Let's say you're playing in a D&D campaign. In the campaign, you have either a high-level benefactor who helps you/guides you/whatever, and/or a high-level nemesis who is constantly dogging your steps at every turn and you can never seem to get the upper hand. Then, at some point, you find out that this high-level benefactor/nemesis is a character that the DM played in a past campaign.
How do you feel about that?
For all I know, the scenario I presented above is something par for the course for many DMs, and nobody thinks twice about it. (In fact, early in my gaming career, I'm certain that the DMs I played with did this in most campaigns.) But nowadays, after learning more and more about DMing, I find myself hating the idea of it- not necessarily because I feel there's anything wrong with it, but I'm afraid everyone else hates the idea.
I guess it stems from my thought that DMPCs are the bane of gaming existence. I hate DMPCs (unless they're used well- which, while I know it's possible, I have yet to see it happen in person) and I am loathe to use them at any point. However, a couple years back I played in a campaign where, after the campaign was over, another player and I talked at length about what our characters did after the campaign was over. We loved the idea so much that we started our own gaming group, and set it in a homebrew campaign (which was loosely based in the same campaign world as our previous campaign) where our two previous characters had a lot of influence over the events of the campaign. I loved the idea of it, but that campaign never panned out and although I hope to use it some day, the more I think about the whole scenario, I keep getting the nagging feeling that if I do it, the players are just going to think, "Oh, here goes ol' Gabe trying to replay his glory days by making his old character the most powerful character in the world and blah blah blah". I mean, I'm not at all trying to use my character to show off my e-peen or whatever- but me, with the cynical mind I have, am afraid that's how everyone will see it.
I feel like I shouldn't worry about this. I mean, after all, all of the most powerful NPCs in Greyhawk (especially anyone whose name is part of the spells in the 3.5 PHB, like Mordenkainen, Evard, and Tenser) were originally characters played by the writers back when they were developing the game, and nobody seems to have a problem with Tenser being one of the most powerful NPCs in the world. Not that I consider myself on the same level as the 1e D&D writers, but I feel like it's the same principle.
So how do you react when you find out a powerful NPC used to be the DM's character? Are you cool with it? Do you roll your eyes and go, "Oh, here we go..."? Or do you not even care?
I did this once, and I hated it. We had a lot of guest starring with a whole bunch of high-level characters run by ex-players. Every one of them was so much cooler than me and the other newcomers, we might as well not have been there. Particularly one character who was the infamous god wizard, decked out in specially designed munchkin items...
I finally told them that I would leave if the guest starring continued. It worked, and we had a good campaign thereafter.
An NPC can come from anywhere, however. It would not upset me, but remember that all NPCs are story tools, not active players. DMPCs ARE the bane of all existence.
Whether or not an NPC is powerful or weak, as Sissyl points out, they are merely there to serve the story. If the story remains focused on the party and the mission then there shouldn't be any problem with it.
I myself use some of my PCs as NPCs/quest-givers, but it's never a case of constant ego-stroking cameos like Sissyl experienced. If you need some examples of how to incorporate well-detailed or VIP NPCs, you might try looking at those from Serpent's Skull and Jade Regent. Paizo generally encourages the GM to make the NPCs their own, and in both those APs there is a strong focus on building relationships with the NPCs.
In theory, there should be little difference between using such NPCs or using your own PCs in an NPC role. Just keep in mind that their involvement shouldn't be gratuitous but should instead fit the story. If the actual PCs wish to form a deeper relationship with one of your storied N/PCs, then you can accommodate that in an appropriate fashion.
Just remember, power disparities or not, the players should never be made to develop the impression that their PCs are irrelevant.
I echo what both Laithoron and Hama state. The Players are the main reason why there is a game to begin with, and they should NEVER be irrelevant to the game. I have also used them in games I have GMed before (although not very well, judging by how long the games lasted, he he.)
As a GM, I would use NPCs to help the players out, either by giving them hints, or in a support role in case they get overwhelmed by the monsters.
One thing I would add is if I would GM a game, I would ASK my players if they would want a DMPC with the group. If even one player had an issue with this, then viola...NO DMPC.
Remember your in a growing world if high level exPC's aren't around doing things like being captains of armies who are too well reconized to sneak across enemy lines and get info or even kings what are they doing players don't mind guest stars from past games as it gives them something to look forward too.
