How is this different to an NPC?Well, either a NPC doesn't adventure with the party, or if they do the Players run him.
NPC stands for NON-Player character. PLAYERS NEVER run NPCs, if they do, it's a cohort, or follower. PCs can hire an NPC, but the DM runs it. ALL NPCs are the DM.
Now if at some tables the DM lets characters have hirelings etc to fill gaps etc, and let's them run it that's a table home rule.
Too much issues can be had with letting Players run NPCs "I have my hireling learn the craft feat and make him make me my weapons" ummmm no. It's up to the DM to decide what feats an NPC takes and what he charges for services, and therefor the NPC is run by the DM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's absolutely fine to run a DMPC, provided the DM has some ground rules set with the players and they know he/she represents the DM's character in the story and not an NPC with inside knowledge.
This is assuming the DM is comfortable with separating out combat decisions the DMPC would make to be consistent with the character, even if it is to the character's detriment. It does take a certain amount of trust from the players to not view the DMPC's actions as an inside angle on what to do.
I've DMPC'd my main gaming characters for years now on multiple campaigns. Perfectly fine. Occasionally one of the players enjoys to take a turn for a few episodes at the DM side of the table with a one-off adventure or mini-arc, so it allows me then to have my character at the ready and fully involved in both the storyline and the other characters.
I've changed my mind slightly.
We have a Barbarian and a Cleric GMPC.
Cleric's fine. He's useful, has an interesting personality, and heals people.
The Barbarian effectively makes combat the most boring part of the game because all he does is kill s%## with Power Attacks and crits.
"I've got this badass Wizard pinned, gimme a second and I'll tie him up and we can question then coup de grace him."
"Nope lol now that you've dropped his AC by 4 by pinning him I can actually hit his AC. Here goes two Raging Power Attacks hope they don't hit you AGAIN."
I like the guy but that pissed me the f&#~ off, especially after he'd already hit me once by accident for 30+ damage off my 57 HP.
We have had games were the GM has run a character to fill a gap in the group. This was not only for the gap, but also because the GM wanted to play the game too. Playing the GMPC was the best way for him to get into the game. We've been very lucky to have a good GM that can run a character AND run the game at the same time.
I don't usually like to run GMPcs. When I do, it's to round out a skills gap in the party, and I always make the character fairly low in Int and Cha-- you don't want the GMPCs to hog any of the spotlight or offer too much insight. If asked, most GMPCs I've run generally give terrible advice to the party.
That said, I had two players quit my game (they moved away and just didn't enjoy the VTT/Skype experience) at a point where it didn't make any sense plot-wise for their characters to leave. I ran them as GMPCs for about ten sessions. (They're at a point where it's makes sense for them to go starting this week.)
I do not believe that a DM can, or should if genuinely able, run a character of PC level impact alongside those of the other players.
I do believe that a group should add in characters that are/have an "equal share" to the PCs that can be run by comity, or characters that are "subordinate" to the PCs that are run by the DM for all interactive purposes, and by the player for all strategic purposes other than those the character would refuse his orders over.
I think that the term "DMPC" rather than "NPC" should be reserved for use describing that usually detrimental behavior some DMs have where they build a character that the party must contain, must follow the orders of, and will be punished if they don't - typically with the character in question being some orders of magnitude more potent than the rest of the party - that serves as the very thoroughly active locomotive to keep the campaign chugging along down the rail. I think that because the term is one that bears all that negative connotation with just about anyone who has ever witnessed the behavior, while NPC is still an "untainted" term.
"Untainted" and "Tainted" to many, but not to all.
I'd describe your definition of "DMPC" as "Mary Sue" instead.
This is what I meant about language. Some people describe very different things with the same term. Given the OP definition...
A definition:
DMPC = Dungeon Master Player Character, is a character, played by the DM, who is a member of the adventuring party.
