| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*cracks knuckles* Okay let's do this.
What is a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
"Allies come in two types: ... The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does. Essentially, these latter allies are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players. They differ from cohorts and hirelings (see below), who work directly for the PCs."
(3.5 DMG, p. 104)
The above quote is a good starting point for understanding what I view as a GMPC. Generally, if you didn't know it was the GM running the character and couldn't distinguish it then from any other PC, then it would be a GMPC. What does this mean? It means that the character would be built using the same character generation rules as the rest of the PCs (wealth, abilities, class choices, etc). This also means the character can't be played as if it has information about things it shouldn't have.
What isn't a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
A character that demonstrates abilities not inline with the PCs (either too strong or too weak) and/or demonstrates knowledge not inline with what PCs could have. Also a character that benefits more than the PCs from loot and storyline considerations. The basic idea is if the character doesn't resemble how PC would be built or run, then it can not be a GMPC because it doesn't match a PC at all. This means that most of the "GMPC"s that people complain about aren't GMPCs by my definition, because they don't resemble PCs in any way, shape, or fashion. If it can't be confused with a PC, it can't then be a GMPC.
How should a GM run a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
The GMPC should be a support character, there as an equal party member but as not the team leader. Most likely the GMPC should find itself either in the back of the marching order or in the middle, but not in the front. This means GMPCs shouldn't be scouts and trapfinders. If a party lacks a trapfinder, a GM should consider if including the traps even makes sense (Example where a trap might not make sense.) as a lot of times traps are included in illogical places and only there for a rogue type to have something to do.
The advantage of not being a party leader or scout as it avoids much of the concern of metagaming people have. If you are not in the front it is likely that someone else will walk into a trap before you get the chance, no conflict with ingame/outgame knowledge. If someone else decides a guard should be mind-controlled, again no conflict. That doesn't mean the character should be standing there passively waiting for orders, but the character should be clearly a "beta-(fe)male" type of character.
Why doesn't the above make the character inherently un-PCish? (according to pres_man)
Let's be clear, there is no one way for people to play. Some people play very Alpha characters, always pushing the party in directions they want to go. Often "suggesting" feat and equipment choices to others. Always looking to get the best gear for their character, no matter if such gear might benefit one of their party members better. Yet, not everyone plays this or wants to play this way. Many people rather take a supporting role and see the party as what is important. This means they might make suggestions, but are fine not making the final decision (basically the difference of a Spock vs. Kirk mentality). Because players and their PCs can be support, this means if a GMPC is played this way they are still being played in a way that a PC could be. This doesn't make them un-PCish, merely not an Alpha PC type.
Aren't GMPCs just NPCs? (according to pres_man)
Well technically yes, of course any character not controlled by the PCs is a NPC (and some that are might also be NPCs; familiars, mounts, cohorts, followers, etc). A GMPC as mentioned above is a special type of NPC ally, one that functions ingame (and outgame mechanically) identical to a PC. Most other NPCs do not function this way. But yes, technically a GMPC is an NPC.
GMs can't have the same experience as true players, right? (according to pres_man)
First off, let me point out that I have been discussing GMPCs, the characters, not GMs, the people running the characters. Yes of course a GM is going to have a different gaming experience running a GMPC than a true player will have running a PC. This is not relevant to the description of a GMPC though, nor to its use ingame. Experience players have different game experiences than novice players as well, we don't say their characters are not PCs because of this. GMs experience running the character, how attached the GM is to the character, or any other of a number of emotional issues are irrelevant to whether a character is a GMPC. All that matters is the character is treated ingame (and mechanically out of game) as an other PC. This means that if the GM "cheats" to keep the character alive, they should be "cheating" for all of the other PCs as well. If they are not, then the character is not a GMPC. If the GM puts specific loot for the GMPC, then they should be putting specific loot for the other PCs, otherwise it is not a GMPC.