Reminds me of when my little brother first started he had hung around the table for years and near the end of the campaign i began describing an approaching enemy the look in his eyes as he realized it was one of my older players old necromancers and that someday his barbarian might make such an intro was priceless.
My current GM ran a one-shot Halloween adventure in Ustalav, basically with plans to kill the party. We made special characters for the adventure with that understanding. The party didn't die because the GM had to cut it short. In his plot, one of the notable things was that the town's priest was missing.
The GM has canceled the last few sessions due to various reasons, so I asked him if he'd mind if I took over that one-shot plot to run as a secondary game in his absences, mainly because I know the players all already have characters for it and I love the setting.
Well, my character that I had rolled for that adventure was a cleric of the same deity as the missing town priest. Rather than stick a DMPC with the party, I decided that cleric is going to take over in the town priest's absence. Granted, I've only played him once, but he's still my character going into an NPC role. It felt more organic than just having him disappear.
I don't see a problem with NPCs being populated by former player characters as long as they get treated like NPCs. The nice thing about using former PCs as NPCs is that they already have developed personalities so you know them and don't have to think about how they might act in a situation because you already have an idea of how they would act. The bad thing about using former PCs as NPCs is that you have to make sure you don't show excessive favor to them because you like them too much to let something bad happen to them. If you assign them the role of NPC you need to be ready for two things:
1.) Be prepared that they can die. NPCs need to be expendable and having personal attachment to them can make it hard to let them go.
2.) Be prepared to let them be overshadowed by the current players' characters. The players' characters are the stars of the adventure and they don't want to be overshadowed by your NPCs, former PCs or otherwise.
Haven't had a chance to run the plot I have in mind yet, but I'm excited about it and have several story hooks developed.
Now my GM is wanting us to make characters again to play a level 1 adventure. I just want to stick with the same plot for awhile.
This isn't the same as a DMPC, though. It's an NPC. Who cares where it came from, as long as it isn't along for the ride, making decisions for everyone, and rushing in to get the final kill?
GMing takes a lot of prep. I have no problem if somebody uses some old character as shorthand to getting an effective NPC into the game, and getting the game going.
This isn't the same as a DMPC, though. It's an NPC. Who cares where it came from, as long as it isn't along for the ride, making decisions for everyone, and rushing in to get the final kill?
Yeah, I know. I guess in the end the fact that I'm aware of my concern shows that I'm not actually doing what I'm afraid of doing.
Anyway, thanks for the advice, everyone!
Let me add my own support for the idea - as long as said character is either (a) a background character, or (b) a villain to be defeated (and *can/will* be defeated, without cheese).
However, at the same time, don't call out what you're doing -- treat that NPC (and I mean NPC) the same way you would any other. Don't be all "Look, it's John's paladin from 3 years ago!" when people meet the new Marshall of the Armies -- let *them* do that.
I find that doing that sort of thing helps with a sense of continuity in the world, and as said before, the Easter Egg can enhance the enjoyment of players who recognize it.
A buddy of mine runs an ongoing campaign that uses retired high-level PC from prior groups as movers and shakers in the world and he does it well. So, no I don't have any problems with it if the GM does it well.
|
It all depends how it's done. For reference I don't have high level former PC's continually pop up, it's totally unnecessary when you can just have an NPC provide the plot hooks instead.
I have had bad experiences with this. I've had GM's had their old characters turn up for no good reason other than to be there to say hi. I've also had a GM who has a pair of pet dragons (a silver and a red) who pop up in her games just to intimidate and browbeat the players.
That said I often have NPC's travel with my PC's. My current Carrion Crown campaign has Kendra travelling with the party and at various points I have had Shalelu and Oxvard accompany my players. The trick is to never have the NPC make decisions for the party. The odd nudge ("what about the old man at the inn?") is fine but if the players want to do something else then that's their perogative.
So how do you react when you find out a powerful NPC used to be the DM's character? Are you cool with it? Do you roll your eyes and go, "Oh, here we go..."? Or do you not even care?
Has the game been fun so far? Do I trust my DM? The answers to those would tell me how much I care.
Based on our group - probably wouldn't care one bit.