... I have to say that, in my experience, it's been a good thing on both sides of the screen. Some with similar histories call them GMPCs. Thus, the term you supplied would be difficult for such groups to switch to.
THAT SAID. I do understand the problem many have with the term. As my previous post pointed out, my experience doesn't negate the experience of others, and just because I've had four GMs (if you include me) that use them and all of 'em have turned out pretty great, doesn't mean that those who've had bad experiences don't count somehow.
Really, it comes down to GM style, play style, and a given GM's and players' interactions with one another.
Some things simply don't work for some people.
Similarly, some people get great benefit from RPGs. It can help inspire the imagination, encourage interactivity, and spark a strong social life and educational passion. Others get great problems from them. They become consumed, unable to tell anything from game, and have lasting social problems due to their own traits. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle (though I'd guess that most people that actually, honestly tried it would tend more towards the former than the latter). How a person responds to RPGs doesn't - in any way - comment on their actual value as a person. It only comments on their relationship with RPGs.
In this case, how a person GMs GMPCs (or how a player responds to GMPCs) doesn't in any way comment on their value as a person, a player, or a GM. It only comments on their relationship to GMPCs.
In other words, it entirely depends on the group.
Now, she was a cleric of Erastil, bow focused, knowledge (religion) and heal, and was with the group till they made 8th level, when we gained a player who is playing a cleric.
And, so why could you not have just handed her off to the players to run?
DrDeth, while I can't speak for Papa or his player, a player doesn't necessarily want a "handmedown" character. Perhaps they have their own concept of who and what their character should be. Perhaps they don't like the feat choices, or don't feel comfortable taking over an established character. There are plenty of reasons for a player to not take over a GMPC.
As I've said: it all depends on the group.
How is this different to an NPC?Well, either a NPC doesn't adventure with the party, or if they do the Players run him.NPC stands for NON-Player character. PLAYERS NEVER run NPCs, if they do, it's a cohort, or follower. PCs can hire an NPC, but the DM runs it. ALL NPCs are the DM.
Too much issues can be had with letting Players run NPCs "I have my hireling learn the craft feat and make him make me my weapons" ummmm no. It's up to the DM to decide what feats an NPC takes and what he charges for services, and therefor the NPC is run by the DM.
Well, I perhaps have played a little longer than you, and trust me, Players can and do run NPCs. If they don't get them as a class feature, they hire them, which is why they are called "hirelings".
And, sure a NPC is set up by the DM, and the DM certain can & should step in if the Players step over the line, but we each had two hirelings in my very first D&D game, which was a little while ago. And, we just had one last nite, he volunteered from a town we rescued. So, since that's 38 years or so of having players run NPCs, over hundreds of campaigns, 6 or so editions, and dozens of DM's, perhaps your "never" is a tiny bit off.
....Right now it's down to me and my wife as other players have left or been hard to come by, and, as a result, DMPCs are the way of things for us....
In a one on one campaign, yes things are different- and a DMPC is not only OK, but expected.
Yeah, if the adventure really needs more characters, I'd rather a player just get a free, upgraded cohort (just make another PC). The GM would roleplay them when necessary, or step in when needed, but otherwise the players would be in charge of the character.
I have seen some GMPC, they ranged from "small nuisance" to "big problem".
I tried to use GMPC a couple of time too: always thought they were doing great, always learned months later that every player would have been happier without them.
The further you go from NPC to GMPC, the worst. Even the occasional NPC who travels for a few sessions with the PCs should be avoided in my opinion. The only exception may be the damsel in distress, only because she makes the PCs feel more heroic (therefore she should be utterly useless and vulnerable, no rescued princess with the same number of levels as the PCs).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Personally, I dislike using GMPCs as a GM and I dislike having them around as a player.
Part of it is a group size thing. I always have groups of 5+, so having MORE things taking turns is seldom a good thing for the game. But even when I've played in games with only 3 players, I prefer not to have a GMPC. Rather than having a GMPC, I'd prefer to take Leadership or have the GM dial back encounters if he thinks we don't have enough firepower.
