Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it helps, you got Goon, which is my usual go-to. ^_^Don't forget Miscreant #3 and Interloper #3. ^_^That list is long....
Off-topic: Every time I see "1 person marked this as a favorite", I have to check to see if it's Tacticslion.
Nine times of ten. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of difference between Spear-holder #3 with a simple stat block and a fully fledged background character.Huh. I don't see them as different.
Sawyer had just saved up enough to buy that house for him and his wife so they could move out of her parent's place. Little did he know he was going to be a father. Who is going to tell his family?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone had a DMPC develop through play, as the players grew more and more attached to a particular NPC?
Yes. Yes indeed. I seem to have this "issue" in my games pretty frequently. I actually really enjoy it when it happens. Grex "JumJum" the Sorcerer was an enemy magician in a team of mercenaries and was a survivor after he surrendered to the party after a battle. Grex ended up traveling with the party for quite a while. In a similar fashion, a vampire psychic monk sent to kill the party at one point got her butt stomped by them, later rescued from her master's will, and has been a background friend of the party for a while. However, at least one member of the party has been a bit torn on whether or she wants her to come with them or manage the other vampires in their mansion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Says the free-willed GMPC.Well, I'm certainly no different than Spear-holder #3.AKA.
Town guard #3
Goon #3
Mook #3
Mooch #3
shield bearer #3
This is Grex "Jum-Jum" Gretzelkin! :D
SawyerFirst image that came to mind.
Ooh, what's this from? :)
I haven't read all the comments (just lost HOURS to another thread, and it's late, and I'm tired... ;) ), but I wanted to throw this out there:
My husband and our room-mate and I have what we call "Our Three Person Game" wherein we all have a character, and we all take turns as GM. We did The Crown of the Kobold King and no one read ahead. Yes, we have to play a little looser since we cannot prepare too far in advance, but we have fun and it helps us get better at the whole thing since it's "open book." I feel the 'practice' has helped us all be better players/GMs. Also it helps that we have *THIS GAME* to focus most of our silliness on.
For example, the game began exactly like this (I wrote it down):
"{....}, the merman Druid emerges from the sea." Says my husband. "{.....}, the Assimar Fire Sorcerer descends from the sky." Says my room-mate.
"Bomba Denga, the Wayang shadow puppeteer slinks from the shadows." Says I.
-Bam! Instant traveling companions, no questions asked.
(I *was* going to share their names too, but I realized I shouldn't do that without their permission... it's sillier if you know the names.. sigh....)
If I got anything wrong please don't jump down my throat, I'm still kinda new to RPGs in general, and Pathfinder in particular. Yes I started playing cuz my husband. Don't hate me cuz I'm a cliche.
Anyway, if you like being a GM, but find you miss being a PC, this is a good way to do both and still keep things fair. Also since prep is minimal, it makes it easier to be spontaneous and play when you weren't expecting to! "What's that Jim, the Tool concert was cancelled?! That sucks, but hey, let's call up Sarah, and play some pathfinder!" (all names are fictional...) ;)
P.s. I just LOOOVE that they made Wayangs! My grandparents are from Indonesia and it's super neat to play a race developed from their culture! Thank You Pathfinder!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, what's this from? :)SawyerFirst image that came to mind.
Black Lagoon. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone had a DMPC develop through play, as the players grew more and more attached to a particular NPC?
Yeah, and they didn't want the half orc to leave. Stay with us, you crit so often and your AC is so comforting.
Some of those who are anti-GMPC acknowledge their necessity in a game run for only one player, while those who are pro-GMPC agree that they might be desirable in a large party, but are hardly necessary and indeed might detract.
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.
Just to clarify, I'm not anti-GMPC, I'm pro-"cleaning up the terminology so it tells us something about what's actually happening, technique-wise".
In the first case, I would say that a GMPC is not necessary for a one-player game. Allied NPCs may be quite useful. But, you know, you can still run PF with a one man party if you're savvy enough about balancing challenges.
In the second case, yes, absolutely: these are GM's Player Characters, and they are subject to all of the potential mishaps that entails. Something about this arrangement (most of the other players are also experienced GMs, everyone is getting a turn to play some, etc) mitigates a lot of the worst issues with the conflict of interest. I think in this kind of setup, people are actually more likely to focus on other people's characters than their own while their in the GM's seat.
That said, this can still go horribly wrong in exactly the way that GMPCs do. I've seen it happen first hand, hell I've even perpetrated it (long ago).
Again, the best thing to do is when you're in the GM's seat, try to imagine your PC as an allied NPC. Or, do what I do, and remove them from the session entirely, if possible. Otherwise, just remember not to glorify your own PC at the expense of others: that is the cardinal sin here.
I've historically fought to keep the term "GMPC" reserved for "GMs who are trying to get the player experience out of a game they are GMing."