I have had bad experiences with this. I've had GM's had their old characters turn up for no good reason other than to be there to say hi. I've also had a GM who has a pair of pet dragons (a silver and a red) who pop up in her games just to intimidate and browbeat the players.
See, I never use my characters to intimidate my players or to show off. When I was a young (read: terrible) DM, I had an old PC of mine show up and accompany the players along everywhere they went (not really to show off, but in any case, he wound up being the quintessential DMPC, which I feel terrible about, and still apologize to my players about to this day).
Since then, I don't do that at all. I have on old PC that I, as a DM, sneak a cameo of into every campaign I run (but I hardly draw attention to it, to the point where even people who were in a campaign with him most likely wouldn't even realize it was him- he's often a nameless NPC) mainly for my own sense of continuity- but the only time he's ever seen doing anything is when he's off in the background somewhere. When I ran Age of Worms a while back, I threw in this particular character as a nameless NPC for one of the players to get some information from while gathering information (I didn't plan it, I was just giving out rumors as the adventure presented them, and decided to spice up this nameless, faceless NPC- and before I knew it, I was playing him as this old PC, so I decided to run with it). Later on, in the final adventure, the city is overrun with baddies, and I'm describing a bunch of NPCs the players had met over the campaign fighting them off, so I threw him in along with some others as a sort of impromptu adventuring party fighting some giant undead off in the distance. A couple players caught on, and seemed to enjoy the cameo. For the most part, though, nobody I DM for was around when I played this character, so there's no way anybody would even get the reference. He's just there for my own continuity.
First, DMPCs are NOT the bane of all existence... that spot is reserved for Windows Vista.
Let's say you're playing in a D&D campaign. In the campaign, you have either a high-level benefactor who helps you/guides you/whatever, and/or a high-level nemesis who is constantly dogging your steps at every turn and you can never seem to get the upper hand. Then, at some point, you find out that this high-level benefactor/nemesis is a character that the DM played in a past campaign.
How do you feel about that?
In the case of the high-level benefactor, I'd roll my eyes at it... but not for the reasons you named. I detest it because it is a stale, uncreative, hackneyed, and anemic cliche. To make matters worse, it's nonsensical. When does a 15th level Mage really need 1st level characters to do his bidding? Anything that can challenge a 15th level Mage will TPK a baker's dozen 1st level characters in two rounds. At best, this old saw serves no better purpose than running rats through a maze.
In the case of the high-level nemesis... what other result would you expect? DMPC, PC, or NPC - a significantly higher level BBEG is always going to run the table on the good guys until the heroes get high enough in level to counter his nefariousness. Its the challenge implicit in the BBEG/Hero relationship. If beating the guy weren't a challenge - it wouldn't be epic and the guy wouldn't be worthy of calling a BBEG.
In the case of the high-level benefactor, I'd roll my eyes at it... but not for the reasons you named. I detest it because it is a stale, uncreative, hackneyed, and anemic cliche. To make matters worse, it's nonsensical. When does a 15th level Mage really need 1st level characters to do his bidding? Anything that can challenge a 15th level Mage will TPK a baker's dozen 1st level characters in two rounds. At best, this old saw serves no better purpose than running rats through a maze.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree. I was merely using "high-level benefactor" as an example. (I personally haven't used a high-level benefactor in years, since my early DMing days, and even then there was a reason- the HLB was actually a Rakshasa who was planning on grooming one of the PCs to become a powerful assassin. Long-story short, it didn't pan out.) Any time I actually do use a powerful benefactor, they're powerful in roleplaying terms (money, connections, etc.), not in actual levels. But still, I needed an example. Personally, I strive for all of my NPCs, especially the quest-givers, to have a good reason for what they do. It's a pet peeve of mine when I watch a movie or read a book and I think, "Why didn't he just do it himself instead of hiring these idiots?"
Good question.
I suppose I don't mind it when it happens, so long as it doesn't turn in to a situation in which the DM is going on and on about his character, how badass he is, and what super cool items and spells he has. Basically, anything that draws away from the PC's is a "Party Foul" (which should totally be the name of a DM help column...)
That being said - I've done it before - more because a character that I've played is better developed and fleshed out then one that I haven't, and sometimes I just need a quick NPC that I can roleplay convincingly.
