have you sat down with the GM and politely expressed your concerns and feelings? And your belief that it's detracting from the game?
If it's still a problem, find a new GM. Or run the game yourself and learn from the mistakes of other GMs when it comes to NPCs.
Auxmaulous |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine until the only way to do the mod is the way the npcs says. It is likely the way the GM uses them as well
In serpents skull no matter what we have done the npcs/factions remained prominent. In book 5 + 6 the pc's can go and have a holiday and let the npcs get on with it
I see the term as a GMPC as an npcs that becomes the driver, you can't get rid off, is mission critical etc.
It could also be me. I like player driven games, with players making up npcs as needed for the scene etc. Or written in npcs become more player controlled....... Kingmaker was excellent for this
Kingmaker was nice and exceptional because of that format. The Sandbox aspect was nice, even if the encounters were mostly underpowered (standard Paizo AP fare).
Yeah, the formula has already gotten old. When I see fans here chiming about what NPC will be featured in the next AP (JR for example) I start to tune out.
I wouldn't mind a list of glossed over npcs - one or two lines of info (to be expanded by the DM), but when these write-ups are fighting for the same space as the adventure it's a let down on all levels. TBH – unless the NPCs are critical to the AP, I think better support would be to have their expanded information hosted here, on Paizo. And if they are mission critical then maybe the writers need to start asking themselves – "why am I writing so many mission critical/driver NPCs?"
Since this is a zero-sum game (fighting for page space) I would much prefer extra adventure content vs. NPC du jour/featured cover NPC.
As it is the adventure content in each AP is already pretty light and over the years the useful material has gone down (I was beyond disappointed when they cut out the extra scenarios from the APs). I think the NPCs as written are cheap filler and worse, the only way the writers are guided and instructed to pace the adventure and interface with the players - which is bad adventure design. This seems to be an issue with Paizo AP format and writing guidelines because I have several modules written by many of the AP writers and there is considerable less hand holding if any.
If you can't get the players motivated to act without a Mary Sue NPC holding their hand or without NPC guidance, your motivations/drivers in your adventure are weak.
thenovalord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh noes! You mean the Mary Sue PCs aren't the sole heroes to save the day but actually WORK with others?!? Noes, don't tell me it's so!
It sounds to me like it's an issue of GMs still learning the ropes rather than the NPCs themselves. It may be that the GM wanted to play the game instead of run it, but no one else wanted to run it. Or it may be an inexperienced GM. Have you sat down with the GM and politely expressed your concerns and feelings? And your belief that it's detracting from the game?
If it's still a problem, find a new GM. Or run the game yourself and learn from the mistakes of other GMs when it comes to NPCs.
Hmm. Can't decide how insulting your post is
Think ditching the AP is the answer rather than ditching friends.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tangent101 wrote:Oh noes! You mean the Mary Sue PCs aren't the sole heroes to save the day but actually WORK with others?!? Noes, don't tell me it's so!
It sounds to me like it's an issue of GMs still learning the ropes rather than the NPCs themselves. It may be that the GM wanted to play the game instead of run it, but no one else wanted to run it. Or it may be an inexperienced GM. Have you sat down with the GM and politely expressed your concerns and feelings? And your belief that it's detracting from the game?
If it's still a problem, find a new GM. Or run the game yourself and learn from the mistakes of other GMs when it comes to NPCs.
Hmm. Can't decide how insulting your post is
Think ditching the AP is the answer rather than ditching friends.
I don't think ditching friends was suggested. "Find a new GM" doesn't mean kick out the guy who was GMing. He can play too. "GM yourself" as well. "Talk to him" certainly does.
And since the APs can be run without this problem, it's quite possible that if your GM ditches the APs he'd still bring in GMPCs. Especially if you've carefully kept quiet what you don't like about the AP and the way he's running it.
Tangent101 |
Tangent101 wrote:Oh noes! You mean the Mary Sue PCs aren't the sole heroes to save the day but actually WORK with others?!? Noes, don't tell me it's so!
It sounds to me like it's an issue of GMs still learning the ropes rather than the NPCs themselves. It may be that the GM wanted to play the game instead of run it, but no one else wanted to run it. Or it may be an inexperienced GM. Have you sat down with the GM and politely expressed your concerns and feelings? And your belief that it's detracting from the game?