Isn't metagaming always bad? (according to pres_man)
First we need to define what we mean by metagaming. I think how most people are using it we said it means using out of game knowledge to influence (usually to the benefit) the actions of a character in game. This is not always a bad thing. Consider when a player loses a character, this means the player has to sit out. But if they quickly make a new character and want to bring them into the group, it is often beneficial for the players to use metagame knowledge smooth over the introduction of the new character. Making the player sit out longer because, "we don't have any reason to trust this stranger", while perhaps good "role-playing" is poor gaming. It is also good metagaming for the GM to take into consideration the party make up when designing loot on occasion. A holy avenger isn't going to do a lot of good in a party without a paladin, you might as well drop more gp. While a monk might like to see some monk weapons on occasion (almost never included in random loot).
The way to avoid bad metagaming is to (1) avoid putting the character in a situation where you have to metagame (see above about avoiding being a leader or scout) and (2) develop a distinct personality and mode of behavior for the character. If the character never searches for secret doors unless another party member asks them to help, then it will not be metagaming for them not to search when the GM knows there is a secret door. When it comes to information in game, the default for all characters should be, "Why would they know that?" This goes for a PC encountering a troll for the first time as well as a GMPC arriving at a new town and looking for a contact.
Does the GMPC always end up being center to the story? (according to pres_man)
Well if you are running a module or AP, probably not unless you are using a provided NPC as the GMPC. But for more homebrewed games, this is a problem common with the GM's significant other or close friend playing as well. Why? Because those people and the GM tend to discuss the game out of play time much more than your standard player and the GM. The GM then has a better idea about what they find interesting and what connections can be made to the story. The solution to this isn't to tell the GM to get rid of the GMPC or make their friends and significant others not play.
No the solution is to interact more with the GM and give them more ideas about what you would like to see happen with the story related to your character. If you want your paladin to get that holy avenger tell the GM that and ask that they work it into the plot. Maybe the party could help someone and it is given as a reward at some point. You want a pegasus as mount, but don't want to take leadership, then ask your GM about it.
I know as a GM, I am always looking for ways to make games click better with the characters. Saying your character only cares about killing things and buying better gear is not all that helpful for developing a story. Also since you don't care why you are killing stuff or buying gear, then you shouldn't probably complain when it is around the story of the GMPC (or the GM's girlfriend's character).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know! Let's have a spellin' contest!
*cracks knuckles* Okay let's do this.
What is a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
"Allies come in two types: ... The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does. Essentially, these latter allies are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players. They differ from cohorts and hirelings (see below), who work directly for the PCs."
(3.5 DMG, p. 104)The above quote is a good starting point for understanding what I view as a GMPC. Generally, if you didn't know it was the GM running the character and couldn't distinguish it then from any other PC, then it would be a GMPC. What does this mean? It means that the character would be built using the same character generation rules as the rest of the PCs (wealth, abilities, class choices, etc). This also means the character can't be played as if it has information about things it shouldn't have.
What isn't a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
A character that demonstrates abilities not inline with the PCs (either too strong or too weak) and/or demonstrates knowledge not inline with what PCs could have. Also a character that benefits more than the PCs from loot and storyline considerations. The basic idea is if the character doesn't resemble how PC would be built or run, then it can not be a GMPC because it doesn't match a PC at all. This means that most of the "GMPC"s that people complain about aren't GMPCs by my definition, because they don't resemble PCs in any way, shape, or fashion. If it can't be confused with a PC, it can't then be a GMPC.
I agree that "The above quote is a good starting point.." actually it's a excellent starting point. But sadly, DMPCs can and have been more powerful than a standard party member. of course then, they are almost always BAD DMPCs, but again, what we're doing here is defining the term DMPC (hey, I am a grognard so I get to use DMPC, OK? ;-) so that Bad DMPCs arent DMPCs at all.
But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cracks knuckles* Okay let's do this.
What is a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
"Allies come in two types: ... The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does. Essentially, these latter allies are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players. They differ from cohorts and hirelings (see below), who work directly for the PCs."
(3.5 DMG, p. 104)The above quote is a good starting point for understanding what I view as a GMPC. Generally, if you didn't know it was the GM running the character and couldn't distinguish it then from any other PC, then it would be a GMPC. What does this mean? It means that the character would be built using the same character generation rules as the rest of the PCs (wealth, abilities, class choices, etc). This also means the character can't be played as if it has information about things it shouldn't have.
