Good DMPCs?

[TriOmegaZero]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

It is not the GM's job to figure out how we are going to survive. He has more than enough that he is doing without doing our job for us.

Is it the GMs job to answer the party when they say 'We would like to hire someone with clerical capabilities to adventure with the party'?

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

It is not the GM's job to figure out how we are going to survive. He has more than enough that he is doing without doing our job for us.

Is it the GMs job to answer the party when they say 'We would like to hire someone with clerical capabilities to adventure with the party'?

Yup.

If they want to go to the church of Sarenrae and bargain to get a halfway decent cleric to go with them and help keep them alive, that would be well within reasonable.
If the party wants to pay for items for a while then someone take the leadership feat and get a pretty darned good healer, that is great.
Both of those are the party figuring out a plan to handle the expected situation when none of us want to play a healer. Not the only ways by any means, but valid none the less. No problem with that.

But what Jaelithe said was to look at the GM and expect him to do his job and provide what we need to survive. That is not the party figuring out or planning anything. That is just a petulant "I don't wanna be a healer! So what are you gonna do about it!"

[TriOmegaZero]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

If they want to go to the church of Sarenrae and bargain to get a halfway decent cleric to go with them and help keep them alive, that would be well within reasonable.

If the party wants to pay for items for a while then someone take the leadership feat and get a pretty darned good healer, that is great.
Both of those are the party figuring out a plan to handle the expected situation when none of us want to play a healer. Not the only ways by any means, but valid none the less. No problem with that.

But what Jaelithe said was to look at the GM and expect him to do his job and provide what we need to survive.

And how are the previous statements not exactly that?

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

1) The group deciding on a plan and carry though hiring a cleric.
2) Just staring at the GM until he does his job and gives us something.

You honestly don't see any difference between those two?

[TriOmegaZero]

Of course there's a difference. A matter of tone, but not function.

[Jaelithe]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

1) The group deciding on a plan and carry though hiring a cleric.

2) Just staring at the GM until he does his job and gives us something.

You honestly don't see any difference between those two?

And you honestly think a narrowly literal interpretation of #2 was what I meant? As Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man."

[Ellis Mirari]

My solution would just be to make sure they "happen" to find a potion or two at the end of every encounter.

Though, on the player side, another solution to no one wanting to be the "party healer" is to have everyone play a class that can share the role equally: a bard, and paladin can throw down enough in-combat healing to get the party through to match a devoted support cleric, and they can do other things besides.

[Josh M.]

Jaelithe wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Now, I have the freedom to say "Well, too bad. I made a Barbarian." But, then I sound like the entitled a-hole. It's just sort of been a courtesy, that if you join an already established group, you help shore up what the group is missing. It's never been a codified rule, but heavily implied.

Ridiculous that the others get to play what they want simply because they came along first. You could just as easily say, "Hey ... you guys have done what you wanted until now. One of you needs to play a divine caster now while I get into my hottie elven ninja wench."

You only sound like "the entitled a-hole" if you've bought into the BS party line that says, "Eff you, newb. Pay your dues." This ain't your new job, dude. It's supposed to be fun—the maximum fun you can have.

Next time, say, "Well, I'm playing a barbarian, but it looks to me as if you could use a divine caster," glance significantly at the DM, and expect him to do his damned job—which is to facilitate EVERYONE's fun by providing, in some fashion (either GMPC, or, for the obdurate paranoids who think such is impossible, a serviceable NPC), what the party requires.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time, I believe in the group collaborating on things like character roles, to ensure that the group is strong and that we can all work together better.

Like I said above, it's not a hard and fast rule that the new player "pay their dues." It's just suggested that if they didn't already have a character concept they were really into, that they are welcomed to help out and cover a role not presently filled. This isn't always just being the party "heal bot." There have been times where we needed a melee brute, or we needed serious arcane spellcasting, etc.