When I GM, I have enough to do without having to worry about running another adventuring character.
When I play, I don't want to get "hints" from a GMPC if we aren't going the right way. Really, we can figure it out, and maybe we'll come up with something the GM didn't think of.
OTOH, in Jade Regent, I find myself often wanting to take one or more of the caravan NPCs with us. I prefer them to remain in support roles, however.
Overall, I think GMPCs are best used sparingly if they are used at all. They shouldn't be there to provide hints. Players are smart and don't need hints. I also believe they shouldn't be used just to fill a capability gap in the party. Players should talk BEFORE creating their characters and figure out how to cover critical capabilities, not rely on having a GMPC to hold their hands. Also, I think it's very bad form to let a GMPC steal the spotlight from PCs.
Well, the DM usually has scads of monsters, BBEG, Minions and other foes to run, why on earth wouldn’t he let the players run one NPC?
I DMPC with my off group 3players and me, only when it's needed for the game.
When I do though I just fill a party dynamic the players request of me.
i.e. No one rolled a cleric so I make genric Healbot/buff machine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, she was a cleric of Erastil, bow focused, knowledge (religion) and heal, and was with the group till they made 8th level, when we gained a player who is playing a cleric.And, so why could you not have just handed her off to the players to run?
No one in the group wanted to run another character, even if it was just rolling to hit & damage dice. But they sure as heck wanted a full cleric to burst heal and for spells afterwards.
But besides that, I told them that she had goals and aspirations of her own, and while they would not overwhelm the party, she would be pursuing them as part of the story line, just like all the PCs were pursuing their goals, and the PCs did not know all the details, nor should they.
-- david
papa.drb
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen some GMPC, they ranged from "small nuisance" to "big problem".
I tried to use GMPC a couple of time too: always thought they were doing great, always learned months later that every player would have been happier without them.The further you go from NPC to GMPC, the worst. Even the occasional NPC who travels for a few sessions with the PCs should be avoided in my opinion. The only exception may be the damsel in distress, only because she makes the PCs feel more heroic (therefore she should be utterly useless and vulnerable, no rescued princess with the same number of levels as the PCs).
In your group(s) and in your opinion. In my groups, it works out great!
-- david
papa.drb
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey,
I get that for some groups, and for some DMs, that No DMPC is good. And that is fine with me. Your group(s), your rules. Please just don't act like it is the "one true way" of playing.
I alternate DM chores with one of my players. He is running one AP, and I am running a different one (*). He is newbie enough that he won't run a DMPC, however he asked me to bring in a second character because the party was missing a high ac, deal out lots of damage tank. Ok, Max is my PCs brother, and he does several things well. He doesn't get hit a lot, and he does hit a lot. Oh, and he is good at survival, but won't say anything unless one of the other players ask. Now in my new campaign, I will be running a DMPC; Max redux. The other players cover all the other aspects of the game. This is how we have done it for a long time, when we have four or less players, and it works for us. If it doesn't work for you, ok. Don't do it, but don't tell me that I am doing bad/wrong/notfun.
-- david
papa.drb
(*) My current campaign ended last night with an almost TPK in chapter 3 of Kingmaker AP, in the BBEG place. Two characters, one animal companion dead or wishing they were dead, and two characters barely escaping with their lives.
How is this different to an NPC?Well, either a NPC doesn't adventure with the party, or if they do the Players run him.NPC stands for NON-Player character. PLAYERS NEVER run NPCs, if they do, it's a cohort, or follower. PCs can hire an NPC, but the DM runs it. ALL NPCs are the DM.
Too much issues can be had with letting Players run NPCs "I have my hireling learn the craft feat and make him make me my weapons" ummmm no. It's up to the DM to decide what feats an NPC takes and what he charges for services, and therefor the NPC is run by the DM.
