So, I am currently writing up the in game story for my players, and I have been running this game weekly since October. The story started out with them rescuing an NPC adventurer who happens to be the son of the king for the nation that they start out in, and they have encountered him a number of times since then. I have every intention of this being a major important character in game.
Recently, they have re-encountered this character and have discovered a plot element where the prince has fallen in love with the princess of a neighboring kingdom. The current adventure they are on will take them into some underground caves and end with a dragon and after that they will emerge back into said kingdom where the prince will ask them to join him in a secret wedding ceremony. Unrequited love, Romeo and Juliet style, joining houses to unite the nations and gain more power, Game of Thrones style, kinda thing. Plot twist! During the ceremony I have the intention of having them get attacked, and the bad guys will be using a Thinuan weapon to kill the princess and steal her soul, trapping it withing the weapon.
From this point on, I plan on changing the game up a bit, for starters I am going to lie to my players and tell them the reason I am doing this is because I want to play because I don't get to play anymore. I will be running the prince as my DMPC, so I will get to play through the game with them. I want them to think that this has nothing to do with the actual plot of the story. I will game with them for a few adventures.
Over the course of this, they will end up going to the evil wizard's tower, attempting to save the soul of the princess where at the end of the tower we will see the prince have dialogue with the evil wizard himself, and we will see him turn evil and become the general of darkness, in order to save the soul of his wife. Think Darth Vader. From that point on the prince is actually going to be the main antagonist, and kill his own father, along with his father in law and unleash an army of undead to take over both kingdoms. Of course, his goal is to be reunited with his wife, but he won't know that the weapon he is using is actually the one that contains her soul and his motivations will be conflicted, as he will achieve his goal of uniting the kingdoms, but for the wrong intentions.
The new goal of the players will be to learn what happened to the princess's soul, defeat their former ally, and resurrect her so they can restore peace to the land, get rid of all the undead, and redeem their prince's soul.
Throw in a plot with the evil wizard and an evil cleric both becoming liches, and a couple of sub plots and we have the gist of where I'm going with the game up until 20th level.
Now the question is: Would you be okay with a DM lying to you and joining your game seemingly out of being selfish and wanting to play, or would the ending to the story make it all worth it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This will not likely end well. Honestly, if a GM told me he wanted to run a campaign so he can play his GMPC, I would tell him he can run it without me. At that point, it would not matter in the least how cool a plot twist the GM had planned, because I wouldn't stick around to see it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
NO! BAD MASTER MARSHMALLOW! Characters can lie to players, but GMs shouldnt.
I would tend to say, find another game to play. Because it seems like you want to make this characters (and, as you put it, "yours") outshine everything else in the game (including possibly the players).
This might make a good book, but not necessarily a good game.
Then again, I'm confused why you need to do this... why not say the prince feels obligated to follow along as an NPC. You can even have one of the players control him in combat, and you run the RP stuff with them. Just make sure he dont overshadow your players.
Edit: sissyl was much more succicnt than myself at expressing some of my feelings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
Be very wary about inserting a spotlight-mugging GMPC into a story.
Everytime that has happened in a game I've been in, at least helf the party began conspiring to murder the character while joking the the GM should keep his 'self-loving fantasies' off our gaming table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, entrust the play of the prince to a player and bring them into the loop. Have them prepare a replacement character that you will introduce very quickly after the switch.
|
You would have plenty of opportunity to be a player after this fiasco at my table. :) I'm kidding ya. A couple of points from my opinion, Players hate cut scenes where they cant act. We had one in an AP once and we felt like we just got to sit there while the story went on. Not a highpoint at all. I would make sure that there is a way to engage the PCs while this weapon steals the princess's soul. I absolutely hate DMPC and would tell you to go fly a kite but we rotate GMs so your situation wouldnt arise for us. I still dont like DMPC not sure how your players feel about the idea.
I probably wouldnt enjoy this so you would really have to sell it well. Thats just me though I might not have a playstyle anything like your table.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I see the purpose of saying you want to play and calling it a GMPC instead of just presenting the prince as a friendly NPC who follows them around and has some good justification for being there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're only allowed to do it if he also wields a katana.
I'm not sure I see the purpose of saying you want to play and calling it a GMPC instead of just presenting the prince as a friendly NPC who follows them around and has some good justification for being there?