I have to admit, a big part of my initial gripe about usually covering the party support role, comes from my inherent need to prioritize party support. I apologize if my initial post made it look like my group was deciding what other people played, etc.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand, it'd be nice if more DM's were willing to either run a full-time healer npc/dmpc, or allow more cohorts to cover support roles more often. I took the Leadership feat once many years ago, and made my cohort a Cleric, and some players thought it was a cheap move to get free healing. I explained that since nobody wants to be the Cleric, that I took the feat to cover our butts and make my main character whatever I wanted.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Of course there's a difference. A matter of tone, but not function.

Disagree. One is the players taking responsibility for their own survival and success. The other is the players just assuming the GM will do something to make sure they win no matter what.

Jaelithe wrote:

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

1) The group deciding on a plan and carry though hiring a cleric.

2) Just staring at the GM until he does his job and gives us something.

You honestly don't see any difference between those two?

And you honestly think a narrowly literal interpretation of #2 was what I meant? As Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man."

Considering I've seen several people do exactly that and all I've got to go on is what you wrote.

Yes.

Look through these forums. You will find hundreds of examples.

• If I want to only carry a melee weapon, the GM should take that into account in what he designs. Putting an archer ambush from on top of a cliff is a ^1@% move.
  
• If no one wants to play a healer, the GM should make UMD not a trained only skill and add lots of CLW wands and scrolls of Remove X in the loot.
  
• If no one can cast spells, the GM shouldn’t put in obstacles that need magic to get past. There are plenty of mechanical obstacles we can handle that he could use.

You see these on the boards all the time and that is exactly what your post looked like to me.

Not one of those indicates the slightest planning to work around their weaknesses or responsibility for their own success. All are a passive assumption the GM will do something to make sure they succeed no matter what decisions they make.

[Ellis Mirari]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Of course there's a difference. A matter of tone, but not function.

Disagree. One is the players taking responsibility for their own survival and success. The other is the players just assuming the GM will do something to make sure they win no matter what.

Jaelithe wrote:

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

1) The group deciding on a plan and carry though hiring a cleric.

2) Just staring at the GM until he does his job and gives us something.

You honestly don't see any difference between those two?

And you honestly think a narrowly literal interpretation of #2 was what I meant? As Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man."

Considering I've seen several people do exactly that and all I've got to go on is what you wrote.

Yes.

Look through these forums. You will find hundreds of examples.

• If I want to only carry a melee weapon, the GM should take that into account in what he designs. Putting an archer ambush from on top of a cliff is a ^1@% move.
  
• If no one wants to play a healer, the GM should make UMD not a trained only skill and add lots of CLW wands and scrolls of Remove X in the loot.
  
• If no one can cast spells, the GM shouldn’t put in obstacles that need magic to get past. There are plenty of mechanical obstacles we can handle that he could use.

You see these on the boards all the time and that is exactly what your post looked like to me.

Not one of those indicates the slightest planning to work around their weaknesses or responsibility for their own success. All are a passive assumption the GM will do something to make sure they succeed no matter what decisions they make.

I don't out-and-out disagree with you, but you may be missing a few steps that would make it seems less abhorrent:

The GM says something along the lines of "Hmm, no divine casters, an untimely crit could put you guys in a really desparate spot without healing. Do you have a way around that?"

Only the most stubborn sort of fool at that point wouldn't at least drop some points in UMD when they realize the trouble they'd be in otherwise. Not addressing the potential issue of party dynamics would be akin to allowing a Ranger to pick Humanoid (orc) and Outsider (elemental) without telling him that neither of those enemies will ever show up in this adventure.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I have and will continue to bring up hints and reminders whether I am GM or player. Nothing wrong with that.

But I firmly believe that a player and/or a group should have a plan to deal with whatever weaknesses or lack of ability they have. That plan could be to hire a cleric. It could be max my UMD and the group allocate a % of funds for healing and status removal stuff. It could be get some stuff to tide us over until Jim-Bob can take Leadership. It could be just buy a little bit, make a deal with the temple, and focus real hard on stealth/surprise attack so we don't get hurt. It could be ...

