It might interest you that there are players out there who don't want to run NPCs. Pretty much all of the players I gamed with on a regular basis don't. In fact, they would't even run their cohorts. They game to play the character they created, (or sometimes co-created)not to play a bunch of secondary characters around them and expect the gm to make the world around them come alive.Sure, but why do you have to run the NPCs? Why can't the players do it? I mean, look at it another way- in a standard combat, each player has one PC and maybe a cohort to run. As the DM you often have 4-12 monsters to run. Why also run NPCs?
I often run the middle group of N/PC in my games when I run. Mostly cause the players don't leave me a choice. They go out of their way to recruit, not hire but recruit NPC's. Offer them equal say and equal shares of treasure and they treat them just like they treat the other PC's.
Sure, but then why are they recruiting NPCs then? NPCs are never needed.
|
Most times, they don't 'recruit' them.
But I, as a GM don't see much sense in making every bard, sage, scout, or other NPC that let's say knows an area or - gods beware - befriends or relates to a PC either too frail, too busy or too snobby to come with the PCs. I would not force them upon a group, but if the PCs try to persuade an NPC to come with them for their knowledge, their pleasant company or whatever other reason, I might have that NPC comply, if there isn't any reason besides "ugh, he is an NPC, you shouldn't walk with an NPC" going against it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but it's rude to insist that anyone who has employed Type 1 DMPCs without issues or even with success have their heads either in-the-sand or In An Uncomfortable Place™.
What, like the back of a Volkswagon?
Heh. So the pres man DMPC type 1 is really DMPCs that work, and type 2 are those that do not work? Well then, that is so reasonable, then we can all agree to like type 1 and dislike type 2, and everyone who wants to play a DMPC can say "good thing all my DMPCs are type 1, if they were type 2 I would be doing something bad with them and would have to stop."
Yeah, not buying it.
Roman has a far better definition. I have been saying similar things above, but I would gladly agree with the defintion he suggested. A PC gets spotlight time for being a PC. A NPC gets it according to demands of the story. I would add the expectation from the DM that the players treat the DMPC as another PC. Twisting situations to enhance and protect the DMPC is a true hallmark of when it doesn't work.
DMPCs are a sign of bad DMing, because they make it impossible for you to deal in a relatively neutral fashion with that character. It is your emotional involvement that is the problem. If you aren't a reasonably neutral DM, the game becomes less predictable for the players rule-wise, which breeds all kinds of other problems.
Badwrongfun too? You're sure it isn't just that I am a sith? Again, there are things in DMing that are always problems and bring nothing good. Considering the amount of crap in gaming we've seen discussed on these boards, I seriously doubt I need to bring any more examples.
Wow, you're really taking that Sith thing personally, huh? Who knew a bad Star Wars joke would get under someone's skin so badly. Geesh, I apologize. I just got done retelling of a SW game I ran, so I was in that headspace when I made that comment. Gee whiz.
I've had some bad experiences with DMPC's myself, but I don't let one bad DM's work ruin an entire play concept so absolutely. I think a lot of the friction you're running into in this thread is the absolute cut and dry, black a white fashion of your posts. There's a whole range of gray area you are completely dismissing. Whatever works for your gaming, though. Control-freak and power-mad DM's can leave pretty bad impressions.
Sure, but why do you have to run the NPCs? Why can't the players do it? I mean, look at it another way- in a standard combat, each player has one PC and maybe a cohort to run. As the DM you often have 4-12 monsters to run. Why also run NPCs?
I often run the middle group of N/PC in my games when I run. Mostly cause the players don't leave me a choice. They go out of their way to recruit, not hire but recruit NPC's. Offer them equal say and equal shares of treasure and they treat them just like they treat the other PC's.
You've brought this up multiple times, so I have to ask, why would the players want to run the npc's? My players are typically spellcasters, and already have a lot of bookkeeping on their plate. In my experience, the players do NOT want the additional workload of running npc's on top of what they already have to keep track of. I have asked, and they've never shown interest. I love to multitask, so running npc's works out just fine for me when I DM.
At this point, I'm convinced I've never actually run a DMPC. I've run NPC's that have stayed with the party for lengthy periods but were NEVER equal to or more powerful than any PC in the party. I used NPC wealth/gear by level as opposed to PC wealth by level, and the NPC's were always expendable; no special treatment or plot immunity. In fact, many of my NPC's were "Sacrificial lambs" that would be the first to die should something nasty rear it's head. Like a "red shirt" from Star Trek.
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.
And hey, if the most laid back/wallflower player gets pressured to play a healbot by the most aggressive player, who tries to use the fact that he claimed he was the one playing the mage before anyone else got a chance and that because he is being a "team player" that the wallflower should be one and play a healbot. Well that just part of the game, if the wallflower doesn't like it, the GM should make them feel like they are unwelcome.
|
Sure, but then why are they recruiting NPCs then? NPCs are never needed.It might interest you that there are players out there who don't want to run NPCs. Pretty much all of the players I gamed with on a regular basis don't. In fact, they would't even run their cohorts. They game to play the character they created, (or sometimes co-created)not to play a bunch of secondary characters around them and expect the gm to make the world around them come alive.Sure, but why do you have to run the NPCs? Why can't the players do it? I mean, look at it another way- in a standard combat, each player has one PC and maybe a cohort to run. As the DM you often have 4-12 monsters to run. Why also run NPCs?
