|
Hi, all! I'm going to be running a Legacy of Fire game soon. However, what started as a group of 4 has now turned into a group of... well, 1. With 2 tentative players every now and then (yeah, it's lame. They won't play unless they're "in the mood" for it).
At any rate, I've decided to come up with 2 DMPC's that will help the group in case they really need it. And I would like you to design them!
Guidlines:
1) Only Pathfinder is allowed. This means: Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and Advanced Player's Guide.
2) 15 point buy. The group is using 20, and the idea is that the DMPC's compliment and help the group succeed, and don't outshine them. I cannot stress this last part enough.
3) Standard races allowed, plus: Goblin, Kobold, and Tengu.
4) Classes not allowed: Inquisitor, (Gish)
5) Characters MUST have a decent backstory for why they are in the Legacy of Fire adventure (LoF Player's Guide will help), and a clear personality so that I can roleplay them well.
Hope you guys have fun with this.
*Bonus points if you can make the character humorous, suboptimal, and simultaneously viable in the adventure.
To help flesh out a party with some NPC characters it would help to know what classes and races your players will be using for their characters. That way if you are weak on spell casting you can NPC a mage type, weak on healing a cleric ect..
No offense, but a definite party of 1 really isn't a game.
You should dump the two touchy-feely people and find more players before getting into this, otherwise it's more like D&D solitaire.
|
|
An excellent point. I didn't realize how unclear I was on that matter.
Full party of players includes:
Elf Inquisitor of Gorum (The only consistent player)
Human (Keleshite) Paladin (The least active player)
Human (Varisian) Fighter [w/ plans for Eldritch Knight] (less active player)
Obvious considerations from me include the fact that the group has neither a dedicated Arcane Spellcaster or a Healer. However, I have seen groups function perfectly well without either of those two, so in this case backstory and personality are more important to me than class or "job". Still, if you CAN work those in, that's good, too.
|
|
No offense, but a definite party of 1 really isn't a game.
You should dump the two touchy-feely people and find more players before getting into this, otherwise it's more like D&D solitaire.
You say that, but living in a small town where almost NO D&D groups exist (and the ones that do are entirely mechanics based, with little to no actual roleplaying), finding full groups is difficult.
Additionally, I have run MANY solo games due to circumstances like this. It's not as bad as you would think. In fact, it's sometimes nice, especially for the more domineering players, to get a chance to have unrestricted access to the DM during gameplay.
I would suspect finding players isn't as hard as you think.
|
|
I would suspect finding players isn't as hard as you think.
... I live in a town full of hyper-conservative Christians, many of whom view the game as a sin (kid you not)...
And even those who are willing to play, like my friends here, are either really tentative, have never played before, or thinks that it is the lamest thing ever.
That said, I really like the game, and wish to help my players enjoy it as much as possible.
*(Note: I have nothing against Christians.)
My point mainly hinged on the fact it is easier to find players than DMs.
I have had a lot of luck with a cleric/rogue DMPC, covering two bases pretty well. Perfect goddess there (especially for a gnome) is Silvaneh. A high Con score keeps them from being a liability. Keep key skills maxed, spread the rest at half ranks. Cha bonus adds to channels.
Good Campaign Traits could be the earning freedom one, or the Missionary one perhaps. Could even use the "Seeking Adventure"/pathfinder one, and use Clr/Bard instead and go into Pathfinder Chronicler, about the best support class in existence.
Could also move towards PFRPG version of Rich Burlew's Divine Trickster class.
|
No offense, but a definite party of 1 really isn't a game.
You should dump the two touchy-feely people and find more players before getting into this, otherwise it's more like D&D solitaire.
I think it's a DM and 1 player, so it's nothing like solitare and having done it, can be a hell of a lot of fun.
But I do agree that having two touchy feely people playing is more of a curse than a blessing. What you need to do is instead of creating DMPCs actually rework the AP to work for a 1 player game and then if the other players make it, it's easy to ramp up encounters by adding an enemy or two instead of trying to saddle a single player with 2 DMPCs, in fact as a player in a one player game, I'd hate to have any DMPCs unless I took the leadership feat and the DM played my cohort or something.
|
Don't make two DM-PCs!
Convince the Player running the Elf Inquisitor to make a 2nd PC. The Elf Inquisitor can have all the backstory and personality -- can talk to the NPCs. The other need not have much personality, can just be a tank or something.
------------------------------------------------------
You make only 1 DM-PC and make sure you don't make any decisions, just combat help.
-------------------------------------------------------
In your situation (so few Players), get rid of the silly notion that Players HAVE TO HAVE INTERESTING BACKSTORIES. Yeah, it'd be great but beggers musn't be choosers.
I have a great deal of experience playing RPGs one-on-one. I think the best way is for the player to play 2 characters and for the DM to play 2.
And don't be TOO afraid to let your characters make decisions. Even the DM doesn't make perfect decisions. And even in cases where the DM knows, for example, the bad guys' secret weakness, and the player doesn't figure it out, this can be very useful. If the battle is going badly, and all else fails, the DMs' characters can "figure it out." As cheating goes, it beats the heck out of fudging die rolls!
And sometimes even THAT isn't enough. I saw a demonstration of that, in a game I described here. If you don't have time to read all that, the short version is: Even when my character gave the secret away, in order to save the party from a deadly trap, the player DIDN'T LISTEN! He marched right into it!