What isn't a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
A character that demonstrates abilities not inline with the PCs (either too strong or too weak) and/or demonstrates knowledge not inline with what PCs could have. Also a character that benefits more than the PCs from loot and storyline considerations. The basic idea is if the character doesn't resemble how PC would be built or run, then it can not be a GMPC because it doesn't match a PC at all. This means that most of the "GMPC"s that people complain about aren't GMPCs by my definition, because they don't resemble PCs in any way, shape, or fashion. If it can't be confused with a PC, it can't then be a GMPC.
How should a GM run a GMPC? (according to pres_man)
The GMPC should be a support character, there as an equal party member but as not the team leader. Most likely the GMPC should find itself either in the back of the marching order or in the middle, but not in the front. This means GMPCs shouldn't be scouts and trapfinders. If a party lacks a trapfinder, a GM should consider if including the traps...
This is about 95% how I see it. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please be nice and respect everyone's opinions. Pretty please, in fact. ^_^
I've been enjoying this thread and would like it to stay open a little longer. We're making progress, even!
Yes, please!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know! Let's have a spellin' contest!
Hulk smash spelling Bee!! With super powers!!... And medical terminology!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that "The above quote is a good starting point.." actually it's a excellent starting point. But sadly, DMPCs can and have been more powerful than a standard party member. of course then, they are almost always BAD DMPCs, but again, what we're doing here is defining the term DMPC (hey, I am a grognard so I get to use DMPC, OK? ;-) so that Bad DMPCs arent DMPCs at all.
But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.
It would depend on what you mean by "bad DMPCs", if you mean a badly run character that in no way, shape, or form resembles a PC at all, then yes following my definition such does not exist. A DMPC to my thinking is a "DM run character that is a pseudo-PC". If it looks nothing like a PC, it can't in my mind be labeled a DMPC. Now if by "bad DMPCs" you mean a character that is equivalent in power and standing as a standard PC, but is run very poorly, then sure those exist. There are also poorly/badly run normal PCs as well as I am sure we are all aware of.
Now I am not saying that there aren't very badly run DM controlled characters, certainly they are. But if they don't resemble PCs in power and scope, then they shouldn't be described as DMPCs, using my definition. Perhaps a phrase like Abusive NPC or DM's Pet NPC or some such would be more appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please at least give them the chance to prove you wrong. ^_^
But... isn't that just a little insensitive?
They have been burned over and over again. Just let them heal on their own time. Trying to force someone to have fun your way never really works. I have an observation that people can't change unless they really really want to first. So forcing them to thrust their hand into the flame again will only end once again in them getting burned. Let them sit the game out or better yet don't use one in the game you play with them until they ask for it.
Non sequitur?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that "The above quote is a good starting point.." actually it's a excellent starting point. But sadly, DMPCs can and have been more powerful than a standard party member. of course then, they are almost always BAD DMPCs, but again, what we're doing here is defining the term DMPC (hey, I am a grognard so I get to use DMPC, OK? ;-) so that Bad DMPCs arent DMPCs at all.
But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.
It would depend on what you mean by "bad DMPCs", if you mean a badly run character that in no way, shape, or form resembles a PC at all, then yes following my definition such does not exist. A DMPC to my thinking is a "DM run character that is a pseudo-PC". If it looks nothing like a PC, it can't in my mind be labeled a DMPC. Now if by "bad DMPCs" you mean a character that is equivalent in power and standing as a standard PC, but is run very poorly, then sure those exist. There are also poorly/badly run normal PCs as well as I am sure we are all aware of.
Now I am not saying that there aren't very badly run DM controlled characters, certainly they are. But if they don't resemble PCs in power and scope, then they shouldn't be described as DMPCs, using my definition. Perhaps a phrase like Abusive NPC or DM's Pet NPC or some such would be more appropriate.
I appreciate your thoughts, but all you are doing is saying :
All "DMPCs" are good.
"Abusive DM's Pet NPC's" are bad.