Many people on these boards seem to think none of that is necessary (Jaelithe's post sounded like he was one of them - but apparently not). It is the GM's job to make it work no matter what decisions I/we make.

The was a thread months ago about a group wanting to make a team of all arcane archers. Didn't say anything along the lines of "We'll concentrate on mobility so no one can close, have a couple with high UMD to heal us, have a couple be switch hitters for when melee happens, etc...

There was almost no thought of "How do we compensate for our weaknesses?" Some of us tried to suggest things they could do to alleviate those issues. We were pretty much ignored since that would detract from their strength of shooting magic arrows.
If we don't have it, it's the GM's job to make it work anyway.

Many of the posters seemed to agree with - GM should not (or at least not often) put encounters where anyone tried very hard to close with or grapple them, small or enclosed areas, creatures/undead/especially ghosts that are hard to hurt with arrows, etc...

The players are going to make a whole group of the identical one trick pony and the GM should make sure it shines.

I have personally watched people do the same kind of thing.

Player upset that his full plate tower shield dwarf was having heat problems in the desert and was having difficulty keeping up with the elves he was supposed to be protecting. "Well you could have given me a wand of endure elements and boots of striding or something! Why didn't you buy them yourself? You can't tell me what I have to buy! I didn't, you chose not to buy them yourself knowing you were going into the desert..."

Player brings a telepath into an almost exclusively undead campaign (yes, he was told/warned/cautioned), then irritated that there was almost nothing that he could read the mind of or dominate.

[pres man]

A lot of options that players could use are totally dependent on a GM's whims. Is there a cleric they can hire? Are their wands of endure elements around? Magic boots?

So yeah, sometimes as a player, you have to turn to the GM and ask, "What are the options available?"

Not to mention that the GM controls the party's access to wealth. "Why didn't you buy some magic items to help you?" "Maybe because for the last two levels we have only been encountering creatures with the a treasure of 'none'."

[Jaelithe]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

You see these on the boards all the time and that is exactly what your post looked like to me.

I tend not to spell everything out explicitly if I think it's clearly implied.

To clarify, it's the GM's job to create an enjoyable campaign and scenario.

It's the players' job to determine how best to negotiate that campaign and scenario.

Each employs cues and feedback from the other to facilitate their role.

Frankly, I'd respond in this fashion to those various assertions, if applicable:

• "If you only want to carry a melee weapon, you're not going to be particularly well-rounded a combatant. Don't bleat at me if someone sees you carrying only a sword and decides to turn you into a pincushion from range. Any opponent with a modicum of common sense will consider, and likely do, just that."
  
• "If no one wants to play a healer, well ... I like to think this is a fairly well-developed setting. Common sense tells you that adventurers will need someone to tend their wounds and cure their maladies."
  
• "No one here possesses arcane casting powers. I recall Conan saying he needed magic to fight magic. If the ultimate barbarian warrior feels that way, well ... seems like something to consider."
  

If they ignore those responses and don't seek out the assistance they'll obviously need, I may throw someone their way, or I may not. Probably depends on context: If they're being sullen brats, likely not. If instead there's a role-playing justification, I'll probably intervene with a conveniently placed GMPC or NPC. I go with the flow when DMing.

What some don't seem to realize, though, is that players have a fundamental right to say, "I'm not having much fun. I don't really like these magic-heavy scenarios. Could you skew the campaign differently?" As a GM, I'd try my best to make that happen—assuming it wasn't something I absolutely despised presiding over myself. (Of course, all this would be discussed before the campaign began.)

Players who don't want to do what they need to do and in addition don't like GMPCs/strong NPCs because they're worried about being overshadowed are being unreasonable, in my opinion.

[Robert Carter 58]

The only time I did a DMPC as an adult was when the party needed a healer, nobody wanted to do it, so I made a healbot, who was fairly terrible at everything else (and built to be that way) although had a lot of hit points, good AC, and good saves- basically he didn't go down easy and could heal, but was ineffective at everything else and fairly stupid- couldn't come up with solutions to problems. He also served as comic relief.