Well, I perhaps have played a little longer than you, and trust me, Players can and do run NPCs. If they don't get them as a class feature, they hire them, which is why they are called "hirelings".
And, sure a NPC is set up by the DM, and the DM certain can & should step in if the Players step over the line, but we each had two hirelings in my very first D&D game, which was a little while ago. And, we just had one last nite, he volunteered from a town we rescued. So, since that's 38 years or so of having players run NPCs, over hundreds of campaigns, 6 or so editions, and dozens of DM's, perhaps your "never" is a tiny bit off.
38 years of playing really, what were you lying again? I got distracted by your ridiculous claim.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it doesn't work for you, ok. Don't do it, but don't tell me that I am doing bad/wrong/notfun.
I don't think anybody here is saying that if you have a GMPC urdoinitwrong.
I will be so bold as to say that if a GMPC is stealing the spotlight from actual PCs, you probably could be doing it better.
If it doesn't work for you, ok. Don't do it, but don't tell me that I am doing bad/wrong/notfun.I don't think anybody here is saying that if you have a GMPC urdoinitwrong.
Actually, several people have said pretty much exactly that.
I don't think it's ever good to have a DMPC.
An NPC that assists the party is perfectly acceptable. A GMPC never is.
I would rather allow the players to control two characters each than to play a DMPC with them. I'm the DM, I am the spotlight; I don't need to be stealing anybody's spotlight time.
Guys, you can always let the PC hire a NPC, which they run (with you stepping in if they have the NPC do something stupid.) There is never a need for a DMPC.
And a number of quotes, while not outright saying "never" it's implied that it's nearly always a bad idea.
I will be so bold as to say that if a GMPC is stealing the spotlight from actual PCs, you probably could be doing it better.
This is entirely accurate!
Papa-DRB, I'm still bucking for you guys to move to Ocala!
... stealing the spotlight from ...
Please define this. Was Scotty stealing the spotlight from Kirk, Spock, and McCoy when he had screen time, or was he enhancing their screen time?
Is spotlight time a zero sum game? The more person A has the less person B has?
Is the value of spotlight based on quality or quantity?
Is spotlight time a zero sum game? The more person A has the less person B has?
By definition, yes. We don't play in some sort of time bubble, there's only a finite amount of time in the game. The more time spent focusing on one character, the less time is spent focusing on another character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
38 years of playing really, what were you lying again? I got distracted by your ridiculous claim.Well, I perhaps have played a little longer than you, and trust me, Players can and do run NPCs. If they don't get them as a class feature, they hire them, which is why they are called "hirelings".
And, sure a NPC is set up by the DM, and the DM certain can & should step in if the Players step over the line, but we each had two hirelings in my very first D&D game, which was a little while ago. And, we just had one last nite, he volunteered from a town we rescued. So, since that's 38 years or so of having players run NPCs, over hundreds of campaigns, 6 or so editions, and dozens of DM's, perhaps your "never" is a tiny bit off.
My friend, my name is on the cover of a cruddy little D&D supplement, notable only for the fact that it was the very first privately printed/non TSR D&D supplement. The title of this little book is the Manual of Aurania. A couple minutes of Google searching will show you that my book was published in 1977. Now, if I was writing a supplement for D&D in 1977, is it too hard to believe I was playing & DMing the game a couple years earlier? In fact, we had one of the first run of the original 3 Vol set printed, the ones without the card covers.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?205055-Has-anyone-heard-of-this-company
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, several people have said pretty much exactly that.
[snip]
Papa-DRB, I'm still bucking for you guys to move to Ocala!
Well, my wife retires June 2015, except that she is having second thoughts about going that long, and may retire a year earlier. We have been looking at places in Florida and Georgia via the web and Ocala is still in the running, especially since her youngest brother has decided to stay in Minnesota.
-- david
papa.drb
By definition, yes. We don't play in some sort of time bubble, there's only a finite amount of time in the game. The more time spent focusing on one character, the less time is spent focusing on another character.