I see your points, but changing the definitions wont help. Like it or not, some DMPCs are bad- bad for the players, bad for the campaign, and in the end, bad for the DM. Others are not going to accept your definitions, since they are just that- your definitions, used by no one else I know of. Mind you- that doesnt make them wrong, but it doesnt help things here. I mean- some DMs are bad, thus the DMPCs run by them might also be bad, no?
Let's not just change definitions.
Let us try to work together to EITHER
Change how DMs can realize they are hurting their game by a bad DMPC-
OR
Help them do a better job in running a good DMPC so more fun can be had by all. We all can use advice on how to do better, no?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you missed the context there Aranna, I'm pretty sure Lara was telling me to give this thread time to prove my comment wrong.
Oh? I am sorry. That teaches me not to skim threads and then post.
That's either sarcasm or Tolkein fanboy nonsense...... and their inclusion means the GM is going to make you quote passages from The Silmarillion ...Well, that at least is reasonable.It was sarcasm. No one who doesn't like Tolkien (note the correct spelling) should have to deal with his work.
... because I read ... a few hundred pages I think ... of that, and it's pretty much the waterboarding of literature.Opinion noted and rejected. There's no accounting for taste.
I consider The Silmarillion by far the greatest literary creation of the 20th century.
The Russian re-write of LOTR, from the side of the orcs and forces of Mordor (which came out a few years ago) was much better than The Silmarillon. Gemmell's action packed adventure fantasy was far better that Sillymarchon. Sighohmeson has some serious problems in being considered the greatest literary creation of the 20th century.
Have you considered and checked how it compares to some of the actual great works of that century?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!
I am also in agreement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Last Ringbearer was indeed surprisingly good. It made me want to run a campaign where the heroes were monsterous races and the bad guys were the traditional races.
There can be DMPCs that are badly done under my definition, but they would be badly done like PCs are badly done.
Using DMPC to describe a character that is not in way, shape, or fashion like a PC at all would be like telling someone there is a dangerous dog out there only to come to find out they are talking about an alligator. Terminology means something and it just doesn't seem to make any logical sense to me to use a term, PC, to describe something that doesn't remotely match the way the term is typically used.
And I am not changing definitions, this is the definition I have used for more than a decade. I understand if others do not want to change their definition. I am merely showing why my definition is logically derived.
Do it, I am sure it will be a whole lot of fun. Maybe go just a bit back in the patfinder timeline to find interesting choices - like the hobs and goblins in Isger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or how some people can play chaotic neutral characters without being disruptive screwheads, and some people can't.
There can be DMPCs that are badly done under my definition, but they would be badly done like PCs are badly done.
Using DMPC to describe a character that is not in way, shape, or fashion like a PC at all would be like telling someone there is a dangerous dog out there only to come to find out they are talking about an alligator. Terminology means something and it just doesn't seem to make any logical sense to me to use a term, PC, to describe something that doesn't remotely match the way the term is typically used.
And I am not changing definitions, this is the definition I have used for more than a decade. I understand if others do not want to change their definition. I am merely showing why my definition is logically derived.
I've really only skimmed the thread, but I'm in the camp of No GMPC's. I realize we've never defined them, but let's be honest, who cares how they're defined? Let's remove definitions and quit giving one side or the other something to hide behind.
If you're a GM who has a character that goes around with the party and consistently fights their battles with them, most players aren't going to like it. They'll put up with it, and may even tell you they're okay with it, but most of the time, they're really not. They only do it because you're the GM, none of them want to GM, and if they make you mad you might stop GM'ing. I would bet 9 times out of 10 if someone did a hidden poll and the GM would never find out who voted what, there would be none of those GM run characters around.
Think of the difference between what I would call "Good" NPC's and "Bad" NPC's as in Dragon Age: Origin the dwarves Bodahn and Sandal are good NPC's, the dwarf Oghren would be a bad NPC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright people get your best rocks ready!
I am unapologetically for GMOPCs (or whatever they're called this page of the thread) I wouldn't get to play pathfinder if I didn't use them quite honestly, I've also never seen them abused as bad as claimed around these parts, nor have I found it a personal affront to my RPG Skillz, anyway I'm busy so Chuck away :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other aspect of GMPC's, for me, is that they seem entirely unnecessary (except as captain yesterday just pointed out, you at the GM really want to play the game as well).
