|
What if you look up a rule and are irrevocably divided on its interpretation?
We figure out what interpretation to go with and move on. It honestly doesn't come up very often because I generally don't care what interpretation we use, as by the end of the session everyone has forgotten about it and it doesn't make a difference what rule you used.
|
Let me ask you this: If there's dispute in the rules' interpretation, do you have the final say?Not really, the rules do.That's why I said, "the rules' interpretation": To avoid precisely the answer you gave. What if you look up a rule and are irrevocably divided on its interpretation? There has to be a point at which the buck stops with you.
Of course, that may never come up, but ...
I've always felt DM trumps rules, if he or she so chooses and deems it necessary or beneficial, so ... very different interpretations of the role.
That is why you take the rules directly as they are written, no interpretations. Then, there is no problem.
It always surprises me just how bad GMPCs, by which I mean characters the GM plays as if they were their PC, are for a campaign.
I can well see it is bad, but its much worse than you would expect.
Maybe it is that GMs who don't know that GMPCs are a very bad idea tend not to know what they are doing.
And what's worse, we have DM's that think they are so very great as they "know how to play DMPC's right, and they add a lot to a game if so..."
Now, sure, sometimes the party wants a needs a NPC, perhaps a healer. Ifso- then let the players run him. Of course the DM can step in if the players make him stupidly suicidal.
Or perhaps *YOU* really need to play a PC also in order to have fun. Ok, then just acknowledge it, tell your players that you have a lot of fun playing one, that you know they are problematic, but it's just a little idiosyncrasy you hope they are OK with- like demanding a huge bag of Cheetos before you DM. Make sure she's not a "Mary Sue" and that shes not more powerful or knowledgeable than the party. Talk it out with them. if you're a good DM, they will accept it- just like they accept buying you a bag of snaks.
Just dont be in denial. You're not running a DMPC for them* you're running it for yourself. And, as long as you know it, and run it appropriately, it's not so bad.
Just like you're not eating those Cheetos for them. ;-)
I've seen GMPC done well. Having said that I've much more often seen it done poorly. And EVERY SINGLE ONE of the GM's that did it poorly thought they were doing it well. So be very careful it you want to consider trying it.
I have used them when necessary. But only with serious limitations.
-
True, and excellent advice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mmmmm Cheetos
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, never had Cheetos in my entire life.
Peers suspiciously at Hama... how about Mt Dew, then?
Never had Cheetos? Get off my lawn!
;-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what's worse, we have DM's that think they are so very great as they "know how to play DMPC's right, and they add a lot to a game if so..."It always surprises me just how bad GMPCs, by which I mean characters the GM plays as if they were their PC, are for a campaign.
I can well see it is bad, but its much worse than you would expect.
Maybe it is that GMs who don't know that GMPCs are a very bad idea tend not to know what they are doing.
Eh, every time I see something like this, I feel like we are on the cusp of a story about how a bad GM did a bad thing and to this day it still haunts the poster.
Maybe it isn't that they/we think that we are so great and wonderful, but that we don't cram the GMNPC, or any NPC, down the players throats or make them feel like they are observers in the game.
If the GM is going to glory hog on the players or steal the spotlight or otherwise marginalize them they can do that with any NPC. The party doesn't have to have Elminster traveling with them, the GM could use a familiar or henchman or wandering shepherd to save the day or make them feel like second-class adventurers.
It is a tool and if used correctly it can benefit the game, just like anything else the GM does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of assumptions going on in this thread.
It works at some tables not at others.
A good DM will adapt and change to make his game better for the players and himself so everyone is having fun.
If that means a small party gets a dm controlled character that helps them out great.
If after a few sessions the group hates that then a different solution is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the anti-DMPC crusade tiresome and silly, frankly, because it almost invariably features sweeping generalizations that are usually resentment-laden and downright vitriolic, as with some of the above posts.
Those who say they're always a bad idea, or that they must remain unimportant, are talking out of their ass.
I've seen it done horribly, by triumphalist DMs who wish to be worshiped ... competently, by good DMs looking to fill a party role no one else wants ... and brilliantly, by grandmaster DMs whose narrative touch both guided and inspired.
If your players bring it up as an issue, then you should probably reconsider the character's participation. (Note that I don't mean the noob twit control freaks who come into a game, see a GMPC and automatically, because of their prejudices, decide "it cannot work," sight unseen; those individuals should be ignored or expelled.) If the players never mention it and a good time is being had by all, don't give it a second thought.