Is spotlight time a zero sum game? The more person A has the less person B has?
So by extension to your thought above, do you time each player so that every player has the exact same amount of face time with the DM so no one has more than their fair share?
-- david
papa.drb
There is a reason I'm not fighting this battle again.In your group(s) and in your opinion. In my groups, it works out great!
-- david
papa.drb
Yea, I am almost at that point, but not quite yet. I am getting too old for this crap.
-- david
papa.drb
Who said anything about "fair share"? He asked a leading question with an obvious answer so I gave it.
If one person has more "screen time" the other people will have less "screen time". It's neither good nor bad, it's just a fact.
If it doesn't work for you, ok. Don't do it, but don't tell me that I am doing bad/wrong/notfun.I don't think anybody here is saying that if you have a GMPC urdoinitwrong.
I will be so bold as to say that if a GMPC is stealing the spotlight from actual PCs, you probably could be doing it better.
Define "stealing the spotlight", and be careful. Depending on your definition, it most likely would apply to ever DMPC, NPC, BBEG, random shopkeeper, etc., etc, so then we do away with everything in the world except the PCs?
-- david
papa.drb
Who said anything about "fair share"? He asked a leading question with an obvious answer so I gave it.
If one person has more "screen time" the other people will have less "screen time". It's neither good nor bad, it's just a fact.
You didn't answer the question about how spotlight is valued, quantity or quality?
You didn't answer the question about how spotlight is valued, quantity or quality?Who said anything about "fair share"? He asked a leading question with an obvious answer so I gave it.
If one person has more "screen time" the other people will have less "screen time". It's neither good nor bad, it's just a fact.
A little of both.
If one person is dominating the majority of the game time, it's small consolation when the "lesser" characters occasionally get one good moment, since the one hogging the spotlight is generally going to be having good moments at least as often.
This is something of a semantic issue, since it depends on where you're drawing the line between "Friendly NPC" and "GMPC."
Someone who gets along with the party, does what they can (not much) back in town, that it would be weird not to have now and then.
Someone who travels along with the party to answer questions when they lose track of the plot who always ducks for cover if a fight breaks out and generally sticks to a passive roll, still fine, but not something you want to really make a habit out of.
Someone who is combat capable, hangs out with the party, and drags down their experience point acquisition is a bit of a grey area. Sometimes it just plain makes too much sense to get around it. Say, when the party rescues some adventurous type who went in before them, and they want to see things through. I generally always make it a point to get rid of them as soon as is reasonable (parting ways as soon as they're back to town/their little mission is through/whatever) and make sure the party completely outclasses them.
I say you've crossed into GMPC territory (or, the line of my disapproval if you prefer) when:
- A combat capable type is with the party over the entirety of a campaign, gaining levels and such.
- A character hanging out with the party accomplishes things one traditionally expects a PC to do (facing off against a major villain, solving a puzzle, talking someone into something, etc.).
- A character hangs out with the party and "gets a vote" on what to do next. There's some wiggle room here (that person you rescued when their assault on the drow stronghold is justifiably going to have some input on how to bring them down, obviously), and if everyone else is actively asking friendly NPCs for their input, that's cool. Bad is when someone is saying, "I convinced a local merchant captain to give us a ride on his ship, let's go!" or "I think we should trust her!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm not going to bother to scroll back and quote...
Somebody mentioned it was "only GMs" supporting the idea of a GMPC, and no players.
Hi.
I'm playing in a game right now (3.5 sadly... trying to convince GM a conversion to Pathfinder -- at LEAST importing the PF Skill system -- would be good move, but that's a different issue) in which 2 out of 4 players have serious attendance issues (like, not there half the time due to crappy work situations).
Further, my Rogue is the most martial character in the group (there's a PC Cleric, who COULD beat me out, but is run by a noob who isn't there half the time; PC Wizard not there half the time, and PC Sorcerer).