Small party? Just give them additional resources (cheap healing, cohorts, second characters)
Plot information? Have alternate sources (let players add information, give them a journal from an NPC, automatic successes for key information due to knowledge skills)
To me, the GMPC is a tool, but it's an awkward and inefficient tool IMO. Most problems that it solves can be solved in less obtrusive ways that are less likely to cause issues that are disruptive to the game. The exception being that the GM really wants to build their own character using the same rules as the players and bring it along on the adventure. Then you have to deal with the side effects of a GMPC, because it's the only way to solve that problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're a GM who has a character that goes around with the party and consistently fights their battles with them, most players aren't going to like it.
Let's say "many" not "most". It might be a majority, it might be a majority in one corner of the gaming community, or it might not be a majority at all. Since we have no valid way to measure it, lets avoid claims that it is absolutely a majority and just agree that it would bother a significant portion of the gaming community.
And yes, there is a preference from many gamers that GMs and players should keep their roles separate. I, myself, don't quite understand that viewpoint, but then I am more of a beer and pretzels type of gamer. I want to hang out with people I like and do fun stuff. I'm not looking to play a versus type of game most of the time.
They'll put up with it, and may even tell you they're okay with it, but most of the time, they're really not. They only do it because you're the GM, none of them want to GM, and if they make you mad you might stop GM'ing.
Look, I will be honest here. Anytime I hear something like this it strikes me as a "backfire effect" comment. The "backfire effect" is one someone who holds a strongly held opinion is faced with data (notice I am not saying proof or truth or fact) that contradicts that opinion. In some cases instead of reevaluating their opinion with the new data they try to dismiss the data. That is what this looks like to me. GMs and players that said they had good experience are being told, "You are too stupid to be aware that the players hated the experience and didn't want to upset you by telling you."
There are some groups that do in fact ask for GMPCs to be included without the GM suggesting it. There are groups that will go out of their way to resurrect a GMPC, despite the GM suggesting they not bother. Different groups have different ways of having fun.
I would bet 9 times out of 10 if someone did a hidden poll and the GM would never find out who voted what, there would be none of those GM run characters around.
I would bet that 2-3 people would say get rid of it, 2-3 people say keep the damn thing I love it, and 4-6 would say "Huh?" Of course there is no way to take a valid sample, so let's drop it how about?
Think of the difference between what I would call "Good" NPC's and "Bad" NPC's as in Dragon Age: Origin the dwarves Bodahn and Sandal are good NPC's, the dwarf Oghren would be a bad NPC.
Haven't played the game, could you give some context?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing Pres Man's said that I sort of disagree with is
The basic idea is if the character doesn't resemble how PC would be built or run, then it can not be a GMPC because it doesn't match a PC at all. This means that most of the "GMPC"s that people complain about aren't GMPCs by my definition, because they don't resemble PCs in any way, shape, or fashion. If it can't be confused with a PC, it can't then be a GMPC.
I'd say that a badly run/badly managed/cheaty/glory hog GMPC is still a GMPC; it's just a bad one (and there's plenty of examples of bad ones floating around).
It's a position that's trying to change a spectrum into black & white.
Other than that, I agree with everything Pres Man's said.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.I am also in agreement.But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!
No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kender are for people who want an RP reason to justify being dicks to other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.I am also in agreement.But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!
My first character ever was a kender in a Dragonlance game. The party loved him. The minotaur even respected him, said he was the bravest creature he'd ever met, even after (probably because of actually) he asked the minotaur quite innocently which was the cow, his mom or his dad, having never seen one of his kind before.
(I want to point out I had never read any Dragonlance books at the time, but rather read the game description of a kender, and the DM said after two sessions he'd never seen anyone play a better or more realistic kender that wasn't just a one-dimensional rip off of Tasselhoff. :-D )
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, if doesn't fit in with the other PC's... can you really call it a PC?
With this logic a PC, played by a player, that doesn't fit in with the other PC's well wouldn't be considered a PC.