This makes sense, because the abbreviation itself stands for "Game Master's Player Character."
And as I have always said in response, I can't comprehend this because I am a player as well as a GM.
Just last night I played an evergreen scenario that I had run before. I knew everything that was going to happen, but I played my barbarian in the usual manner. He blindly walked into the traps I knew about, and made suggestions about the mystery they were solving independent of my own knowledge of the answers.
Maybe organized play makes you better prepared to run a character while GMing, especially with the '3 players and a pregen' option to cover small tables.
Different, but fascinatingly related issue, ToZ.
You're referring to excellent metagame management as a player. This absolutely comes into play in a GMPC situation, if we evaluate the GM's performance strictly as a player.
Yes, it is far better to play under a GM who can keep their GMPC's metagame knowledge straight.
But, that's not the only issue! We also need to evaluate their GMing of the game, which insists that the GM focus the campaign on the players somehow.
And it's not totally black-and-white! I'm not saying that GMPCs automatically ruin any game. I'm saying that, much like a player who has read the adventure ahead of time, they have a very high potential to ruin the game.
I advocate using GMPC as a term when the GM is trying to get the player experience, because to me that is the number one warning sign that they don't really understand the role of the GM at the table, and therefore a bad game is more likely to result.
Given that a GMPC (by my definition) is almost never necessary, and that an NPC ally will work in any situation you might be tempted to have a GMPC, I do advise against using them. But, people will do as they please. We're just discussing technique at this point, there's nothing to froth at the mouth over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me that impartiality and the ability to manage metagame knowledge are two of the most important skills a GM can have.
That's the trouble with GMPCs, I think. If you're still working on these skills, running a GMPC will cast that into stark relief.
If you've mastered these skills, as I believe ToZ has from his anecdotal description, then people won't really notice or care, and they might even enjoy having the GMPC around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why I dislike defining GMPC in terms of how the GM "feels" about the character or how it is played:
1) Unless a GM specifically says they feel like they are acting as another player, you can't know exactly what is in the person's mind.
2) A character that is mostly support and doesn't venture much suggestions for plans and such isn't necessarily acting like an NPC. There are PCs that are played this way and that doesn't make them less of a PC.
I pretty much restrict the term to NPCs that are built using PC standards (WBL, stats, level, classes, races) and function in game as an equal member of the party. Feelings and specific roleplaying choices don't determine what a normal PC is, why should they determine what a GMPC would be?
Otherwise, just remember not to glorify your own PC at the expense of others: that is the cardinal sin here.
I would say that is a cardinal sin for any player and the character(s) they run. It is a group game, and people that forget this or never realize it lower the value of the game for everyone involved, including themselves.
There's also the related issue that even if the GM is doing it well, he can be perceived as showing bias towards his PC. The players obviously have an incomplete picture and when something good happens to the GM's PC, it's easy to see that as favoritism.
Avoiding the perception of bias is a difficult problem.
One thing I have found that helps is a willingness to roll in the open.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the best part of an NPC/GMPC is being able to have them LEEROY JENKINS into combat at appropriate times. Which either exasperates the party or makes them love the character more for being balls-out crazy.
The Horn of Aroden scenario has such a dynamic, often resulting in the former emotional effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did Leeroyjenkinsbat not yet pop up with a guitar solo? I better call him. You don't mention Leeroy Jenkins without him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off-topic: Every time I see "1 person marked this as a favorite", I have to check to see if it's Tacticslion.
Nine times of ten. ^_^
H-hey! There's a whole thread for that, now missy! You don't go slipping that kinda OT discussion just anywhere!
...
>.>
Wait, forgot where I was. Nevermindcarryon.
EDIT: Also, I like people. And things. And stuff. You don't know... >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off-topic: Every time I see "1 person marked this as a favorite", I have to check to see if it's Tacticslion.
Nine times of ten. ^_^
H-hey! There's a whole thread for that, now missy! You don't go slipping that kinda OT discussion just anywhere!
There is?
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is?Off-topic: Every time I see "1 person marked this as a favorite", I have to check to see if it's Tacticslion.
Nine times of ten. ^_^
H-hey! There's a whole thread for that, now missy! You don't go slipping that kinda OT discussion just anywhere!
Yup! ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me GMPCs fail on a concept level. I feel its up to the players to build a team that can handle the adventure. If they choose to become a party of all wizards, then its on them to figure out how to make it work with no meatshield or divne caster power. There are plenty of options within the game rules to shore up weaknesses. With that said, I wont as GM kick a group in the nutz to make a point if they do have a weak spot, but i'm not going out of the way to avoid it either. I am not going to prop them up with an empty shell that agrees on all decisions and dispenses whatever the party requires of it mechanically.