Though when I was a kid, playing 2nd edition, wanting to have my cake and eat it too, I was a DM, and my DMPC's would come in, kick bad guy ass- one was basically Batman with a cloak of the Bat- although to keep his mystery I didn't have him stay with the party. He would disappear give a mysterious clue, kick a bad guy's ass and basically be the worst kind of Gary Stu.

Another time I did have a DMPC run with the party, and would plant magic items specifically for him to find. It was pretty egregious. Though I was 14 or 15 at the time.

[pres man]

I might suggest that GMs that are so tied to their campaign ideas, that they aren't willing to adjust them to a reasonable extent to the preferences of the players, are at least as bad due to their personal bias as GMs that use a party NPC to have their own personal Gandalf in the game.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

pres man wrote:

I might suggest that GMs that are so tied to their campaign ideas, that they aren't willing to adjust them to a reasonable extent to the preferences of the players, are at least as bad due to their personal bias as GMs that use a party NPC to have their own personal Gandalf in the game.

Agreed. Though I bet you will get a large amount of variation on what counts as reasonable.

To me:
Reasonable - We aren't interested in working for the obnoxious wizard. We want to go hit the slavers. I can't necessarily come up with something on the fly, but I can have something for next week.

Not reasonable - I made a character with a bunch of weaknesses, change things until it is not a problem.

Reasonable - We're not interested in roleplaying all the 'shopping' scenes. Can we handle that with some skill roles? Sure.

Not reasonable - I don't care if it's a low magic campaign, it sucks that I can't just buy whatever I want! My character doesn't work without magic shuriken I should be able to find those anywhere!

Reasonable - Is it ok if my oracle doesn't worship a god, he steals divine power like the 3.5 ur-priest.

Not reasonable - I made a pirate captain, there should be a chance for him to use those skill. Yes, I know we agree to explore the abandoned dwarf mines, but he doesn't do very good off of a ship.

[Jaelithe]

pres man wrote:

I might suggest that GMs that are so tied to their campaign ideas, that they aren't willing to adjust them to a reasonable extent to the preferences of the players, are at least as bad due to their personal bias as GMs that use a party NPC to have their own personal Gandalf in the game.

I'd disagree, in that if a campaign is discussed beforehand, players can decide then if it's the kind of game in which they wish to participate.

As I've said before, don't decide to play in the swashbuckling Swords of the Caliph game when, five minutes after play begins, you're going to set sail for Wallachia to hunt vampires, Mr. GrimDark.

Of course, adjusting to a reasonable extent, as you said, is part of a GM's job. Definitions of "reasonable" vary, though.

[Edit: I should have just read KdM's post. It said the above just fine.]

[Josh M.]

It sounds stupidly simple, but I've seen it happen far too many times. Players and the DM need to discuss before the game begins, what kind of game they will/would like to be playing.

Don't tell me it's an open sandbox, and then railroad the party every session. On that same note; don't tell me there's a big, deep story going on, and then every session winds up being 3+ hours of "Uh, so now what are you guys doing?" "We go here." "Okay." *rolls some dice*. "Okay, now what are you doing?"

If a race isn't allowed, say so from the start. If it's going to be a seafaring campaign, say so. I really don't get why so many players and DM's feel the need to blindside the rest of the table. The game's more fun when we're all on the same page!

[Ellis Mirari]

I can understand a degree of reluctant on the GMs part to share information about what's coming, for fear of sharing TOO much, or that the players will optimize for whatever tidbit they hear (which might be a reasonable expectation for some groups)

That's why I prefer to have the first short "session" devoted entirely to character creation, so that I have 1-2 weeks after that to come up with something based on what I'm given. The PCs can expect a reasonable challenge based on their abilities without actually knowing what's coming up.