So playing one-on-one can work better than you might think.
|
|
Ever consider an online game through MapTools? :)
Agreed! It takes some getting used to, but I ran the ending of my RttToEE campaign via MapTool with two players local, one in California, and one in Texas (I live in Florida). It worked out great!
I also run a CotCT AP campaign on Tuesday nights (4-4.5 hours) and we've been going every since the PF Beta came out. I expect they'll be finishing up this campaign within 3-4 months as they're about 1/3rd of the way through chapter 5.
(Disclaimer: I'm the forum admin at forums.rptools.net and a sometime code contributor to the MapTool project. :))
|
|
Good suggestions so far, but allow me to elaborate on a few things.
The person that will be able to consistently play really enjoys playing RPGs (we've played a little bit of 3.5 and 4.0 in the past), but still does not have a firm grasp of the rules. Having him manage another character would be somewhat out of the question. I could ask him, which is a good point, but the last thing I want to do is give him too much to do with his limited rules understanding.
@W E Ray: I've never been under the notion that my players have to have interesting backstories. Traits help with that, but I let my players play whatever they choose. I couldn't care less about their past. It's up to them. Additionally, I was planning on only having the DMPC's act as combat support.
@lastknightleft: I actually really like this idea, but the problem is that, at least in my experience, single-player games can be really luck-based. Bad guy gets a crit, and it's game over. Usually, when I run single-player games, I do so with increased statistics and Gestalt classing. The former would not really solve the problem, and the later would be a bit unfair, especially IF the other players decide to play. That, and the primary reason I'm running an AP is because I don't have the time to make my own adventures. Going through and touching everything up would PROBABLY be too time consuming for me.
@Majuba: I really like the Pathfinder Chronicler idea. I often forget about it because most players don't want to play a support character, but I may have to consider that.
The person that will be able to consistently play really enjoys playing RPGs (we've played a little bit of 3.5 and 4.0 in the past), but still does not have a firm grasp of the rules. Having him manage another character would be somewhat out of the question. I could ask him, which is a good point, but the last thing I want to do is give him too much to do with his limited rules understanding.
I wouldn't worry about that too much. When I started a 3.0 campaign with one player who had never opened the rulebook, I had to guide him through character creation, but this proved to be no handicap. (In fact, that's an ADVANTAGE of running it one-on-one. You can give the one player attention without worrying about boring anyone else.) When it came to deciding which threats were managable and which ones to run away from, he usually showed better judgement than I did, and I was the DM! And this campaign was fun and successful, lasting over 3 years.
Of course, I don't know your friend, and it's your game, but I really don't think running 2 characters is too much, even for a newbie.
|
|
Sorry, I was under the impression that you required interesting backstory during the PC creation proces. Something I strongly encourage as well -- just not when I'm in dire need just to fill my gaming table.
I guess my advice for only 1 (hopefully none) DM-PC is because the game just doesn't play that well, typically. You run the campaign; you run the NPCs in combat -- you shouldn't be running the majority of the PCs as well. Just look at how an initiative order could often read:
1st: BBEG (DM)
2nd: PC (DM)
3rd: PC (Player)
4th: Mooks (DM)
5th: PC (DM)
6th: Lt BBEG (DM)
The DM does essentially everything -- that's not D&D; it's masturbation.
How 'bout, since the other Player won't be comfortable running a 2nd PC, build and run one together. The two of you could come up with a PC together and during combat you can jointly decide what that PC will do. If you make it a pure Tank or a pure Buffer then it should be pretty easy to run.
And in non-combat situations he can just be a silent partner -- a fly on wall party member.
|
|
@lastknightleft: I actually really like this idea, but the problem is that, at least in my experience, single-player games can be really luck-based. Bad guy gets a crit, and it's game over. Usually, when I run single-player games, I do so with increased statistics and Gestalt classing. The former would not really solve the problem, and the later would be a bit unfair, especially IF the other players decide to play. That, and the primary reason I'm running an AP is because I don't have the time to make my own adventures. Going through and touching everything up would PROBABLY be too time consuming for me.
Simple solution is don't run crits for the bad guys, I know it sounds silly, but really players are challanged enough as it is, removing crits and simply avoiding save-or-die spells goes a long way towards making the game just challenging without it being super swingy. And I doubt the player will even notice the difference if you just don't mention you aren't doing it. Most players rarely know if they're being critted anyways unless you tell them there have been many a time in my games where players thought they were critted when really I just rolled decent on my damage die. But however you want to go with it. I just know from personal experience that I have more fun in a one player game just playing myself then being saddled with DMPCs, I just personally don't like the DM filling up holes instead of learning to cover bases myself. The added benefit is you can wait till his mastery is up and then allow him to take leadership, then he is running 2 PCs, anywho however you decide to go, have fun with it. Good gaming.
Probably the simplest thing would be an extra fighter for the main player to run. You can give him simple but useful feats like toughness, quickdraw, and the like (nothing too fancy to keep track of). Just make sure he's got some hit points for staying power, and cares enough about the other characters he'll fight to help them out.
Easy to play and stone reliable. The inquisitor has more to think about, so "I drop my bow, run up and attack" is about all the fighter needs to do.
If your tentative players are like mine have been in the past, I would pass on them entirely. They simply can't be relied on whatsoever, and this means that you can't prepare for them properly.
I would set up the game for 1 player, and leave it that way. If they want to show up for a session you have set up for them, fine, but don't let them pick and choose the events they show up to. This way you can make sure they have the best opportunity to have a fun time and then could choose to be part of your permanent game.