From my experience, that isn't how it goes down though. Instead you have the most experienced and/or aggressive players pressuring the least experienced and/or passive players to play the support roles.
P1: I'll play the wizard, P2 you should play the cleric and keep us all healed.
P2: Well, I was actually thinking of playing a rogue.
P1: Look, P3 is already playing a rogue. We all need to play our part. I mean, look, I'm going to play the wizard. We need you to play the cleric, don't you want to be a team player? Stop being selfish.
P2: Ah, sure I guess.
I am personally opposed such and if I can avoid it or minimize it by possibly including a party NPC, I have no problem doing that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience, that isn't how it goes down though. Instead you have the most experienced and/or aggressive players pressuring the least experienced and/or passive players to play the support roles.P1: I'll play the wizard, P2 you should play the cleric and keep us all healed.
P2: Well, I was actually thinking of playing a rogue.
P1: Look, P3 is already playing a rogue. We all need to play our part. I mean, look, I'm going to play the wizard. We need you to play the cleric, don't you want to be a team player? Stop being selfish.
P2: Ah, sure I guess.I am personally opposed such and if I can avoid it or minimize it by possibly including a party NPC, I have no problem doing that.
Maybe that's why I have been playing the healer since 1974- I am obviously lacking experience! ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody appreciates the healer. My group votes MVP for extra exp every week, I have breath of life'd a guy 2x in one fight and removed feeblemind from the sorcerer and hit remove fear on cowering players all in the same session...
Nope, sorcerer gets it every f***ing week. Or the meat shield. All they care about is the deathblow.
(I talked with the GM and I'm swapping from a life oracle to a gish Dragon Disciple, so let's see how they fare tomorrow when I'm not patching their precious wounds, ungrateful rassin' frassin'...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if it was hero points, gp, an item, or even just kudos, the point is healers are underappreciated even when they save your @$$ and you would've died without them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's their job. I don't congratulate the fighter on being good at killing things, or the wizard of being good at blowing things up and other wizardy stuff. It's expected.
Except they do. People appreciate killing and blowing stuff up, but there's a reason that "new guy to the group has to be the healer/trapspringer" is a cultural thing among gamers. They're built into the system as...Well, not strictly speaking necessary, but highly valuable...yet nobody gives a crap about them compared to raw damage or save or die.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cease all services until acknowledgement!
If the fighter is low enough on hp, the healer might even win if it comes to a struggle. :D
I don't deride healers or look down upon them. It is a very important role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I planned that, but it would be quite out of character for the PC himself to deny a friend help.
I like my idea of coming back as a selfish prick new PC more.
Plus, I already spent all week designing the new guy and pre-calculating all his variables. When you have rage, mutagen, form of the dragon, power attack, arcane strike, and fatigue all possible, doing the math for every possible interaction takes a long bloody time! Especially when you have 3-6 natural attacks depending on your form.
The game gets bloody complicated after level 10 *sigh*
If nobody wants to be the cleric or rogue, there is no choice.
Any character played by the GM is an NPC.
NPCs should act as surprised as a the PCs when something happens.
If the game is about to grind to a halt because of a near TPK, then the NPC could be carrying around a staff of life, a ring of wishes, or some scrolls of true res.
How many gaming sessions do you want to spend with the characters in a trap? The NPC can accidentally trigger the hidden escape hatch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where, exactly, are people drawing the line between "Recurring Non-Player Character" and "Game Master (controlled) Player Character", because those names alone imply different things.
Namely, that the GM is taking on the role of a player as well as that of a GM, which is not ideal for anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where, exactly, are people drawing the line between "Recurring Non-Player Character" and "Game Master (controlled) Player Character", because those names alone imply different things.
Namely, that the GM is taking on the role of a player as well as that of a GM, which is not ideal for anyone.
Before anyone can answer that you'd have to clearly define what you mean by "the role of a player". Keep in mind the definition must be able to withstand all play styles all players might exhibit.
I planned that, but it would be quite out of character for the PC himself to deny a friend help.
I like my idea of coming back as a selfish prick new PC more.
Plus, I already spent all week designing the new guy and pre-calculating all his variables. When you have rage, mutagen, form of the dragon, power attack, arcane strike, and fatigue all possible, doing the math for every possible interaction takes a long bloody time! Especially when you have 3-6 natural attacks depending on your form.
The game gets bloody complicated after level 10 *sigh*
If the player roleplays as especially obnoxious or entitled towards to the healer, everyone has their limit of tolerance. Good doesn't mean they let themselves be disrespected all the time or that they don't have a sense of pride. :)
Strangely enough, I haven't experienced fighter-clerics being treated like unimportant heal bots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody appreciates the healer. My group votes MVP for extra exp every week, I have breath of life'd a guy 2x in one fight and removed feeblemind from the sorcerer and hit remove fear on cowering players all in the same session...