I'm actually much more likely to use the players old pc's from prior games as NPC's in my games. An element of mystery as to their identities can really make a moment special for the players and helps to create a feeling of continuity within the game world (I think).
I try not to react to any specific type of DM'ing or plot element outright - it's really all about the performance of the DM and the players and even if it's a "trope" it could be good.
I personally love this when it is done right and doesn't pull away from the actual campaign. In the campaigns I run there is a paticular city where a lot of our played high level characters reside so that they can be used or avoided at our whim.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree. I was merely using "high-level benefactor" as an example.
Ah, apologies. I didn't realize that your question was so much broader based. Well I definitely have some thoughts on the uses and abuses of DMPCs. I'll just collect them and drop them on you. :)[/ooc]
I'd add one more caveat: If the PCs think the DMNPC is boring and stupid, the GM absolutely must not get huffy and take it personally!
When its done right this can be alot of fun. Connections to past campaigns are a great way to build a story. The important point is that hte focus should stay on the party.
We all want well developed and interesting NPCs when we run our games. Well, you wont ever have a character better developed then a Player character from a long running previous campaign.
The key as others have stated is to make sure the character STAYS an npc. They shouldn't hog the spotlight and you have to make sure you are sufficiently detatched in order to allow the chips (and story) to fall where they may with regards to the character and not Mary Sue it all over the place.
I actually think the high-level DMPCs in your first example are relatively harmless - only because they aren't 'in the party' for the most part. The benefactor may try to wow you with his cool powers from time to time but they usually send you on a mission and then you don't have to see them until the mission is done. That is FAR less obnoxious to me than an in party DMPC who is infallible, indestructible, and in your face with their 'greatness' during every session.
Personally, I think the insufferableness of any particular DMPC comes down to why the DM chose to use a specific DMPC and what kind of DMPC it is. Not all DMPCs are equal or equally odious. I would divide DMPCs (and their use/abuse) into two broad classes - Purposeful DMPCs and Nostalgia DMPCs.
For instance, I rarely get a chance to play and I DM small groups only - from 1 to 3 players. Depending on what characters my players choose and what kind of adventures they want to play, I'll tweak a DMPC to fill the gap between their skillset and what they want to accomplish. Could I do the same thing with a revolving set of hireling NPCs? Sure. But I like to play an actual character as well as DM, so I use a DMPC who can hang with the party and isn't just a tool for solving a particular type of problem. Whether I do that well in a fun, contributing, non-obnoxious manner, I'll leave to the judgment of my players. This, to me, is an example of a Purposeful DMPC - designed to 'fill out' a group need and built specifically for a campaign.
Nostalgia DMPCs are the ones that the DM played previously and, for whatever reason, wants to bring into a new campaign. These are the ones that often cause problems in my experience. But the problem is rarely the character himself - it is the attitude of the DM towards that character. Again - in my experience only - Nostalgia DMPCs are less purposeful and more often a self-stroke to the DM's ego and/or the expression of a deep attachment between the DM and his pet character. And that factor generally screws the impartiality a good DM absolutely needs to display when using DMPCs.
Most of the folks on this board can cite examples of how DM favoritism for a player (and their character by extension) has completely wrecked campaigns. I would suggest to you that there is no more pernicious form of favoritism than a DM who loves his character and wants to relive his 'glory days'. When considering bringing "the beloved Dr. Cephalon" into a new campaign, the question a good DM needs to ask herself is... why HIM? Is he truly necessary to the game?
And here is where the conscientious DM needs to watch out for easy rationalizations:
DM thought: Cephalon would be awesome in this!
Conscience: Is he necessary?
DM thought: Well, they do need a Skill Monkey...
Conscience: And only Cephalon could do that? You couldn't build a new character to accomplish that?
DM thought: Well, sure but he's already built...
Conscience: Right... you've created an entire WORLD and you have NO time to create a single new NPC?
DM thought: Welllll....
@ OP and any other DMs who have the same doubts and misgivings about DMPCs...
I think it is a good sign that you are asking these questions. It suggests that you aren't an ego-driven DM... which is the type of DM who most often abuses DMPCs (particularly Nostalgia DMPCs) to the detriment of their campaigns. If you are really dying to drop in a DMPC, then here is a list of recommendations to keep things in check:
* Get permission from your players to bring in a DMPC.