The GM is running in a homebrew world -- a fun place so far while we race to thwart the plans of some hideous abberational threat.
He's ALSO running a Fighter that I expect most here would qualify as a GMPC, in that he's active/combat capable/makes a lot of suggestions during planning, etc. The guy (the GMPC) is a blacksmith's son, from the cruddy little village we're all [EDIT: half of us are] from, a member of the militia, and JUST as crazy to GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS MISERABLE HOLE as the PCs.
He fills a vital role in the group, since none of the PCs can tank. He's not "stealing the spotlight" from any of us, and provides a handy way for the GM to inform us of bits of lore about the world.
I guess I should mention that the two who can't show up every session are BOTH noobs; the Sorcerer's player and I are veteran gamers, as is the GM. None of the three of us want to discourage the new guys, even with their schedule issues; they aren't jerks or anything, their jobs just suck at regular schedules. So we have this on-again-off-again Cleric and Wizard. But the Fighter we (my Rogue and the Sorcerer) can rely on to not have faded out on any given session.
So I don't know, maybe y'all would just classify him as a "friendly NPC." But I think of him as a GMPC, with no onus about that classification: he's a character run by the GM to shore up our party composition and let the two regular players keep on adventuring.
Working for us; YMMV. If we get another player (we're looking), the Fighter may (a) die heroically, (b) end up staying in the village to protect our friends, or (c) ride off into the world to seek his own fortune, returning with much-needed reinforcements in the nick of time...
It hasn't hurt our game, having him.
^Personally I've found that having a GMPC tank/fighter only works up to a point.
Our GM rolled up a Barbarian because our party consisted of a Monk, Druid, Sorcerer, Bard, Rogue, and Cleric, so we didn't really have any fighty guys at low levels and we kinda needed to survive or the whole campaign would fall apart pretty much (a major flaw in Souls for Smuggler's Shiv IMO).
Now, however, the Barbarian dominates combat, but the problem is we don't really NEED him any more. Yeah, we have to get creative to beat some things, but that's where all the fun comes from. The Barb, however, usually just ends up swinging his Greatsword at the boss/miniboss monsters and crits 75% of the time on them, killing them instantly. Combat has become a pretty boring affair where the Barb oneshots everything and the rest of us need at least two hits. It wasn't so bad at level 3/4/5 but at 6 when he got his iteratives it turned into a whole new, frustrating as all get out ball game.
Nobody really feels like they're needed in combat except as a distraction so everyone isn't attacking the Barb at the same time while he mops everything up.
So now I need to get the rest of the group on board (the Sorcerer's player agrees 100%, I dunno about everyone else yet) to see if we can maybe phase the Barb out of the picture, which is going to be awkward as all hell.
Working for us; YMMV. If we get another player (we're looking), the Fighter may (a) die heroically, (b) end up staying in the village to protect our friends, or (c) ride off into the world to seek his own fortune, returning with much-needed reinforcements in the nick of time...
It hasn't hurt our game, having him.
Insert, "once we get to the point we can survive" for the above "if we get another player."
I used to run GMPCs all the time, mainly because I am secretly dissatisfied with my role as a GM and I want to have my own hero in the game sho goes fighting villains. But it's not the same as being a player, so i eventually drop them and let them become background NPCs or occasional guides.
I also have enough to do playing the characters for other players who couldn't make it to the session (there is always at least one).
I took this circumstance and tied it into the game as a curse on the party that causes their souls to temporarily lose control over their body and only instincts remain governing them. That way i don't have to actually RP their characters either and it is left to the players to do the riddling, puzzle solving and social encounters.
This is vaguely related.
How many of you would consider an occasional "pop-in" GMPC to be acceptable given, say, the use of these metagame artifacts to explain in in-world terms why said person isn't there any more.
()
This is also useful for those pesky missing PCs...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Personally I've found that having a GMPC tank/fighter only works up to a point.
