| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have used DMPCs for years and no one in our group objects.
Our group is small and most of the players have some difficulty in running more than one character, so my DMPCs fill in the gap (like if no one wants to play the cleric or the rogue or whatever)
The DMPCs never steal the lime light from the other players. The GMPCs make suggestions (and not always sound ones as I mix 'ideal' suggestions with mediocre if not down 'doomed to fail' suggestions) and the party can heed or ignore those suggestions in their deliberations.
My DMPCs are just like another character in the party which can very effective in one situation, lackluster in another, be the MVP in this situation and the gimp in other. They make brillant suggestions and suggestions that are best ignored. Just like any character being run by one of the players. The only difference is I, as DM, is running that character.
Running a DMPC is an art. Yes, as the DM, I know what lies behind that door, where the traps are, where to find the clue, and who the BBEG is. But my DMPCs are always played as they don't know that info.
The DMPCs never leak hints or try to steer the party towards a course of action. And the final decision in any decision making is always made by the other players, never by the DMPC.
As I said, playing one is a art to 'get it right' - just the right balance of being an effective character without overshadowing the other characters, yet being more than a' Silent George' who just tags along with the party and has no more personality than a robot and is 'seen and seldom heard'
I'll add a +1 to this, as I don't mind a NPC the party recruits tagging along, but when as a player I sit down to a table and the DM has a character that's with the party when no-one asked for it, I'll be put out.
See, I guess this is a really big difference in play styles (and what's seen as a GM-PC). Usually my group wants a "full roster", so a GM-PC, when the party's too small, not only makes sense, but is fully acceptable before-hand. I guess it's an implicit request on our part - a kind of expectation that, if we can't fill all the gaps, they're filled for us.
See, for us, we don't see a difference between those NPCs and the "GM-PC" that's being tossed around here. For us, it generally kind of works that way.
EDIT:
I have used DMPCs for years and no one in our group objects.
Our group is small and most of the players have some difficulty in running more than one character, so my DMPCs fill in the gap (like if no one wants to play the cleric or the rogue or whatever)
The DMPCs never steal the lime light from the other players. The GMPCs make suggestions (and not always sound ones as I mix 'ideal' suggestions with mediocre if not down 'doomed to fail' suggestions) and the party can heed or ignore those suggestions in their deliberations.
My DMPCs are just like another character in the party which can very effective in one situation, lackluster in another, be the MVP in this situation and the gimp in other. They make brillant suggestions and suggestions that are best ignored. Just like any character being run by one of the players. The only difference is I, as DM, is running that character.
Running a DMPC is an art. Yes, as the DM, I know what lies behind that door, where the traps are, where to find the clue, and who the BBEG is. But my DMPCs are always played as they don't know that info.
The DMPCs never leak hints or try to steer the party towards a course of action. And the final decision in any decision making is always made by the other players, never by the DMPC.
As I said, playing one is a art to 'get it right' - just the right balance of being an effective character without overshadowing the other characters, yet being more than a' Silent George' who just tags along with the party and has no more personality than a robot and is 'seen and seldom heard'
+10! Far more eloquently stated than I, yet getting all the points I strove and failed to across!
|
I try not to think of my NPC as my character for all the reasons stated by others. When I make an NPC, and bring it into the game, I always think of them as disposable. They can die anytime and I am OK with that.
These days I find I just don't have the bandwidth to effectively play the NPC anyway.
However, if I find that I must bring in an NPC. Like because there is no cleric or rogue in the party - as is the case now. I go out of my way to make sure the NPC has a strong personality. That way I feel like I am getting something out of the the NPC other than just filling in some gaps for the PC's.
By the way - can someone tell me where the term "Mary Sue" came from? I can sort of tell what it means, but I have never heard of this term before - and I have been playing a long time.
Also. Not to threadjack, but has anyone built a Pathfinder Elminster, Dritzz, or any other major "Mary Sue" from the Forgotten Realms? Some days I am looking forward to building them, and other days I wish I had some help.
No offense, but hearing that the party needs a Cleric or rogue in the party kills my soul a little. Why can't you just let the players adjust to not having those things. Let the party figure out what to do about healing, don't just throw in an character and take that aspect of the game away from them.