I often run the middle group of N/PC in my games when I run. Mostly cause the players don't leave me a choice. They go out of their way to recruit, not hire but recruit NPC's. Offer them equal say and equal shares of treasure and they treat them just like they treat the other PC's.
Because they want to. Perhaps they want someone to guard the camp while they adventure and grow to like the NPC so start taking them along. Maybe they was a NPC they saved in a dungeon and wanted to bring along. Maybe they was a NPC one of the PC's got involved with romanticlly and wanted to bring them along. There is lots of reasons they might want to do it.
As far as why they don't play them, it is for RP reasons. If they play them then it is hard to interact with them. Now if you just mean rolling dice and not RPing them, then that to me is not the same as playing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.
Which leads us right back to the part where the players requested a meat-shield npc to join them, since they were a party of low-level spellcasters, and none of them wanted to run it. Ad nauseum.
Seriously, I don't know how to make it any clearer. What is your beef with this?
I could understand if it were the opposite scenario; a DM shoves the NPC into the party uninvited to "help" them, but this is not the case. The players requested for me to run a npc to help out.
This is not the first time either. I've had npc's in the story who were never meant to join the players, get talked into joining the party by the players. In some cases, it was even after the players just got done defeating them in combat.
Personally, I as a DM take it as quite the compliment, when the players get involved enough in the game to go out of their way to bring npc's along, and invite them into the adventuring party. I've played under corrupt DM's who had pet DMPC's before, I go out of my way to avoid playing that way, yet my players enjoy the npc's and help make them a more involved part of the story. Sorry if it never worked out for you.
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.Wouldn't that be a very bleak world, with only the PCs and monsters (I suppose they wouldn't count as NPCs) in it?
Umm, we’re talking about NPC that adventure along with the party, aka DMPCs, not NPCs who run the tavern, etc.
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.Which leads us right back to the part where the players requested a meat-shield npc to join them, since they were a party of low-level spellcasters, and none of them wanted to run it. Ad nauseum.
Seriously, I don't know how to make it any clearer. What is your beef with this?
I could understand if it were the opposite scenario; a DM shoves the NPC into the party uninvited to "help" them, but this is not the case. The players requested for me to run a npc to help out.
Personally, I as a DM take it as quite the compliment, when the players get involved enough in the game to go out of their way to bring npc's along, and invite them into the adventuring party. I've played under corrupt DM's who had pet DMPC's before, I go out of my way to avoid playing that way, yet my players enjoy the npc's and help make them a more involved part of the story. Sorry if it never worked out for you.
Tanks are a important role, and if players don’t want to run them, there are quite a number of ways for them to get them, without resorting to a NOC. Druids have companions, Summoners have theirs, and of course anyone can take Leadership as a feat and get a cohort. Learning how to balance a party is one of the thing they are going to have to do, and sending along a free NPC to hold their hands isn’t going to help any.
Like I said- my players never complained about my DMPC either.
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.Which leads us right back to the part where the players requested a meat-shield npc to join them, since they were a party of low-level spellcasters, and none of them wanted to run it. Ad nauseum.
Seriously, I don't know how to make it any clearer. What is your beef with this?
Tanks are a important role, and if players don’t want to run them, there are quite a number of ways for them to get them, without resorting to a NOC. Druids have companions, Summoners have theirs, and of course anyone can take Leadership as a feat and get a cohort. Learning how to balance a party is one of the thing they are going to have to do, and sending along a free NPC to hold their hands isn’t going to help any.
Like I said- my players never complained about my DMPC either.
1. No druids or summoners in the party at the moment.
2. Nobody wants to spend a feat on Leadership to run a NPC they don't want to run. Not sure what part about this isn't getting through. If they don't want to run an extra npc, how on earth is taking Leadership going to help them?
3. As a matter of fact, the "free npc handholding" helps plenty. I get to add a plothook-delivery-unit that takes hits for the casters in combat. Story gets underway easier, and young arcanists live longer. As soon as the tank is no longer needed, he leaves. This one did, in fact. One of the players decided to play a melee type, so the npc tank bid farewell and returned to his post.
|
|
Ok, so they don’t want to run the NPCs, but NPCs are not a necessity, so then if the players don’t want to run ‘em, leave them off.Wouldn't that be a very bleak world, with only the PCs and monsters (I suppose they wouldn't count as NPCs) in it?Umm, we’re talking about NPC that adventure along with the party, aka DMPCs, not NPCs who run the tavern, etc.
I wasn't quite sure anymore, since througout the threat you used the abbreviation NPC as if it meant the same thing to you. Frankly, if you would have used DMPC, probably none of my posts 'arguing' with you would be here.