A good definition of GMPC must refrain from using quality to define what a GMPC is. The definition of GMPC must focus on what makes it different from other NPC's run by the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, if doesn't fit in with the other PC's... can you really call it a PC?With this logic a PC, played by a player, that doesn't fit in with the other PC's well wouldn't be considered a PC.
A good definition of GMPC must refrain from using quality to define what a GMPC is. The definition of GMPC must focus on what makes it different from other NPC's run by the GM.
^ This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright people get your best rocks ready!
I am unapologetically for GMOPCs (or whatever they're called this page of the thread) I wouldn't get to play pathfinder if I didn't use them quite honestly, I've also never seen them abused as bad as claimed around these parts, nor have I found it a personal affront to my RPG Skillz, anyway I'm busy so Chuck away :-)
Oh Captain Yesterday you always bring the 'fun' to these forums.
Wait...where did my rocks go? Someone stole my rocks! Looks like the handiwork of a Kender.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.I am also in agreement.But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!My first character ever was a kender in a Dragonlance game. The party loved him. The minotaur even respected him, said he was the bravest creature he'd ever met, even after (probably because of actually) he asked the minotaur quite innocently which was the cow, his mom or his dad, having never seen one of his kind before.
(I want to point out I had never read any Dragonlance books at the time, but rather read the game description of a kender, and the DM said after two sessions he'd never seen anyone play a better or more realistic kender that wasn't just a one-dimensional rip off of Tasselhoff. :-D )
So what you mean is you had Kender written on your character sheet but played something that isn't a kender. Because Kinder are hellspawn and need to be killed with bees. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.I am also in agreement.But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!
Nahh, too high on the cholestorol. Same as halflings or gnomes. Too much cuteness packed into a tiny package=insane cholestorol-count.
Eat elf, the other sweat meat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.
Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.Nahh, too high on the cholestorol. Same as halflings or gnomes. Too much cuteness packed into a tiny package=insane cholestorol-count.
Eat elf, the other sweat meat.
Ew. That is quite possibly the grossest thing I've ever heard about elves. (but I believe it)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.I am also in agreement.But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ew. That is quite possibly the grossest thing I've ever heard about elves. (but I believe it)No, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.
Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.Nahh, too high on the cholestorol. Same as halflings or gnomes. Too much cuteness packed into a tiny package=insane cholestorol-count.
Eat elf, the other sweat meat.
You know ... that's why I've been warned against typing anything for forum use just as I'm on my way out the door in the morning to catch my bus to work!
Sweat meat ...
Yeah, that's a thing now. I'm going to have to ... yuck ... eat that and live with it ...
*rolls over flat and surrenders with a bared throat*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you mean is you had Kender written on your character sheet but played something that isn't a kender. Because Kinder are hellspawn and need to be killed with bees. :DNo, let's be real here. GMPCs are one thing, but nobody should play kender. They exist as a food source for more highly evolved species, albeit as junk food.Just as some people can play kender and some can/should not.I am also in agreement.But certainly there can be Bad DMPCs and Good DMPCs.I agree!My first character ever was a kender in a Dragonlance game. The party loved him. The minotaur even respected him, said he was the bravest creature he'd ever met, even after (probably because of actually) he asked the minotaur quite innocently which was the cow, his mom or his dad, having never seen one of his kind before.
(I want to point out I had never read any Dragonlance books at the time, but rather read the game description of a kender, and the DM said after two sessions he'd never seen anyone play a better or more realistic kender that wasn't just a one-dimensional rip off of Tasselhoff. :-D )
The bard certainly thought something similar. I said hi and he fascinated me and then ran away. (That player was kind of a dick. He didn't care about group composition and insisted his character's hatred of kender should overwhelm my desire to play one...even though it was what the GM suggested when I said I wanted to play a happy go lucky rogue with a heart of gold. He actually left the group the next session. So my first game of tabletop ever I got to encounter toxic players!)
What about afflicted kender, Ashiel? Hate them too? They're pretty counter-normative to the usual kender.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way too much disinformation about kender in the world.
Are we perhaps referring to the "disinformation" in the Campaign Setting book? Or maybe the "disinformation" in the canon Dragonlance novels?