I played a game where we had no warrior, it was a cleric, a sorcerer, and a rogue. I rolled almost max on height and weight, as a cleric, and decided I'd make myself into a combat cleric, to be the parties healer/tank. part of that was that my character was a big strong muscular guy, I rolled one short of max height and weight for human, so I'm pretty happy to play up that aspect of my character. Then we get to the session, the DM had a fighter DMPC because the party needed a tank, oh yeah and he just happens to be bigger and stronger than my character (DM said he rolled max and had an 18 str) well so much for my excitement and playing that aspect of my character as there's someone in the party bigger and stronger than me.
I played that day and didn't come back next session.
Eacaraxe
I agree with you
Last DMPC (was back in 3.5. Never had one in PF) I had was a cowardly pixie Healer, who acted as the party post-combat band-aid. Nobody wanted to play a cleric, so I added a living cure wand.
Sigh, this thread makes me think of my poor GMNPC, Hoshina. I added an event where the players could choose to recruit one of three NPCs to join them in the dungeon they were in, and they picked Hoshina because he was (at the time) a Hospitoler Paladin.
I NEVER remembered him; we would go through entire combats and then someone, at the very end, would say, "Hey! What's Hoshina doing?" And I would have to sit there and say, "Oooh yeah...."
|
I have had a GM PC, however it was due to our group switching GMs, so my PC was still part of the group, I just didn't have the character initiate actions, that was for the rest of the party to do.
Plus due to the fact that my PC was the cleric... taking away their healing could have been... traumatic! :)
Most of the other games any GM controlled party member is generally there to provide support rather than main line action. Although my players were surprised when they discovered that one of the NPCs was a coward who kept trying to run from fights... hehe.
GMPCs were something I did a lot of when I was younger and stopped when I was older. For all the normal reasons. Now I'm back to doing it again, with some caveats:
- My characters aren't typically very bright. If they are bright, they're not the kind of personality types that offer up suggestions, and they are always completely ignorant of any relevant adventure information. In other words, the players can't count on the GMPC for squat when it comes to problem solving.
- I make sure I am cool with my GMPC getting killed. If not, he/she doesn't belong in the game.
- If it would piss me off for the PCs to turn on and kill the GMPC, then the GMPC has no business being in the game. In other words, I can't allow myself to become invested in the character at all.
- For attacks, I don't target PCs or GMPC any differently. When the combat starts, it's the baddies vs. the party, and I don't pull punches where my GMPC is involved.
Given all this, I'm not sure where the line is drawn that separates NPC from GMPC, but oh well. My last GMPC got eaten by velociraptors. He was a ranger, and the party proceeded to get lost in the woods.
|
|
-1 I hate DMPCs [...] Say no to DMPCs.Uh, not to be a jerk here but why single me out for anti-GMPC rage, then turn around and cede "I'll add a +1 to this, as I don't mind a NPC the party recruits tagging along, but when as a player I sit down to a table and the DM has a character that's with the party when no-one asked for it, I'll be put out" when the entire second paragraph of my post was (emphasis mine):
"The drawbacks are that you shouldn't use them in large parties. The more players, the less limelight time each player is getting and anything you do as a GM will reduce that. Keep the GM footprint light, the character should never be a "full" PC in power level, mechanical flamboyance, complexity, attention or prestige. At best, they should have one or two notable traits to make them memorable to the PC's. And above all, do not make a damn Mary Sue. In essence, you're making an NPC that interacts with the party more often than anyone else."
Do you really need to draw my post to logical extremes, which my own post specifically precludes, to justify stating your viewpoint? You said,
...that hint machine you mention, I see it as a this is what we have to do button. [...] Keeping players on the rails...If they aren't invested in the story, use NPCs and plot to invest them, don't just throw in a character you control which forces the players to take your advice......so an NPC that travels with the party is okay, except when they're an NPC that travels with the party "too much" by your opinion and occasionally chimes in a throwaway line when the party gets stuck (which is something that tends to happen) or helps keep the party invested in the plot. You know, for example: "Hey, Sir Reginald...I think that woman's been following us", when all the PC's manage to flub their perception checks and/or zone out during a GM's description of a scene.
Or as another example from a game I'm currently running, ** spoiler omitted **...
I -1 because someone +1, and I'm hostile because I've had bad experiences with DMPCs in the past, so I'm biased against them, like I said in another post, maybe you can play a DMPC differently, but I need to see that and because of more than one past experience, I'm not going to be having fun while I wait several sessions to find out if you are.
As to the difference, a DMPC is in every session, is always a part of the party, gets a share of the loot if it will help them at their job. An NPC that the players say "hey can you fight with us while we do X", and then when X gets done leaves and doesn't come back unless asked, I don't have a problem with. Even if your DMPC is weaker than the party, it's still going to have issues. I've seen DMPCs make a suggestion where even though the party wanted to do something else the argument was well the DM obviously wants us to do X so... So yeah, I'm hostile to the subtle hints, the "I think we should do x..." suggestions etc.