I've run characters in games where the DMPC gravitated to party leadership and took a preeminent role in plot direction, because the players really did want to be led around by the nose and react to events rather than trail-blaze. I've run games in which my PCs were DMPCs when I ran the game, and PCs when someone else took a turn. Wonder of wonders, all it required on the part of the participants was maturity.
Fancy that.
Yep. I don't get the bile against it to be honest. Do the critics hate the participation of any and all npcs in engagements? Because a DMPC run competently is an ally.
As you say, when players don't want to lead but do want to fight and have fun with help along, a dmpc works well even in a leadership role.
Pretty much my only GMPC was also a healer. More specifically, the Miniatures Handbook Healer base class. She was part of the party monk's order, and he was escorting her as they traveled to the campaigns location.
It wasn't long before the monk player dropped out, and we ended up with only three players and the healer. She used the exalted vow of poverty and took none of the treasure. She never made suggestions, only answered questions. Really, the only time she ever came close to overshadowing the party was in combat with a dracolich where her cure spells were their strongest offense. But when they left her alone in an enemy stronghold, the bad guys happened upon her and took her out. They then proceeded to raise her from the dead.
I know some will call her a 'good NPC', but she went on to become my Life Oracle in PFS organized play.
Yeah I know the one. DMPC healers were godsends.
Good npc or dmpc? I consider dmpcs allies that I put a lot of effort into, and which can contribute to the game long term if the party want them.
I've seen some of these threads for a while now, and I have some on-topic questions for all of you.
Is this a thing now? Is this a trend? Are we meant to hate recurring helpful npcs now?
I've seen some of these threads for a while now, and I have some on-topic questions for all of you.
Is this a thing now? Is this a trend? Are we meant to hate recurring helpful npcs now?
Why do the recurring helpful npcs need to be run by the DM?
The DM has a lot to do, let the players run the NPC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to include GMPcs, but make sure they are not mary sues, and suffer as many comedic failures, and if possible, moments of outstanding glory, that they can feel like another player. This, for my group atleast, makes it feel like it's us 5, against an unnamed force, instead of 4 of my friends vs Me.
I play Gmpcs who have complementary personalities, and abilities, so that the group feels more rounded out.
And, usually supplying a willing healer helps it all too.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I don't like DMPCs I'd rather deal with that than the classic 'I'm writing a novel' DM that makes the PCs a passive audience and effectively makes every character his DMPC. I've had to deal with a couple of those across the past few years. It was not a great experience.
I'm sure some people use GMPC's to great effect.
As a player and GM, I don't like them. Honestly, if I could find away to run games as a GM with zero stat blocks in front me, I'd rather do that (which I found a game on kickstarter recently that fulfills this greatly, literally no NPC stats).
If absolutely necessary, for a small game possibly, I might give the players a secondary character. I'd roleplay it when it came up, but they would run it in combat and be responsible for dividing loot between it and them. I'm much more likely to pick a game system that doesn't require this secondary character though (like 13th Age).
|
|
I've seen some of these threads for a while now, and I have some on-topic questions for all of you.
Is this a thing now? Is this a trend? Are we meant to hate recurring helpful npcs now?
Why do the recurring helpful npcs need to be run by the DM?
The DM has a lot to do, let the players run the NPC.
Um, you're kidding, right?
The DM isn't a player. It is a character of the non-player - the DM!
:D
As much as I don't like DMPCs I'd rather deal with that than the classic 'I'm writing a novel' DM that makes the PCs a passive audience and effectively makes every character his DMPC. I've had to deal with a couple of those across the past few years. It was not a great experience.
If players are stuck in a dm's novel, and there is little choice as they are passive, weak and ineffectual creatures, the best response to this frustrating situation that I have read was for the pcs to fight each other to death, with the final victor burning their own face off in a fire.
Character suicide can be the ultimate show of defiance. Done well and with others it is a memorable event and can bring the dm to heel, or end a game that needed to end on a high note of sorts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between an actual DMPC and an NPC is DMPCs are full permanent party members with all the rights of a PC. An NPC that travels with the group is a temporary or junior member of the party and doesn't share in the rights of a PC.