Essentially I was doing this, the whole plot is he is going after this wizard and is asking the players to go with him, otherwise I can't see this NPC just ignoring the wizard and/or just asking the PCs to go save her without him.
I do have a player whose PC just died and I was considering giving this PC to him, so I will definitely consider that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not like this... As a DM it's too much work. As a player it's not much fun.
Lying to your players about in-game information, due to failed checks and plot developments they haven't yet discovered is fine ( I actually think "lying" is a bad term for it, unless I'm a pathological liar because of the undiscovered secret doors I've never told my players about), but misleading your players about your motives as a GM in real life is a bad idea. (If they ask you for spoilers outside of gameplay, "You'll just have to wait and see," is a perfectly acceptable answer, but if the players don't trust the GM, it can turn really, really toxic.)
As Matthew Downie pointed out, your long term plot doesn't seem to require lying to your players.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like you have a great story. I don't think your players are going to want to watch you perform it though.
Basically your whole plot is about an NPC. It isn't about the PCs, so why would your players be content being mere observers to this intricate tale of loss and struggle with redemption.
Make the story about the characters of the people who are playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Basically your whole plot is about an NPC. It isn't about the PCs, so why would your players be content being mere observers to this intricate tale of loss and struggle with redemption....
*cough* Jade regent *cough*
I like where your coming from, and the story sounds like it has promise, just avoid him being a DMPC and play him as such, just a cohort joining along with the characters. I know a lot of gm's avoid npc's joining the group but this guy certainly has a vested interest in going with them so it makes logical sense.
I think your plan will work just fine without bothering to tell them that you are considering him to be your character.
+1 to what Sissyl said.
It makes the players feel like side-kicks, which generally nobody signs up to invest that much time out of their lives to do.
-TimD
Edit: someday I'm going to remember to hit refresh before I post. Concur with many of the points above, especially the "Mary Sue" reference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see everyone is on his case about hogging the spotlight, The character from my reading of his description would basically just be a cohort going along with the team, and isn't hogging the spotlight until he switches sides to become an antagonist.
I don't see how this is any different or hogging any more spotlight than any other BBEG. Heck it's a typical trope to have the badguys lose their memory or for one reason or another work with the pc's at some point.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to the aforementioned "Mary Sue" situation... and the extremely good point about not using Episodes 1-3 as any form of plot/story model... the biggest problem I saw was that you have a vast pre planned story all laid out that the players have no control over.
While a standard module or AP has a basic plotline and set encounter timeline, the players aren't forced to basically sit in a cart and follow the tracks and watch the entire story unfold. Your story idea is fine, but most of it should be background and the players should never see it happen.
Do NOT use the prince as a DMPC or even a regular cohort, use him in moderation... perhaps attend the wedding, maybe be called on by him later for aid in finding someone or something (unbeknownst to the players, said person/object is part of the princes downfall), have the players perhaps see the prince in decline or have encounters that raise their suspicions or their concern for their friend.
But most of all let the players direct the story. It almost seems like you have everything but a script for them to follow... and they don't even seem like main characters!
In terms of player agency sandbox vs GMPC railroad, what if the prince abandons his princely responsibilities to avenge/rescue the princess, and the PCs are hired by the king (or whoever, his parent) to find/protect/return with the prince? Your plot can be the same, but what the players do about it is entirely their decision. They might not even take the job and find themselves wishing that they'd dealt with the BBEG back when he was Prince Milquetoast III, or they may follow your trail of breadcrumbs and have a front row seat for the Mary Sue Awesome Fest {tm}.
|
Huh? I kind of liked this idea... It seems the concensus on DMPCs is underwhelming. I've never had a bad experience with a DMPC and certainly not a bad enough experience to excuse my self from the game.
Maybe change the story so that the PC's are desparately trying to catch up to him, as opposed to escorting him. And they finally catch him just as he goes Vadar and they get held up/knocked out of action long enough that he is out of their reach. Then continue as planned.
|
|
I think it's always a bad idea to have your entire campaign hinge on one NPC. What happens if the PCs begin to suspect him earlier than you intended and attempt to slay him? If you use a gimmick to save his life, it will not only confirm the PCs' suspicions, but they may also begin to suspect your motives as GM. And if you don't forcibly save his life, well, he's dead, and there goes your campaign.