And once again, I'm jaded by more negative past experieces, and see a difference between an NPC that's with the party for a while and a DMPC that the PCs can't get rid of because he's part of the party.
And if the whole party fails to notice something, to have a DMPC notice it is like, "well then why have us make checks if it was something we were supposed to notice." Have us notice it. I don't understand the need to have a tagalong take an extra roll, when clearly if the DMPC needs to notice it it was something we were supposed to notice.
i have an idea i considered suggesting.
as a one time first level boon. give each PC a number of free 1st level NPC classed Henchmen equal to 5 plus thier charisma modifier. these henchmen must be either warriors, adepts, or experts and must use the elite array. in this case, the PC's would have 25 point buy (making them better than thier henchmen) and 3 traits. (one of which must be a campaign trait or similar suitable trait). the PCs may take PC classes, but the henchmen are forever stuck taking levels in Warrior, Adept, or Expert (NPC classes). the Henchmen share an initiative count with thier respective master.
this doesn't quite fix charisma, but it does give it some meaning at the early levels. i would have to fix the treasure accordingly if i did this.
i know that this can potentially turn 4 PCs into a small warband. but it allows me to just increase the number of mooks accordingly. the henchmen aren't intended to survive for long. and thus are designed to become a much lessened contribution later.
If its anything but an ambulatory package of bandaids it tends to not go well, slow things down, and get the party dragged around by the nose.
|
I've been forced to do this on several occasions to guide my group in the right direction, the biggest issue came when my group outright refused to do anything. They didn't put it in so many words, but when I asked them "What is your character doing." and they would say "Minding my own business" in a superhero game, I really felt like there was something wrong. Mostly that I was wasting my time trying to get them to adventure.
i'd allow each PC to control thier own henchmen if i used that rule.
I'm jaded by more negative past experieces, and see a difference between an NPC that's with the party for a while and a DMPC that the PCs can't get rid of because he's part of the party.
Most everyone who has been playing RPGs for a significant amount of time has encountered DMPCs, and virtually all of them have had to deal with Mary Sue DMPCs (MSDMPCs?).
It's a horrible experience. Absolutely wretched.
That having been said, when used properly, the DMPC can be a useful tool. The best example I ever saw of this was in a 2ed game, where the DM tacked a fighter into a party where there was no front-line character planned. The fighter refused to take part in any planning, negotiaions, preparations, or the like. Even tactical planning where the character should've had a chance to shine, even when we players wanted the DMPC to develop into a full-fledged part of the party, our DM resisted the urge and the fighter insisted on simply being along to help kill things.
In retrospect, that was the best DMPC ever. Simply there to shore up a perceived weakness in the party's combat utility, without taking part in any other aspect of the game.
i'd allow each PC to control thier own henchmen if i used that rule.I allow players to command thier henchmen, Henchmen being loyal follow there orders, but I do not let them control them, Henchmen have thier own personalities and such.
i was talking about combat. let the player control thier henchmen's actions. to save work on the DM.
If its anything but an ambulatory package of bandaids it tends to not go well, slow things down, and get the party dragged around by the nose.
This has been true in several other games, even when I've created a character myself. I've found that they like to recruit people and they often do so, regardless of the character's specialties, based entirely on social interaction. I totally agree that it could more easily be a problem, however.
I'm not saying it CAN"T go well just that it USUALLY tends to go wrong.
I'm not saying it CAN"T go well just that it USUALLY tends to go wrong.
Understood, accepted, and often agreed! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading some of the other posts in the thread, here's my opinions.
First, I agree that no character played by a GM can ever really be considered a PC. By definition alone, an NPC is any character not controlled by a player, and since the GM is most certainly not a player, all characters he or she controls are NPCs. Some NPCs may have better stat blocks then others, some may be around the party more often, but regardless, they are all NPCs.
Second, I also agree that NPCs that are not direct antagonists to the PCs do not work if they constantly outshine the players. You can have your epic 20th level Paladin in a campaign, and you can even show him holding back hoards of demons so that the player's escape, but as soon as his appearance becomes nothing more than to upstage the players, then it's not fun anymore. Not only have I played with bad GM NPCs, but I've also been a player who saw a bad GM NPC at work; the later is what made me realize what I had done with the former.