Our GM rolled up a Barbarian because our party consisted of a Monk, Druid, Sorcerer, Bard, Rogue, and Cleric, so we didn't really have any fighty guys at low levels and we kinda needed to survive or the whole campaign would fall apart pretty much (a major flaw in Souls for Smuggler's Shiv IMO).
Now, however, the Barbarian dominates combat, but the problem is we don't really NEED him any more. Yeah, we have to get creative to beat some things, but that's where all the fun comes from. The Barb, however, usually just ends up swinging his Greatsword at the boss/miniboss monsters and crits 75% of the time on them, killing them instantly. Combat has become a pretty boring affair where the Barb oneshots everything and the rest of us need at least two hits. It wasn't so bad at level 3/4/5 but at 6 when he got his iteratives it turned into a whole new, frustrating as all get out ball game.
Nobody really feels like they're needed in combat except as a distraction so everyone isn't attacking the Barb at the same time while he mops everything up.
So now I need to get the rest of the group on board (the Sorcerer's player agrees 100%, I dunno about everyone else yet) to see if we can maybe phase the Barb out of the picture, which is going to be awkward as all hell.
I am playing in a PF gamer with a player that has a barbarian like this that seems to be constantly criting, does outrageous amounts of damage, and due to a bunch of hokey feats can full attack and move in the same round. This is a PC, not a DMPC. But the character does so much destruction at such a rate, that in the last session, I didn't even get a turn. Part of the problem was that I was rolling bad on initiative and part of the problem is that GM is inexperienced, and doesn't understand they need to increase the number of foes for our larger than normal party size. Still this guy is overpowered (compared to the rest of the party) to the point where it makes the game boring at times.
The problem you describe isn't a GMPC problem only, it is anytime that one player can't step back and realize that they are lowering the quality of the game for everyone else.
Our GM rolled up a Barbarian because our party consisted of a Monk, Druid, Sorcerer, Bard, Rogue, and Cleric, so we didn't really have any fighty guys at low levels and we kinda needed to survive or the whole campaign would fall apart pretty much (a major flaw in Souls for Smuggler's Shiv IMO).
As pres said, that is not a DMPC issue, it comes up with PCs also.
For your situation, and I am assuming your are playing the Serpent Skull AP, and are near the end of book 2.
-- david
papa.drb
TOZ, you are right. I am not fighting this battle anymore.
My last post to this tread, then I am hiding it so I do not see it anymore.
To GMPC or to NOT GMPC. Your game(s), your rules. Some folks hate them, some folks love them. Do what works for you and group(s) and let the others do what they want for their group(s).
-- david
papa.drb
|
|
GMPCs are a bad idea, IMHO.
Now an NPC who travels with the party? Sure. We had a great one for Crimson Throne, a dwarf cleric who the party saw as something of a father figure by the end of the campaign. He interacted with the group, even administering a few Gibbs-style head slaps when needed.
But though he traveled with us, and adventure with us, Master Hammer did not overshadow the PCs. He rarely spoke up unless either asked his opinion or to let us know we were doing something incredibly stupid even for us...
If you want to play a character but are GMing, why not find a group to either rotate GM responsibilities or join PFS or something?
|
TOZ, you are right.
I'm always right.
If you want to play a character but are GMing, why not find a group to either rotate GM responsibilities or join PFS or something?
Why do you think I want to play a character while I'm GMing? The name? I suppose I shall have to give in and just call it an NPC from now on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is something I have posted before:
Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.
Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.
Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.
Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.
I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.
I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run.
See, DrDeth, I understand what you're saying... but that's not been my experience on either side of the thing.
Several times, as a player, the GM has added a GMPC. I've always loved 'em. Tremendously so, regardless of the size of the group.
As a GM, I've tried to shy away, and had players request them back. Which could be taken as just being polite, except it's persistent.
So, I understand your experiences - which are valid - but mine are contrary to it. So, you know. Style.