Players want to control their character's path and have the freedom to do so under an impartial GM. BUT when the GM has a PC in the group you have a MASSIVE temptation to alter things in that characters favor. Sometimes it's just little things sometimes big, but the players feel sidelined when they figure out your treating the DMPC as the star of the show.
My restrictions were from a shared GM campaign where we three GMs took turns running the same players while our PC became the DMPC... this didn't work out well. Mr Perfect's DMPC became the inexplicable insider man who had way more knowledge than the other PCs, while lovable munchkin's DMPC was offered great power in the game, and I embarrassingly caught myself dropping treasure items into the game I knew my DMPC wanted. Some innocuous like a dress making book... some not so innocuous like that artifact bow perfect for her archery skills. So we got together and made these rules to remind ourselves that the players should always remain the center of attention... NOT DMPCs or NPCs of any kind.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jeez this Mary Sue person(whoever she is) is not very popular at all :-)
Honestly I don't get why everything must be labeled:-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the anti-DMPC crusade tiresome and silly, frankly, because it almost invariably features sweeping generalizations that are usually resentment-laden and downright vitriolic, as with some of the above posts. ...
First, many of the above examples of good GMPC’s would not be called a GMPC in my groups. They would just be a long term re-occurring NPC.
Second, very few of us are saying GMPC’s are always done badly and should never be used. What we are saying is:
- While we acknowledge that a GMPC can be done well and be great for a campaign. It is also very true that a GMPC can be done really horribly. I don’t think this is at all controversial. I think almost all players have examples of GMPC gone bad.
- GMPC seems to be done poorly more often than done well. Yes, this could just be perception or isolated incidents. Yet to many of us it seems to be a fairly consistent occurrence. To the point where some people will quit (or never join) a group as soon as they learn there is a GMPC in use.
- GMPC is very easy to do badly without the GM apparently realizing he is doing it badly.
- GMPC is so ‘expected’ to be a problem, that some players will begin looking for and anticipating problems that may or may not actually be there. So even if run well, it could be causing friction within the group just by its very existence in the game.
- The plot help or capability assistance the GMPC is intended to provide can almost always be provided in some less controversial method that is less susceptible to causing problems.
- Many of us prefer to not utilize such a problem prone option when another possibility exists.
NOTE: This is not an absolute. I have still used them on occasion and will continue to do so when it is the appropriate solution to the situation. But I always try to explore some other solution first. If I do use one, I am very careful in how I go about it.
.
.
...
If your players bring it up as an issue, then you should probably reconsider the character's participation. ...
Small point. Most players that I have known will not tell the GM, "I don't like your GMPC." They don’t want to initiate that confrontation. They will just become more and more dissatisfied until they quit the group. The GM will never know that the GMPC contributed to the dissatisfaction.
That is one of the reasons I rarely use them anymore. I am aware that I am not nearly empathic enough to intuit the players being dissatisfied with the GMPC if no one says anything. So I don’t see enough potential gain to take the risk that I might be running it worse than I thought.
Try to avoid the idea that just because more than one person disagrees with this aspect of home gming, that it's some sort of "crusade".
Try to avoid assuming that this is the only thread in which this ridiculous attitude has seen the light, whether here or elsewhere.
ElterAgo: What you say. Players do not often give feedback of any kind in my experience, and in particular, criticism. They aren't going to start with something so confrontational as questioning your judgement about which characters need to be in the campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ElterAgo: What you say. Players do not often give feedback of any kind in my experience, and in particular, criticism. They aren't going to start with something so confrontational as questioning your judgement about which characters need to be in the campaign.
Man, what kind of players do you guys have?!
My first group was not shy about giving feedback, good or bad!
It helped a lot, too.
But, yeah, most people do want to avoid confrontation: I actually (despite my joking words above) do understand that.
The thing is, there's a certain point at which feedback is given anyway.
I'm not a good PbP GM, though I'm trying to learn. I'm very aware of this (and was before restarting now). I've received plenty of "feedback" via characters and players dropping out. They don't (always) criticize, but they don't have to - they're not interested in the game. I can see it, feel it, and I'm in it. It's feedback.
How do I change? They've given some ideas of what works better, and what doesn't. It's interesting, to be sure, and I'm uneven in my application thereof.
On the other hand, I'm generally better (I think!) at in-person GM'ing.
But that's the nature of things - some people have talents in certain areas of GMing and lack them elsewhere. I suck at PbPs... I might not even have that talent at all, unable to ever develop it properly. I'm okay with that! Would I rather have it as a natural skill? Sure! Buuuu~uuut it doesn't really seem to be, no matter how much I like the idea in theory.