[Josh M.]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

I can understand a degree of reluctant on the GMs part to share information about what's coming, for fear of sharing TOO much, or that the players will optimize for whatever tidbit they hear (which might be a reasonable expectation for some groups)

That's why I prefer to have the first short "session" devoted entirely to character creation, so that I have 1-2 weeks after that to come up with something based on what I'm given. The PCs can expect a reasonable challenge based on their abilities without actually knowing what's coming up.

Right, but the DM can at least share some specifics on the campaign setting before the game begins. Have each player talk about their character, and see how it pairs up against the setting, etc.

I was referring to the desperate attempt at a "gotcha!" moment some DM's(and players) try to pull. After the players have made their characters; "I know I had you all make dungeon-delving characters, but this game is actually going to be a high seas adventure!" GROAN.

Or, the just plain stubbornness/ignorance; don't tell me "anything PF-related is fine," give me a week to come up with a character with no prior restrictions, and then when I show up to the game, make me reroll 5 times on the spot because the character I made "doesn't exist in this setting." I had this happen once, and it was near infuriating. I made an elf archer, DM says; "well, you can't play elves in this game." Okay, so I make a gnome sorcerer; "No, you can't play gnomes in this campaign." Well WT* CAN I play? "Humans and Goblins." /tableflip

[Ellis Mirari]

Josh M. wrote:

Ellis Mirari wrote:

I can understand a degree of reluctant on the GMs part to share information about what's coming, for fear of sharing TOO much, or that the players will optimize for whatever tidbit they hear (which might be a reasonable expectation for some groups)

That's why I prefer to have the first short "session" devoted entirely to character creation, so that I have 1-2 weeks after that to come up with something based on what I'm given. The PCs can expect a reasonable challenge based on their abilities without actually knowing what's coming up.

Right, but the DM can at least share some specifics on the campaign setting before the game begins. Have each player talk about their character, and see how it pairs up against the setting, etc.

I was referring to the desperate attempt at a "gotcha!" moment some DM's(and players) try to pull. After the players have made their characters; "I know I had you all make dungeon-delving characters, but this game is actually going to be a high seas adventure!" GROAN.

Or, the just plain stubbornness/ignorance; don't tell me "anything PF-related is fine," give me a week to come up with a character with no prior restrictions, and then when I show up to the game, make me reroll 5 times on the spot because the character I made "doesn't exist in this setting." I had this happen once, and it was near infuriating. I made an elf archer, DM says; "well, you can't play elves in this game." Okay, so I make a gnome sorcerer; "No, you can't play gnomes in this campaign." Well WT* CAN I play? "Humans and Goblins." /tableflip

In what social situation is that EVER okay?

We're going on a trip to the Bahamas... PSYCHE we're going to a ski resort have fun in the snow.

Don't bother preparing visual aids for the meeting, presentations are informal... PSYCHE I told everyone the other half of the group to prepare visual aids, now you guys look like idiots.

[Josh M.]

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Ellis Mirari wrote:

I can understand a degree of reluctant on the GMs part to share information about what's coming, for fear of sharing TOO much, or that the players will optimize for whatever tidbit they hear (which might be a reasonable expectation for some groups)

That's why I prefer to have the first short "session" devoted entirely to character creation, so that I have 1-2 weeks after that to come up with something based on what I'm given. The PCs can expect a reasonable challenge based on their abilities without actually knowing what's coming up.

Right, but the DM can at least share some specifics on the campaign setting before the game begins. Have each player talk about their character, and see how it pairs up against the setting, etc.

I was referring to the desperate attempt at a "gotcha!" moment some DM's(and players) try to pull. After the players have made their characters; "I know I had you all make dungeon-delving characters, but this game is actually going to be a high seas adventure!" GROAN.

Or, the just plain stubbornness/ignorance; don't tell me "anything PF-related is fine," give me a week to come up with a character with no prior restrictions, and then when I show up to the game, make me reroll 5 times on the spot because the character I made "doesn't exist in this setting." I had this happen once, and it was near infuriating. I made an elf archer, DM says; "well, you can't play elves in this game." Okay, so I make a gnome sorcerer; "No, you can't play gnomes in this campaign." Well WT* CAN I play? "Humans and Goblins." /tableflip

In what social situation is that EVER okay?