EDIT: Ah, ninja'd by bfobar. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the Table Dynamic - an all important factor that only Master Marshmallow can know. Posting the question to us at least in my opinion is not optimum - I usually don't make a decision until I have all the variables. However, if you rate your table dynamic on a scale of 1-10 as anything less than an 8 I'd shake my head and ask you to look for alternatives. It sounds to me like you've got the makings of a fairly epic campaign, which I wholly endorse.
However, Here's a suggestion - you've got national incident where two countries could be on the brink of war - at best with suddenly quite tense relations. Perhaps in order to keep the peace, the Prince's kingdom agrees to deliver the prince as a captive, or agrees to look the other way while the slighted kingdom captures the prince? You could have the prince along w/ the players on the run, branded criminals but being supported by factions in both kingdoms that are sympathetic to the players' cause. You want Game of Thrones? You'll have it in spades with proxies, patsies, and cross-factional friction while two countries are on the brink of war. You can paint that house with any color you want; my advice is arterial red.
Of course, your job as GM will be to get the players to truly come to respect or like the prince. Make the tragic consequences of his "secret marriage" truly weigh on him, but have him conquer it, preferably w/ the help of the players. If you have a female player, you could have NPCs try to nudge them over to the prince's interest, thinking they'd be good for him. Give him a progression much like you'd give the players, make him more like one of the team. Get the players to LIKE HIM. Failing that, making him the eventual villain of the piece won't carry the dramatic impact necessary - but by then you may have discovered other story options due to the choices of your players. If you succeed at making the prince an NPC the players trust and respect, his "Vaderization" will carry the impact you are looking for.
Sometimes I have NPCs travel with the party for story purposes. Always when they do, they have what one of my players has coined "cinematic damage." I don't actually roll anything relating to them, I just say that people are fighting with them and everything keeps moving. This way I get to have my NPCs that can grow in depth from the party seeing them more often and in more places, but they never actually seem in competition with the party in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bad idea. First DMPC's are usually not a good idea.
Next- you are forcing a traitor on them.
And a rail-road.
AND it's been done. A Lot. By bad DM's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to have your cake and eat it to you may want to to consider the following.
1. The NPC in general needs to be weaker then the weakest part member, such as 3-5 levels lower. You may find this enjoyable because you will need to be very cleaver to feel like your contributing.
2. The NPC will need the PCs more then PCs need the NPC. This is why I feel comfortable with my horse/animal companion/familiar. These NPCs are not as powerful as me or anyone in my party, and the moment they become more powerful then me or anyone in my party I consider getting rid of them.
3. Know that at anytime said NPC could be asked to go away and that is alright.
Once again just some considers, all games/game groups are different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everyone and disagree too.
If you know that people in the group hate it when the GM lies to the players then it's a bad idea. If the players know it's all a game and the outcome is going to be cool, then there will be nothing wrong.
We have two GMs running our current AP. both have Characters. At the beginning when they alternated parts of the AP they were in the game with their character. Lately, towards the end, both characters have been in the game. We have had GMPCs in past games (D&D, Champions, GURPS, BESM, etc) and have had no problems. The group has been different and there has never been a problem. I don't see why there should be a problem with the GM having his character in a game as long as he is up front with his actions. (i.e. "Hey, here is my character for the game.")
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't about the prince really. The point is that he needs the players to help him. He is the client here, he is going to be asking the players to come with him because he needs them.
The railroad part will be pretty minimal, as this character isn't going to be giving them orders, he's going to be asking for the players to act as a team, and it's not like I am planning this to go on until 20th level, he will be with them for one, maybe two adventures.
I think there is a lot of player vs. DM dynamic showing up here, and I think it's terrible. You're really going to walk away from the table if the DM has an NPC that isn't a bad guy?
Mostly I wanna try this because I have done the 'plot happens off screen while you guys are chillin at your fort, now someone asks for your help to fix it' story every time for this adventure, and I think it would be a good way to mix things up if they were on the scene before sh*t goes down for once.
I have also played in games with a DMPC, and usually the DM makes a PC to cover some role that needs to be covered with the party and it's always a welcome addition. It's not like I'm going to be fighting over loot or even asking for anything from the players. This is their group's favor to this character, and I am pretty sure any NPC who asks the PCs to do a job for him will usually say "you can keep anything you find along the way," which was my intention with the character.