On the other hand, I might be able to improve. It requires practice and thought.
I find (based entirely on forum experience) GMPCs to be similar. I strongly suspect that GMPCs (which are notably lacking from my PbPs... hm...) are simply a facet of GM'ing that some have more of a knack for than others. Much like any other facet.
I'll give some examples:
- NPCs: some are super-fleshed out and always have something to build the story, some are cardboard cutout quest-givers, some are in between, some are "GMGODMODE APPLIIIIEEEED! NOVEL: WRITE"
- Monsters/Traps: some are super-fleshed out and always have something to say, some are cardboard cutout random encounters, some are in between, some are "rocks fall because you didn't like me"
- Treasure: some is super-fleshed out and always have something to add to the story, some are cardboard cutout l00t dr0ps, some are in between, some are monty-haul
Every facet of the game (not just the three that I've noted up there) can be badly mishandled, and make things less good, over-all.
Like with one of Aranna's GMs and treasure. Uuuggghhch. That guy. He doesn't allow them to have a penny over WBL. Creatures will steal in and steal from them and steal back out with no chance to stop it if they happen to make a good bargain, find a dragon horde, or craft their own stuff. As long as Aranna likes it, or likes the games enough despite that, good for them, I suppose. I'd be very irritable - not because I want treasure*, but because that's ludicrous and irritating.
This is similar with magnuskun's house rules: it costs 95% of the value plus feats just to craft items in his games. NOPE.
This is what I mean. Perfectly awesome house rules for their groups (if they like them), but BALARgagaearLAGKL for me. Terrible. Not my playstyle at. all. ... at all.
But that doesn't mean they're "doing it wrong" unless no one is having fun (in which case they are). It's just different.
Thus when someone says "GMPCs are always bad" I just shake my head - they're blatantly ignoring experience that is presented to them in favor of their own prejudice (which may have been justifiably founded in experience).
* Anyone who's read enough of my posts, will eventually start to get the pattern: my characters give stuff away. A lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Second, very few of us are saying GMPC’s are always done badly and should never be used. What we are saying is:
- While we acknowledge that a GMPC can be done well and be great for a campaign. It is also very true that a GMPC can be done really horribly. I don’t think this is at all controversial. I think almost all players have examples of GMPC gone bad.
Agreed. But usually it's attached to someone who's a bad DM otherwise, as well, in my experience.
GMPC seems to be done poorly more often than done well. Yes, this could just be perception or isolated incidents.DMing seems, in my opinion, to be done poorly more often than done well, so ... that's not unique to DMPCs. ...
True. I would never say that a GMPC is the only thing that can go wrong. Or that just that one thing, even if done wrong, will cause me to walk away.
I have stayed with a GM that insisted on using a bad GMPC because most of the rest of the experience was pretty durn good. It still would have been better without.But it has become an indicator for me. I see an obvious GMPC and it's like a flashing yellow warning light "Uh Oh Be Careful, This Could Be Another One Of Those GM's"
...
Yet to many of us it seems to be a fairly consistent occurrence. To the point where some people will quit (or never join) a group as soon as they learn there is a GMPC in use.I feel no need to coddle people with the mentality of nine-year-olds who decide, "There's something here I may not like. Not even gonna give it a chance!"
Gosh ... I'll really miss you.
Small point. Most players that I have known will not tell the GM, "I don't like your GMPC." They don’t want to initiate that confrontation. They will just become more and more dissatisfied until they quit the group. The GM will never know that the GMPC contributed to the dissatisfaction.In other words, "I'll be a passive-aggressive wimp about this, and just walk away, rather than show an iota of backbone and say, 'You know, this isn't working for me.'" What ... a ... crock.
Not only small, but appalling ... and speaking to their issues, not the DM's. Players are solely responsible for having the strength of character to say what's working for them and what isn't. ...
That wouldn't be passive-aggressive, at worst it is just passive. No hidden aggression or striking back.
It's also not acting like a 9 year old. Nine year olds are the ones that throw screaming hissy fits. They don't politely say, "This group doesn't seem to be matching up to where I like to see my game going. I hope you guys have fun in the future and find someone more to your liking."I understand what you are saying here and I sorta understand it. On the other hand.