However, I don't necessarily agree with the sentiments that a GM PC needs to be any less powerful than the PCs. I think that depends on the group. Players will react equally poorly to someone that they feel like they are babysitting as they will to someone that they feel is babysitting them. All of your players are teenagers; they don't want to deal with little kids cramping their percieved style and they also don't want other people treating them like little kids.
So if you're going to have a PC that's going to hang out with the big kids, make him useful when they need him. If you make the perfectly optimized wizard that has a solution for every problem, chances are your players won't enjoy that because they'll feel babysitting, but having an Expert / Commoner who is four levels lower than them is also not going to be enjoyable. Instead, pull for the character who fills a role that the party does not have covered. Give them a dedicated healer or a trap disarmer, a tracker or a character who specializes in fighting something that the party can't deal with well on their own. The characters need to be effective at something, or your GM NPC is just as ineffective as the Mary Sue Superman GM NPC.
My final comment is this; I COMPLETELY disagree with the person who said that GM NPCs cannot have anything invested in the story. That is a complete falsehood. The best GM NPCs are the ones that players care about. People that don't feel disposable and who aren't there simply for the mechanical benefit. Having a character whose entire personality is, "I hit things with my sword for the party," is boring because it completely breaks the immersion of the world. Make that character mater in some significant way. Give him an actual reason to join the party, give him personality quirks and a backstory of his or her own. A good GM has to make the backstory of EVERYTHING in their world; making another story for an NPC that will be around a lot is not only easy, but it's essential. If you don't, then you might as well throw your story out the window and just play with spreadsheets, because you're on a slippery slope towards taking all character out of the game.
I have played with several great game masters and never had to deal with a 'GMPC'. I have found this a common error in the worst run games. I personally am far to ADD to juggle another 'ball', what with a world full of NPCs to track and keep at there marks. Heck, I'm so lazy that I pass out rules interpretations, initiative keeping, even running the combat to players.
I've seen them before... but not in quite a while. when I Dm (rare as that may be...) i sometimes throw one in.
It's nice to be able to have a 'voice' in the game, regardless of where the group is at the time. They should NEVER be spotlight stealers...
I HAVE seen them become the ultra 'uber' characters, where our party was generally redundant and all the main points of the adventure was done by NPCs against NPCs.... and honestly that sucked.
Though on the flipside... the DM should get to have some fun too. I ran a WoD game a few years ago, and literally one night consisted entirely of the 4 PCs in their their apartment discussing what to do with/about the monster.
Now... it was fun watching them freak out about my little personal mystery.... but at the same time, it was 3-4 hours where I as DM wasn't really needed to be there, and I was essentially Watching OTHER people play the game.
I REALLY wished I had a good NPC that night ;)
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
I did it once for a planar campaign when there were no PC rogues or any of them otherwise good at sneaky stuff. Plus they were mostly from the Prime, so they needed an NPC with decent knowledge of Sigil. Thus entered Nisha the tiefling rogue. I only intended to use her as an NPC for that first opening plot, except the PCs liked her and wanted her to stick around. Three years later (real time) the character died, the players got mad at me, and they ended up diverting the campaign into the negative energy plane to find, retrieve, return her soul to life because they liked her that much.
Next time I did it, the NPC in question (a LN Rakshasa with ranger levels) only joined the PCs as a fellow party member about halfway through the campaign. Previously she'd been their paymaster of sorts for some other employers.
The trick is making sure that the PCs like the character in question, and they don't ever become some sort of super powered Mary Sue that outshines the PCs, leads them around knowing everything, acting like the DMs hand in the campaign etc. Keeping a firm distinction between what the character would do in-game versus the DMs knowledge the campaign is vital.
I've done it before, when I was younger.
It was partly a product of "everyone wants to play, no one wants to DM", and having VERY small partes (when I first started playing, I only knew 1 other person that played as well).
Now, I only use NPCs. But I also enjoy GMing more now, and have larger groups in my games.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, as long as the DM-player doesn't make too many decisions, and certainly no important ones. Giving the DM-character a low INT and/or WIS is good for that.
DMs have characters.
Every character that is not a PC.
They just have to be aware of what ways they can use their characters that the players will not object to.
+1
+1DMs have characters.
Every character that is not a PC.
They just have to be aware of what ways they can use their characters that the players will not object to.
another +1
another +1+1DMs have characters.
Every character that is not a PC.
They just have to be aware of what ways they can use their characters that the players will not object to.
+1 to TOZ and all you-guyz's +1s!