But, presentation is everything as a DM, and I will agree that introducing him as my excuse to play again is a bad idea, so I will be scrapping that, and I will make sure he is underplayed and won't steal any spotlight from the players. If they really don't like it, I will just go with the same old "sh*t happens while you're not there, now go clean up the mess" plot that I have done over and over again.
()
Well, monkerdoodle to this idea!
One of the bizarre things to me on these boards is the absolute vitriol about GMPCs.
I certainly understand where people are coming from - their bad experiences make it difficult for them to accept that a GMPC is anything other than a power-trip or a played-out-wanna-be-novel.
But then, when I note, "It's always worked well for us." telling me (as has often happened), "You're wrong and a terrible GM: it never works well."*** (as has more-or-less occurred in the past here as well) seems extremely, well, off.
I also think that's mostly what's going on here: people are so quick to hop on the words "GMPC = NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOPE!" that they're completely missing the intent of the OP.
You don't want a GMPC, you're not interested in a GMPC - you've got a plot-based NPC that you want to weave into the PCs' story for thematic and cinematic reasons, but you're using "a GMPC" as an excuse to get him there.
Seriously all, please read the bold part of his post. "Lying" means "telling something that is not true" - in this case, that the guy is a GMPC.
HOWEVER, as others have noted, outright lying to your players can seriously harm GM trust. That's my concern about all this (and that's what you're actually asking about); and it's a fairly major one.
If your players trust you, and you know that setting them up in this way won't harm that trust (something I'm personally dubious about - not because of you, but because of my experiences* with human nature), it's up to you, but the lie itself is... extremely dangerous from a social standpoint.
Basically, you're asking if it's worth pulling a once-in-a-lifetime "trick" on your players with the story you've set up. And while I think it's a great story (I, personally, would probably love the campaign based on your descriptions alone), I'm not sold on it enough that I'd suggest the straightforward deception on your part... especially if you're only going to use him for one or two sessions at most. Besides - one (or more!) of your players might roll really high on their sense motive check.
That said, one of the things someone suggested above is a great idea, if you have the time: set up a number of rotating, plot-important-but-expendable NPCs that, for <reasons>, can be killed (but try not to be) and effectively replaced. The "how" is variable (thus the "<reasons>" up above), but the result is the same: you end up with a minor guiding hand (aka "helpful plot hook"**) that comes and goes. This obfuscates the fact that this NPC is uniquely important without actually lying to them - in this case, it's simply allowing the players to come to their own (wrong) conclusions, which is generally the best way to create a bait-and-switch.
My impression, though, is that you don't have time for that - the idea behind the deception is that you can quickly hide the need for the NPC without the suspicion of the players being aroused.
In that case, I'd suggest... let it. Because, ultimately, it doesn't matter if they suss your plot out ahead of time or not. Dude's a bard (at least, that's my lingering impression - I can't see the OP right now), so have him use vanish and invisibility if the party turns violent and simply run away.
(Though why they'd turn violent is really anyone's guess - they're basically guaranteeing a political nightmare for themselves by attempting to murder a country's prince, even a country at war; and such murders do tend to out eventually.)
The ultimate advice is: you've got one great story, now write three more, based on the variables you see happening, as well as a method of "here's where things default back to baseline" (i.e. your above proposal) that will ultimately generate a player-driven story, but give you a (broad) structure to work with.
Thus, Story:
A) <primary story> PCs travel with Bard Prince, become friends, he goes to the dark side, becomes a new BBEG
B) <secondary story> PCs leave prince behind, drive him off, etc; Prince goes off on his own, gravely wounded, blames PCs for troubles, open to temptations, and goes to the dark side, becomes a new BBEG (basically the same as part A, but with a different method of arrival)
C) <tertiary story> PCs murder the prince; the truth outs, and now the PCs have one and a half countries attempting to kill them - one, the country the prince was from, and the other the country that hated that one; of course the PCs also have the rival country attempt to recruit them (secretly, of course) to finish off the prince's country's royal line
- C-a) the rival country is powered by dark necromancy
- C-b) the prince's country succumbs to dark magic due directly to the PCs' actions generating the prince's new undead state, and that country's need for revenge
- C-c) both of the above
- C-d) some third party is making it look like one or both of the above are true for <reasons>
- C-e) one of the countries is framing the other for <reasons>
... and so on.