I am one of those people that probably would not say anything on a subject like this to the GM for 2 distinct reasons.
A) If no one else seems uncomfortable with it, I will probably assume it is a long term factor in their game. They are used to it and enjoy it. It would be rather petty of me to expect them to change their existing game just for me.
B) This game is supposed to be an enjoyable pastime. Around 90% of my professional job is confrontation and arguing with people. I game to get away from that not add to it.
Adding a confrontation questioning how someone runs things is not enjoyable. Especially if might be someone who doesn't take such comments well. To be honest some of your responses in this thread sound like someone who would turn any such criticisms into an antagonistic argument.
Guess what? Not liking that one aspect has just turned into not liking the whole situation. I'm probably going to be quitting the group at that point anyway.
What would that confrontation have gained me?
Do I have the strength of character, intestinal fortitude, or whatever you want to call it for a confrontation? Of course I do, it's how I make my living. Doesn't mean I feel it is worth it in this case, will have a desirable result, or is how I want to spend my free time.
.
.
Feed back that is less likely to set-off the GM and I think he will actually listen, yeah sure. I've given feedback and suggestions, no problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, you're kidding, right?I've seen some of these threads for a while now, and I have some on-topic questions for all of you.
Is this a thing now? Is this a trend? Are we meant to hate recurring helpful npcs now?
Why do the recurring helpful npcs need to be run by the DM?
The DM has a lot to do, let the players run the NPC.
Why not? We have been doing that since 1974. Henchmen, Hirelings, etc. There's absolutely no reason why the players can't run a party henchman healer or whatever.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rarely plan for a 'DMPC' but frequently I end up playing people alongside the party because they
1.) Make good relationships.
2.) Don't buy the 'I cannot help you but...' excuse.
In the case of the first one, the PCs tend to go to certain NPCs for assistance or help, in these cases they come along, they sometimes are PC tier, sometimes aren't.
In the second case well..as an example.
There was an undead hating ranger who lived in the sewers the party was traveling through. He introduced himself by shooting the dhampir cleric (assuming, not unjustifiably, he was with the baddies).
The guy I intended as a brief encounter or info dump turned into 'come with us, you hate undead, we need a guide down here.'
I think the difference between the good and bad DMPC depends on if the party cringes at the thought of the guy or if they feel like they're his escorts or if they welcome him into 'their' story.
And what's worse, we have DM's that think they are so very great as they "know how to play DMPC's right, and they add a lot to a game if so..."And what's even worse, I imagine, at least from your perspective, is that some of those DMs have been shown by testimony in this very thread to be absolutely correct, whether you choose to admit it or not. Setting aside any of my players' impressions of how well I have done it, I myself have played in games with brilliantly run DMPCs. In short, I've seen it done well more than once—which essentially settles this argument, and not in your side's favor.
By the way, that's not to say you're incorrect about it often being done badly. I've seen that, too. But everyone needs to decide for themselves and their group whether reward is worth risk.
I never said it cant be done well. What I said was that some DM's think they are doing it well- but they are not. I mean honestly- you agree many DMPCs are not run well- but I'll bet every single one of those Dm's thinks he's running the DMPC really well, and that his players love it.
Do note that the most vehement support for DMPCs always comes from DMs who run DMPCs.
I used to. I thought they were great and I was doing a fantastic job doing it. I found out I was incorrect. It took me almost twenty years to learn this.
DMPCs aren't evil. Sometimes they can add to a game. I just ask that the DMs who use them consult your players and think of their real motivations for needing to always run one.
Is there someone here who has professed a need to run them?
Ok, 'wanting" then.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there someone here who has professed to always wanting to run one? (I'm not going back through this thread looking, so I don't expect you to either. Just thought maybe you saw one you can point out.) For the most part it seems to be people arguing about how it's always bad versus only sometimes being bad.
I usually want to. Most of the time I don't do one GMPC, but a cycle of reoccurring NPCs the party encounters, joins up, leaves, etc. Eventually they kind of get to pick whichever out of the group they thought fit in the best, but never more than one...kind of like an old-school Final Fantasy game. I always use the same design rules as PCs, and always include time where they have no GMPC allies to reinforce that they are the stars of the show.
So far it's been received with enthusiasm. They tend to get upset when their guest NPC leaves.
Also, I never hold back and will murder guest NPCs without hesitation if tactics and dice rolls of baddies will allow it.