We're going on a trip to the Bahamas... PSYCHE we're going to a ski resort have fun in the snow.

Don't bother preparing visual aids for the meeting, presentations are informal... PSYCHE I told everyone the other half of the group to prepare visual aids, now you guys look like idiots.

I'd say it's never okay, but I've seen it happen many, many times.

[DrDeth]

"Good DMPCs"
"Dark light"
"Fresh Frozen Jumbo Shrimp"
"organized mess"

;-)

[Tacticslion]

And they all really exist!

[haruhiko88]

I haven't used gmpc's in years, the closest I get is my take on the leadership rules. I don't let my players build their cohorts, in a 20pt buy game I build several varying npc's at different places on 15pt buy. And whenever a pc would like to pick up leadership I ask if there is anybody from the past that they would like to have follow them, or the player believes would be a good cohort. Generally said npc's come with a bit of a backstory to flesh them out, then I let the player build upon what has happened since the pc met the cohort. After all the gm only lays out the picture book and a story, the players add the pictures and color.

[Sen Bloodtalon]

Honestly, I feel that it is entirely up to the campaign at hand. In a long-winded story with way too much to give away, it's best to leave GMPCs out of it. However, in a campaign where a character niche is unfulfilled, leaving a notable flaw in the team, a GMPC is a great way to enjoy the fruits of your labors as a GM without having to pull punches. Keep in mind as well that GMPCs are very mortal. I was playing a Halfling Summoner, who took a greatsword to the everything and died, at the worst possible time during the fight. Had to ask if they wanted a cop out, since I was the only one who could damage the monsters. As for the issue of character types in a campaign and what campaign to run, I am fortunate to have a very accepting group who's game for just about any idea I can concoct. Some of you aren't so lucky, so the best option would be, as a few people have said, find out what campaign they like best. Obviously you have to cater to their play styles every now and again (a real roleplayer in a dungeon crawl would be bored out of their wits), but it never hurts to throw their weaknesses in their face once in a while. Throw the rogue into open combat, or put the fighter into a social confrontation where combat will get them killed. Teaches them a bit of humility, and makes them appreciate the other party members that much more. Just don't forget to leave them a way out. I've done that once or twice. And that's how TPKs are born.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

My group has a long-standing tradition of DMPCs. Sometimes, they were litterally the DM's PC, still along for the ride while the sometimes-player DMed. In all cases they've been characters that have contributed to the story and party dynamic without overshadowing the PCs.
We've probably not had more than a dozen or so over the 20-odd years I've been gaming, though.

[Rynjin]

I generally only use GMPCs in games with new players. I may have to dust off an old one (Ramon Veracruz, Cleric of Pharasma, who I used the FIRST time I ran CC) to make sure my players don't eat it halfway through book 1 of Carrion Crown, but I'm hoping it won't come to that.

[Sissyl]

DrDeth wrote:

"Good DMPCs"

"Dark light"
"Fresh Frozen Jumbo Shrimp"
"organized mess"

;-)

"Dried vitamin C without ascorbic acid"

I have always wondered. Dammit, I should have bought a bag when it was on sale. Now I will never know.

[Tinalles]

My group recently took a break from a long-running Kingmaker campaign. I ran "The Harrowing" so that our regular GM could get to play as a PC for a change.

I sent along a DMPC -- my regular character's cohort, a cleric with the merciful healer archetype. She's fantastic at healing, and very little use at anything else. She worked very nicely and never overshadowed the other characters.

Uh, right up until the very final confrontation, that is. It's hard not to overshadow the party when every single one of them gets dominated by the bad guys. I worked that out in a way that let the party escape, but it cost the DMPC her life.

[DrDeth]

See, sure, sometimes the party needs a Healer. Then, write one up, and hand it over to the Players to run.

You already run 99% of the characters in the world. You don;t need to run one which is adventuring with the party.