(Note: the reason option "C" is so well developed, while options "A" and "B" are not, is because you've already developed option "A", and that's the "preferable"/"original" plan; option "C" is, "what happens when the PCs wreck all your plans"-contingency-style stuff. The ghost template is especially helpful if it's only able to be permanently dealt with by way of freeing the princess' soul...)
In any event, I hope this helps!
* Which, ultimately, must be weighed against your knowledge of your players.
** THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS RAILROADING, so thank you in advance, for not claiming that it is. This is a plot hook in the form of a helpful person. That person can and will be removed if the plot hook is rejected. Can it be used to railroad? Yes. But just because a baseball bat, kitchen knife, or wood-axe can be used as a lethal weapon doesn't mean that's what the purpose or nature is - it's an abuse of a tool, not the tool itself.
*** One of the funny things about this, is it's not just me doing this. Literally all of our GMs have done this. And man - those are some of the best games.
I suppose I should throw in more details, mind you this is a story that we have been playing through for months.
The very first adventure I introduced some of my PCs as being part of this guy's original adventuring group, and the PCs who were there for the first week opened the door and found the PCs that weren't there until the second week. In game, this is a reunion of these characters in the same adventuring group.
It should feel pretty organic to transition the story to include this character joining the team, I still need a good way to hash out the details of him becoming a bad guy tbh.
If he dies, that's fine, I have the bad guys res him or animate him. If he doesn't then we have a scene where he holds the princess's soul hostage and the prince surrenders, naturally the PCs won't want to bother listening to him and I assume this is the point where they have to fight each other. If I were to make assumptions about my players (or any players in general) it would be that they will refuse to cooperate with what my NPCs ask of them in game if it means they can kill something.
I am less concerned about this issue, I simply won't lie to my players about it, they will just know that this is part of the plot, or I won't even mention it, and I am now more concerned with the means of stealing and transporting souls to distant places.
Played in a game like this, the only thing it will do is that your pc's will try to throw monkey wrenches at you metaphorically or literally if any of them have violent tendencies. What you can do that would help is that the prince could follow the pc's, be the party funds for mundane equipment like pack animals, feed, a few servants, tents, basically buy the camp. He could also pay the pc's for many things like side quests and random bounties (maybe he has connections and ways to contact people from far away).
Being a player in a game like this could also get your pc's to prematurely kill your gmpc by "accident." It's a good story idea, I really do like it, but I have never seen games like it end well either for the players (sometimes gmpc makes pc's feel incompetent) or for the gm (monkey wrenches make you think on your feet too much that you contradict previous story developments).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The acronyms of DMPC and GMPC get thrown around a lot but it is a huge misnomer. There are only PC and NPC. Either it is a Player Character or it is a Non-Player Character. I have no issue with the DM running an NPC in any game along with a group of PC's. I don't even have a problem with that DM becoming a player at some point and the next DM allowing the NPC to become a PC. That is up to the table and what you want to play. There is no right and wrong.
However, let's just remember that if it is not a PC, then it is an NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The acronyms of DMPC and GMPC get thrown around a lot but it is a huge misnomer.
I think it's an important distinction to make. Your run of the mill NPC either (a) isn't present every session (b) doesn't go along on adventures / get a share of treasure and xp (c) doesn't get a significant part of the game table spotlight (d) doesn't get a full character build with the care and attention that a player gives a PC.
PCs might have hirelings that meet those requirements but those are (mostly) under the control of the (non-DM) player (with a DM veto, most of the time, for out-of-character or suicidal actions, etc). Putting a character in the game who is basically filling the role of a PC, but is played by the DM with all the rule-bending and narrative-altering power that implies = DMPC. I think it's aptly named.
but is played by the DM with all the rule-bending and narrative-altering power that implies = DMPC. I think it's aptly named.
This here is misleading; I have never had this experience with DMPCs.
In the game I run, I have a "GMPC" who joins the party on their adventures. I stay out of the plot unless the player characters ask him to do something for them. And still has the chance to fail. The reason he is in the game is because I have 4 players, and sometimes one or two can't come to a session. That way we can still play without a major loss of power for the group.
Basically it allows us to have a game with at least 3 "PC's" at any given time.