* Ask them frequently if the DMPC is hogging the spotlight, unfairly advantaged, or otherwise marring the game. Don't expect them to tell you without prompting - ASK.
* If there is a 'gap' in the party - tweak your DMPC to fill it.
* Do NOT let your DMPC outshine the characters in their best areas.
* Practice getting the 'second to last' blow. Have your DMPC weaken the monsters, but leave the actual kills to the PCs.
* Restrict your DMPC to a SUPPORT role - not patron, not party leader, not oracle without compare.
* Let the dice rule and be sure your character makes mistakes. Infallible DMPCs whose plans magically work out all the time deservedly earn player ire. If your DMPC wasn't a perfect PC, he shouldn't be flawless now.
* Be sure your character is on par with the PCs in terms of skills, saves, abilities, and hits. If your DMPC has an AC 7 higher than the next highest PC and monsters that have a fair chance to hit your DMPC are guaranteed to clock the real PCs on every hit... you have a problem. And it isn't that the PCs aren't built right. :)
* Remember that a DMPC is as expendable as a BBEG. If that thought bothers you - he shouldn't be in the game.
Apologies on the wall of text.
Thanks for the long post, Stormraven! I always appreciate well-thought-out advice. As far as DMPCs go, like I think I mentioned earlier, I as a rule don't like them- I know that they CAN be done well, but they rarely are. My only experiences with them beyond any single instance have been bad. (One of my worst experiences with a DM involved a particular DM's PC who was a half-minotaur Barbarian/Cleric named Moo. I've mentioned him in a few other posts on here.) But like I said, I don't think that they're all bad, I just think that there are so few good ones that you wouldn't be too far in the wrong to assume all of them are bad. But, like another poster said, it's not a good idea to judge any DM behavior outright without seeing it first. So, that's all I'll say about that.
The reason I created this topic is actually not because of a DMPC or high-level benefactor that I wanted to use, but rather a villain. As I mentioned in my original post, I played a character in a campaign a few years back that I enjoyed so much, that a friend and I began building our upcoming campaign world around the world they were a part of. However, both my character and my friends' characters, over the course of our storyline, both became extremely powerful villains. (His character became the god Vecna, and my character became the world's first vampire.) The campaign that I was building didn't revolve around them, but it involved a large number of villains throughout the world, several of which had ties to both of our characters. That particular campaign I have yet to play out (I'm actually trying to write it into a novel, rather than continue to try and make it into a campaign, but so far writer's block has gotten the best of me), but I still very much like the campaign world, and so I've decided to set most (if not all) of my personal campaigns in that world.
I'll admit, I very much like my character. I would love to show him off and tell everyone about him, but like I mentioned earlier, I don't like anything in my campaigns to not have a reason. If there isn't a convincing reason why this uber-powerful vampire character will show up in a low-level campaign, then under no circumstances will I make it happen. (Even in my example above, with the recurring character I toss into every campaign I run, I do have a detailed reason as to why that character shows up all over the place. But that's another story for another day.) I wouldn't just throw this guy into a campaign unless it had a purpose, and if I ever get a group to the point where fighting him will be viable, then I see no problem with finding a way to have him killed (though he does have specific goals and motivations, which wouldn't really make him likely to be outwardly hostile in most situations- so I'd have to find a reason why the PCs were fighting him in the first place). I know that it's easy to toe the line between promoting an NPC and stroking your ego, so I've been so far trying to err on the side of not bringing him up just to keep things simple, but some day I would like to involve him as a high-level NPC- possibly as the BBEG of a campaign, but who knows.
Anyway, I hope that made sense! I've gotten a lot of insight from this thread. Keep it coming!
DMPC really should be censored as a word. There are few things so destructive to a game. When I put in recurring NPCs, I always make sure that:
They are not automatically trustworthy the way a new PC would be. Some are weak, some are traitors, and some earn the group's trust eventually.
They are not even at the level of the PCs. Solves the spotlight hogging.
They are often wrong. Solves the oracle problem.
They die. Makes space for new characters. It also condenses their story arcs.
This makes them true NPCs. And you know what? My players still enjoy interacting with them, and I enjoy playing them.