[TOZ]

DrDeth wrote:

You don;t need to run one which is adventuring with the party.

I sure don't. But sometimes it is nice to do so.

[DrDeth]

TOZ wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

You don;t need to run one which is adventuring with the party.

I sure don't. But sometimes it is nice to do so.

It's a bad habit, and many players resent it. They won't tell you, however, and if you're better than most they will just chalk it up to a DM peccadillo, but at best you only get a little eyerolling. Why is it "nice to do so" when you control every other being on the face of the planet?

[TOZ]

DrDeth wrote:

It's a bad habit, and many players resent it.

And many don't.

[Tacticslion]

TOZ wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

It's a bad habit, and many players resent it.

And many don't.

As a player, I don't resent it! :D

EDIT: a smile, originally intended, is added after the fact

[Jaelithe]

DrDeth wrote:

It's a bad habit, and many players resent it.

No and yes.

But that latter has in many cases more to do with certain players' lack of maturity than it does the DM's misuse of power.

Again ... done properly, it's a valuable tool. Done improperly, it can be disastrous.

That's pretty much the way many elements of D&D are.

[kyrt-ryder]

I imagine it usually has more to do with bad experiences in the past with misused DMPC's than it does with immaturity.

[Ivan Rûski]

DrDeth wrote:

TOZ wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

You don;t need to run one which is adventuring with the party.

I sure don't. But sometimes it is nice to do so.

It's a bad habit, and many players resent it. They won't tell you, however, and if you're better than most they will just chalk it up to a DM peccadillo, but at best you only get a little eyerolling. Why is it "nice to do so" when you control every other being on the face of the planet?

See my previous post about being requested to have an NPC join the party. They didn't need the help, they just liked the character enough that they requested out of game for me to keep him around.

[Sissyl]

I remember two DMPCs I was exposed to... Ewwww... The first was a DM's cool guy, who always had to save us from challenges we could not hope to match. Eventually, we tired of him, and attacked him. One of us managed a magnificent critical, getting him unconscious, but when I then tried to slit his throat, I just couldn't, for some reason. The DM protected his own. Needless to say, that was the end of that campaign.

The second one was a whiny, overbearing talking magical sword that Would. Not. Shut. Up. It... did not take long for us to try to destroy it. When that was not possible, we eventually threw it to the bottom of a river of sludge. Again, the end of that campaign.

And just because they want you to keep an NPC with them, doesn't mean they want that character as a DMPC. A DMPC is NOT just a character who stays with the party - it's a character in which the DM is invested personally.

[TriOmegaZero]

Sissyl wrote:

it's a character in which the DM is invested personally.

I find those are the NPCs I can best get into character as. (The Traitor's Lodge had one such NPC.)

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I would like to relate an example of DMPC's that worked in the past.

We had a long time group. There were 2 of us that GM'd on a regular basis. We got tired of 2 mutually exclusive campaigns going on at the same time. So the other GM and I got together and made up a world. we agreed on a bunch of overarching storylines, areas to stay out of, bad guys to not kill off, etc... Then we would take turns running small subplots.

We each had a PC in the group. When I was GM, my PC was there with the group to contribute his capabilities. But he didn't lead/decide anything. Same with the other GM. we had to be a bit careful on what characters we built. (For example, it wouldn't help the group if the 'face' character they have been relying on were to suddenly become mute.)

It worked well for our group that knew each other well for a long period of time. But I will admit most of the time I've seen someone try something like that it has not worked well.

[HarbinNick]

I'm running with a new group, almost nobody has pathfinder exp. one is is RPG noobie, one hasn't played tabletop in 10 years...and so without a NPC healer, they'd all die. Throw in the fact they have two sorcerers, one halfling rogue, and a paladin who wants to use her crossbow, and it gets ugly...
...Killing them all doesn't seem like such a good idea, so the oracle of life keeps them alive. Which is fine for now. They are having fun.

[pres man]

Sissyl wrote:

A DMPC is NOT just a character who stays with the party - it's a character in which the DM is invested personally.