It's better if you are a GM and want a character of your own to stay in the back. Don't have the plot centered around your character and only join in if you just need an extra PC at the table. When we have all 4 I typically sit it out.
Except when they really want him there...like when they fought the dragon. Because they were afraid they couldn't handle it. (I just made the dragon a little more difficult of an encounter though...so my intention was the same.shhhh...don't let them know that...they were just very happy they had the help at the end of the battle)
Your GMPC should really be an NPC. He can join in, you can roleplay with him, and occasionally use him to give the plot a nudge (use sparingly), and to fill in the empty spots for missing PCs.
If you are going to make him turn on the PC's like that, he needs to be a full NPC, don't even touch him in combat, let a player control him, and make his time with the characters pretty short. Make the betrayal happen, and then move the plot towards stopping him and don't play him again.
BE WARNED. Doing this will be the only time you will get this done as part of a plot. The PC's will be wary of you doing this ever again and likely refuse any NPC help you might offer. Or be very wary of them. And if you do this again, it will likely be a groan you will hear from your players when you do.
I did this once. The characters needed to move a large pillar of ivory into a dungeon and return it where it belongs. (I converted a 4e adventure I found) I added an NPC who was going to stay back, but had a bag of holding, that he agreed for a fee to lug their pillar for them. Armed with a frying pan and his magic sack. At some point we were missing players and I had him suit up some leather armor and assist them. In the end, the party all got knocked unconscious and I had the NPC somewhere else as he got seperated from them. (didn't want him involved in the BBEG fight) I did not intend for them to TPK but bad dice rolls happen. So the NPC, finished the BBEG an Ogre Mage I think and gave sips to the PCs of healing potion. Not enough to wake them, but to insure they would recover. I hand waived they faded in and out of consciousness and saw glimpses of all of this happening. Then put the pillar back, this brought around the ghost of an oracle and he captured her. Taking her with him. Then he suddenly became a major antagonist. Showing up and messing up their plans when they least expected. It was fun and memorable, and it only happened because the PC's 'failed' and I feel that if the 'fail' it doesn't always mean they have to die. And if I Deus Ex Machina them back to life there are still consequences. IT worked well that once. But ever since if I have an NPC that wants to go with them, they immediately ask me if it is Marton. And I have had to swear that my 'GMPC' as you call it never will be like Marton.
By the way, don't try to engineer an encounter that will wipe them out. Mine just happened that way. It's a bad idea to try and will probably result in your failure to do so, or the actual irrevocable death of a PC that you did not intend. (or of all of them)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add mine to the chorus of responses against this idea.
There's nothing wrong with an important, recurring NPC joining the party. You can't force players to like such a character, but with a little finesse they may even grow fond of him or her.
But your lie — not the fact that you're lying, but the lie itself— would cause me to quit a game. I firmly believe that a GM cannot play in their own game. They can have NPCs, but they can never get the player experience while GMing because there is a conflict of interest.
It seems you're trying an elaborate scheme to lie to the players about having a DMPC, but it's really just an NPC. That's fine, I guess, but the initial revelation of a DMPC would have me leaving the table. I'd never stick around for the payoff.
You need to think long and hard about whether you're actually trying to play in your own campaign or not. Once you've done that, find a way to do your plot idea without jeopardizing the GM's sacred oath to impartiality.
The drive to include campaign-spanning plot twists has been the undoing of many a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listen to my fellow BBEG.
OK, first you got a DMPC. Controversial, and few DMs can pull this off. Often bad, but not always a game killer. Risky.
Next you are forcing a traitor upon them. Now sure, sometimes the story is just SOOOOO cool, it works. But not often, and it's risky.
Finally, you are sending them on a train ride. Few players out & out revolt at railroading, but there will be grumbling.
Three strikes- you're out.
Basically what you're doing is coming up with a oh so cool story in your head and forcing your players into bit parts and unwitting accomplices in it.
And here's the thing- even tho some of the most experienced players and DMs on this board are warning you, you continue to justify it. You asked our opinion & advice- and you are going ahead anyway. To me, this means you won't be able to carry this off. Not only are you going to lose players, you may lose friends.
This is a REALLY bad idea. Stop. No. Don't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he dies, that's fine, I have the bad guys res him or animate him.
This really seems like a railroad. You're basically saying you have this plot, and it is going to happen no matter what.