If it's still a problem, find a new GM. Or run the game yourself and learn from the mistakes of other GMs when it comes to NPCs.
Hmm. Can't decide how insulting your post is
Think ditching the AP is the answer rather than ditching friends.
On a scale of milquetoast to flamewar, it's definitely on the milquetoast side of insults. I do not know the specifics of the campaign as there are three sides to every story.
The second two paragraphs are non-insulting and are in fact meant to provide options. Especially the talking to the GM about this problem and if it's a problem then either running a campaign yourself or finding a different GM.
Also, what do your fellow players think? If they don't have a problem? Then maybe it's not a problem and might in theory be personal prejudices concerning NPCs and roleplay taking away from additional encounters to finish the AP.
Karui Kage |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flavorful NPCs that interact with the story are great. They are awesome for the campaign. The problem, as far as I can tell, isn't with the NPCs. The problem is how the GM presents them.
GMPCs: NPCs serve in the foreground. GM presents the NPCs as necessary for the campaign. Uses them to order PCs around. Grants them any special privileges beyond what the PCs get.
Awesome NPCs: NPCs serve in the background. Help to further the story. Assist the PCs if needed. Fill in gaps of knowledge, maybe help if things are being missed.
If the GM is over-handed with them, any NPC, whether flavorful or not, is going to come across as a GMPC.
Tangent101 |
Okay. so you want an anarchistic world where there is no social order at all and no form of leadership.
After all, kings and guild leaders can order PCs around. Queen Galfrey in WotR issues a couple - sending the PCs to Drezen to retake it, and also into the Abyss to close a portal allowing the potions that Mythicize demons. And there is of course a certain Goddess who sends the PCs to the Winding Labyrinth to rescue her Herald....
thenovalord |
All my posts based on play not reading. As I said previous mix of GM and my style I guess.
Npcs are fine. Especially when made up by a player, or temporarily played by a player.
I think we got spoiled by how awesome kingmaker played
Shattered star is great as that is definitely npc in the background.
I think half our group think like me. Others more happy to be spoon Fed.
Pathfinder is my fantasy game of choice. Though I play lot more indie feeling games too.
Only 2 more session of serpents left then the npcs can celebrate their victory!!!!!!!
Karui Kage |
Okay. so you want an anarchistic world where there is no social order at all and no form of leadership.
After all, kings and guild leaders can order PCs around. Queen Galfrey in WotR issues a couple - sending the PCs to Drezen to retake it, and also into the Abyss to close a portal allowing the potions that Mythicize demons. And there is of course a certain Goddess who sends the PCs to the Winding Labyrinth to rescue her Herald....
Perhaps you misunderstood my point, or weren't responding to me. Queens and Kings and those kinds of awesome characters are encouraged, I was more speaking to how the GM represents them. If he uses NPCs as characters that he keeps with the party and places greater importance on them then the PCs, then that's bad. If he uses them to help motivate the PCs or provide flavor to the world and some subtle background here and there, that's better.
For what it's worth, I love the NPCs in WOTR.
Are |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only 2 more session of serpents left then the npcs can celebrate their victory!!!!!!!
Having read Serpent's Skull, I never got the sense that the NPCs were in any way more important than the PCs (or even anywhere close to as important). The NPCs are there either as support for the PCs or to provide information, while it should be up to the PCs how to utilize that support and how to act upon that information.
While it could easily be turned into a game where the NPCs are very important, it doesn't have to be. I believe it should be possible to run through the AP with minimal NPC-interaction if that's what the players desire. It's been a while since I read through it, though, so my memory could be faulty.
Tirisfal |
I wouldn't mind a list of glossed over npcs - one or two lines of info (to be expanded by the DM), but when these write-ups are fighting for the same space as the adventure it's a let down on all levels.
This is where the GM-juggling comes in; the GM always needs to season the adventure to taste.
For every person who states this view (and I think that your opinion here is a perfectly reasonable view, Auxy), there're three other people who complain that "the AP should hold their hands the entire way, because the point of the adventure path is to do all the work for the GM".
I'm not saying that either opinion is wrong, but the latter does tend to show up on the boards quite a bit more often, from what I've seen.