Nope, sorcerer gets it every f***ing week. Or the meat shield. All they care about is the deathblow.
Hmm, I was in a 3.5 Age of Worms campaign, went all the way to Epic. After a nigh TPK at around 4th level, I then started playing a Healer- yes, from the Miniatures' Handbook, a class widely regarded as the weakest in the game.
We had a larger party, sometimes as much as eight players. I healed & buffed like crazy- and was almost always voted MVP after each game.
They party also handed me the best protective items. They knew I kept them alive.
So- groups differ.
If nobody wants to be the cleric or rogue, there is no choice.
Sure there is a choice.
1. No Rogue is easy. Many classes can now sub for the rogue, and the APs are not full of the fiendish Gygaxian traps we used to have.
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
* or similar buffer/healer.
( I consider the niche of a cleric/divine caster to be more than healing- buffing & condition removal are just as important, if not more so.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.
I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).
I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).
How do you stop them from talking?
What kind of iron fist do you have over your table?
Or their words when they leave, ye goodness man, you must be a terror if they don't even text one another!
:)
Clearly if I don't let players push around another player and dictate what the pressured player will run I must be some sort of terror with a fist of iron.
As one tea drinking gamer to another, I say that b!%!~!#s isn't on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.
I personally agree with DrDeth on this one. It's not about forcing players to have certain classes but forcing them to learn. They will typically learn to be less reckless or how to adapt and do without. The campaign I'm currently running has a very martial and/or gish-centric group. There are no dedicated full casters in the party (healers or otherwise) so the party has had to learn to make do with what they have, even in situations where a sweeper would be really useful.
It helps to learn more about the game. Some classes bring new options to the table and learning how to use those options or make do without them is part of the experience.
I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).
We actually do this some times, explicitly. Player A gets to tell Player B what to play (generally, Player B then gets to interpret and make it on their own). Then Player B gets to tell Player C what to play. So on and so forth, until it loops back to Player A.
It's created some interesting parties some times. The player gets veto authority and the picker is encouraged to push the player to something they haven't played, or at least not recently, definitely not whatever their last character role was.
Nobody appreciates the healer. My group votes MVP for extra exp every week, I have breath of life'd a guy 2x in one fight and removed feeblemind from the sorcerer and hit remove fear on cowering players all in the same session...
Nope, sorcerer gets it every f***ing week. Or the meat shield. All they care about is the deathblow.
(I talked with the GM and I'm swapping from a life oracle to a gish Dragon Disciple, so let's see how they fare tomorrow when I'm not patching their precious wounds, ungrateful rassin' frassin'...)
With the whole 'healer' debacle, I haven't experienced it myself but I have read posts that healing is far from being optimal.
I have been playing with a house rule- healing bonus, d8 HD =+2+ Con modifier, d10 HD+4+ Con modifier.
So a Channel Energy (2d6) heals a Fighter 2d6x 2 healing bonus, so a Fighter with Con 14 heals 2d6+ 12 hit points of damage.
This allows healers to do other things apart from healing, freeing up resources and actions.
I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).We actually do this some times, explicitly. Player A gets to tell Player B what to play (generally, Player B then gets to interpret and make it on their own). Then Player B gets to tell Player C what to play. So on and so forth, until it loops back to Player A.
It's created some interesting parties some times. The player gets veto authority and the picker is encouraged to push the player to something they haven't played, or at least not recently, definitely not whatever their last character role was.
That does sound interesting, and I have know groups where players play the same thing over and over, and some have criticised this (not my groups I dm). Still, just because Bob is tired of seeing Sarah play a ranger again I don't think he should have any power over what Sarah plays. Sarah may really enjoy playing rangers again and again, and wants to use something that works and they enjoy.
That does sound interesting, and I have know groups where players play the same thing over and over, and some have criticised this (not my groups I dm). Still, just because Bob is tired of seeing Sarah play a ranger again I don't think he should have any power over what Sarah plays. Sarah may really enjoy playing rangers again and again, and wants to use something that works and they enjoy.I don't allow players to tell other players what they should play. It is a bridge too far (release the firedrake upon them).We actually do this some times, explicitly. Player A gets to tell Player B what to play (generally, Player B then gets to interpret and make it on their own). Then Player B gets to tell Player C what to play. So on and so forth, until it loops back to Player A.
It's created some interesting parties some times. The player gets veto authority and the picker is encouraged to push the player to something they haven't played, or at least not recently, definitely not whatever their last character role was.
No doubt. Usually when we're doing something like this I insist on categories, not specifics. So, you can tell someone to play a martial, divine, nature-focused, or scoundrel (as examples, including but not limited to). In your example, Sarah could literally interpret any of those as a ranger, but that ranger might have a different focus from her typical one.
I prefer if the option presented is more of a theme, than a mechanical choice.