Adventure sessions and campaigns as a whole should be written with the assumption that PCs will take actions that could dramatically shift what is going on.
If the prince dies, let him be dead. How would that affect the world then? Let it happen, and adjust things as they might actually change due to things happening.
That way the campaign world feels like a real place, not simply a series of things that are going to happen regardless.
If there is something that MUST happen for your campaign to work, then don't introduce it to the players, just have it happen in the background.
As far as GMPCs - while it can be done well, it is incredibly difficult. If the players even suspect that the GM is somehow cheating or fudging for their PC, then it becomes a huge problem. Not to mention that keeping the separation of knowledge between a DM and a multitude of NPCs is difficult enough, adding a GMPC makes it even more complicated.
but is played by the DM with all the rule-bending and narrative-altering power that implies = DMPC. I think it's aptly named.This here is misleading; I have never had this experience with DMPCs.
? How is it misleading? Part of the GM's role is to be the fair judge and arbiter of the game rules, hard for me to see how it's not a conflict of interest. Like in real life if you allowed judges to rule on the validity of lawsuits they themselves had filed.
... and tell them the reason I am doing this is because I want to play because I don't get to play anymore. I will be running the prince as my DMPC, so I will get to play through the game with them. ...
I have had so many bad experiences with DMPC's (and so few good experiences with them) that this would have about a 50/50 chance of me finding an excuse to quit the group. Unless I had a long term relation ship with the group and was extremely confident in the GM I just wouldn't stick around long enough to see how it came out in the end.
I have had major NPC's be the guy at court that hires the PC's for specific jobs and he eventually goes insane (or was just hiding that he was all along) and becomes the BBEG. It is a kinda standard troupe but people still like it.
But don't run it as a DMPC.
I have only added a DMPC under very specific circumstances.
Yeah...railroading, making PCs sideplayers all bad.
GMPCs...Tricky.
I have used them but they tend to be more like extremely detailed NPCs who play a support role (healer, knowledge guy) to fill a gap in the party. Only there to act as a springboard to bounce ideas around and MAYBE give a lil' hint if people are struggling. They NEVER take center stage or drive the plot.
? How is it misleading? Part of the GM's role is to be the fair judge and arbiter of the game rules, hard for me to see how it's not a conflict of interest. Like in real life if you allowed judges to rule on the validity of lawsuits they themselves had filed.but is played by the DM with all the rule-bending and narrative-altering power that implies = DMPC. I think it's aptly named.This here is misleading; I have never had this experience with DMPCs.
Because I'm not going to alter the rules for this character any more than I would for a bad guy.
And as far as the rail road goes... exactly what should happen then? I think this thread has a bad case of dividing by zero because I'm pretty sure no matter what I plan to do with the story, as long as I plan anything at all it's wrong because the player's should be the ones writing the story and playing through it because no matter what I do with any semblance of plot, it's railroading.
The game has been pretty open and sandboxy for the past few months, I think a little bit of railroading style might be good.
I actually don't think railroading (within reason) is that bad for some groups. My current group tends to dither and accomplish nothing if I don't railroad them at least a little bit.
I think as long as you paint the plot with a fairly broad brush it can be ok.
For example:
Give several hooks for the PC's to rescue the princess.
1) Bad guys said something incredibly insulting to the most prudish PC when leaving.
2) Father will reward them.
3) The priest of X (that one of the PC's follows) is worried about how it will destabilize the region.
Do NOT decide how the PC's will do the rescuing.
Think of at least a couple of different ways the PC's could track/find the BBEG. Give any other reasonable method a fair chance to succeed.
Set up the base (along with some weak points) and let the PC's figure out how to get in and out.
I'm going to make the dungeon, design the encounters within the dungeon, and that's about it, they can figure out the rest.
So, why did you post the OP? I mean, you got a lot of advice from very experienced DM's saying "DON'T!" and you're gonna do it anyway.
So, why did you post the OP? I mean, you got a lot of advice from very experienced DM's saying "DON'T!" and you're gonna do it anyway.
No, I wasn't asking about whether or not to do it, but more about how to present it to the players.
He will be an NPC, probably won't be involved in combat much if at all, and his turning into a bad guy will most likely happen off screen and be something for the players to discover on their own after the fact.
Is that not me compromising or are you just choosing not to be agreeable?