Does that mean if I as a player do not personally invest in a character I am running (sorry Blackleaf), then the character is not a PC. I've GMed enough to know characters die, when it happens you shrug and start making another one. I've usually got a stable of 10 character ideas that I am itching to play, a character dying just means another idea gets to see the light.

Am I reckless with my characters, on either side of the screen? Not usually (the character's personality might be reckless). I usually play them based on their personality, which means they usually want to live. But as the person running them, I don't get emotionally invested into any characters. Probably the only ones I am likely to get invested in is my wife's characters. But that has more to do with no wanting to sleep on the sofa. Though I know she is a good sport so even that is not really a concern for me.

[Sissyl]

A player who doesn't get invested in his/her character is merely missing out, I'd say. The distinction is between NPCs and DMPCs, both run by the DM, where a personal investment in the character leads to a bad situation. Any character can be fine as an NPC who travels with the party, so long as it is played according to personality and the characters remain the focus of the game. I have played several NPCs who travel with the party and found that the only problem I have with them is remembering they are around, most often this happens in combat. I have had no complaints about such characters either, which I believe is a combination of keeping them around for short periods of time and making very sure they remain NPCs. Most often, they die. So it goes.

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Look, it's about the motivation of the person playing the character.

If the person playing the character is looking for the PLAYER experience, then it is a PC.

If that person seeking the player experience is also the GM, then it is a GMPC*.

There is a conflict of interest when the GM tries to play in his own game. Correctly managing that conflict of interest means suspending the urge to "play" and focus on the GM's mandate: impartiality.

An uninterested player is not a "non-PC" by this definition. The player is there for the PLAYER experience, and has no conflict of interest. They're just screwing themselves over by being a bad player. (in a weird way, I have seen players pick up characters for the good of the party they were personally not interested in... maybe between PCs of their own. And yes, these are weirdly like unto NPCs, because the players are not seeking to be players. They're basically assistant-GMing.)

Trying to play and GM at the same time is a very bad thing. It represents a fundamental misapprehension of the entire game and the role of the GM.

*none of these terms are official or universal in any way, but I'm going to keep pretending they are until they become so.

[pres man]

Given that personal investment seems to be implying that one is willing to do anything to have character succeed, including cheating (see Why players can't be trusted in general, why GMs can't be trusted with GMPC, etc). I am not seeing how a player is being a "bad player" or "missing out" if they don't invest personally in the character they are running. Not everyone wants to run a "Blackleaf".

And what is a "Player experience", what does that even mean? And remember the meaning has to be broad enough to include players that are ok playing 2nd fiddle, being wallflowers, etc, not just the loud boisterous players that boss everyone around, but those would also have to be covered by the "player experience" definition.

[Sissyl]

So unless you are being a wallflower and play second fiddle, you're playing Blackleaf, pres man? Honestly?

[Jaelithe]

Sissyl wrote:

And just because they want you to keep an NPC with them, doesn't mean they want that character as a DMPC. A DMPC is NOT just a character who stays with the party - it's a character in which the DM is invested personally.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, if done properly.

A good DM can be invested in a character personally, yet not allow that to influence said character's power, influence, invulnerability or coolness. Those actually make the very best NPCs.

I don't place NPCs in my game to be killed or defeated by the PCs. They're there for their own purposes. Are they often outsmarted, soundly whipped in a fair fight, loved and left? Sure. But they don't lie down, step back, or spread their legs on command. Any world in which those things occur is one in which I'd loathe playing.

[Jaelithe]

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Trying to play and GM at the same time is a very bad thing. It represents a fundamental misapprehension of the entire game and the role of the GM.

I have very rarely read a post that is more off-target, or makes more incorrect assumptions about the ability to compartmentalize thinking and remain appropriately impartial.

The fact that some DMs cannot do it doesn't mean it can't be done, and exceedingly well.

[Sissyl]

And the fact that some DMs claim to have done it exceedingly well doesn't mean that all who claim to have done so really managed to.