|
Post by dmsam on Feb 18, 2016 2:14:31 GMT
I see what you mean now. In that case I think it would always be more "fair" for the DMPC to act dumb, as acting smart and perceptive would risk stealing the spotlight.
Now if the party asked a rogue to come along specifically for disabling traps, then I would probably have the DMPC roll for perception to notice the trap.
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on Feb 18, 2016 15:48:20 GMT
I think it is fair to return to the topic at this point and review some DMPCs (both from our own experiences and examples from the wild), why they are good/bad, and what we can take away from the example for our own use.
*Spoiler Alert*
1. Pera Rivers (Godsfall) - One of the most prominent DMPCs in the Godsfall campaign, Pera is a rescued teenager that the party meets very early in the story. Initially whiny and irksome, he quickly grows beyond his recent traumas and establishes strong personal connections with the party. Mechanically, Pera serves as a healer (primarily) and ranged damage dealer (secondary).
Things to Take Away: The Good: The interaction between Pera and the rest of the party is very fluid, organic and genuine. He is often unsure and lacks confidence, which makes him both vulnerable and worth protecting. He also shows significant character development throughout the story. Better yet, he mostly does what the party tells him to do! The Bad: Pera was incredibly whiny in the beginning, which annoyed the players significantly. While that sort of behavior is understandable, it is still unpalatable for most. This is where I would sacrifice realism of dealing with pain and loss and hurry towards acceptance.
2. God Queen Sirena (Godsfall) - You can quickly get an idea how hard she is to play from the start (I think DM Aram wrote about it on Stories of the 5th Age). She is the overpowered, high stationed DMPC that most DMs want to avoid. Inevitably, the words "What should we do, your Holiness?" will come out of the PCs when Sirena is around for too long. Luckily, she is literally confined to her own quarters and doesn't associate with the party unless the situation calls for her.
Things to Take Away The Good: What better way is there to handle a character like Sirena other than keeping her away? Keep her in her own room, keep her quiet and pass the decision making ball back to the PCs whenever possible. Which is mostly what happens...I don't even know if she can be considered a DMPC.
The Bad: If DM Aram is unskilled or careless, or if the PCs are weaker in personality, the spotlight can very easily shift to the DMPC in this case.
3. Cameron Faulkner (personal) - a DMPC I created for several reasons. One, my table consists of mostly powergamers, and I needed something different to reward them than throwing them magical items. Two, after having several overpowered DMPCs join the party because it made sense story-wise (hey lawful good quest-giver NPC, you look strong, why don't you come along and smite some evil with us?), I had to do come up with a good excuse other than another nail salon appointment.
Cameron is a squire who the quest-giver assigned to the PC paladin as a reward. He is designed to be likable and comes with a strong letter of recommendation from the PC's boss, which lists his strengths and hints his weaknesses.
To my surprise, it worked way better than expected. The PC paladin became a ruthless drill sergeant who was borderline abusive (forcing Cameron to stay up all night, have him guard the camp, have him take point in engagements, etc).The party's sympathetic remarks for the squire is the most heartfelt I've ever heard for any NPC.
The Good: Cameron is designed to be an asset to the party both in and out of combat. The sympathy he gets from the party is especially priceless, because rather than whining about the unreasonable requests, he just grits his teeth and does them.
The Bad: He is custom made to satisfy a powergamer. While he fulfilled his primary objective wonderfully, he might not fit other groups of players.
|
|
|
Post by kjmagle on Feb 18, 2016 16:45:11 GMT
I pretty much play DMPC (have only 3 pcs in my group) however they are more NPC i guess. I just used characters i have created and use them as npcs.
Also honestly if all the cons that Chris and Mitch said are out there... Then that DM is really a douche and just bringing his players along for the ride. However i think I want to do that just so I can set up my PC the most hated player of the group... Just so I can have him die the most horrible stupid way.
But if i was to play a character all the way through i would makenrolls wether or not I would think or go a certain way so not to meta game.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 18, 2016 18:44:02 GMT
I've been enjoying the discussion here, and finally listened to the episode. To step back a bit, I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction between a DMPC and an NPC. If you're allowing the players to run the character in combat (as mentioned in the podcast) then to me that is clearly an NPC. I would label a DMPC as a character that you're running that you are emotionally invested in, and/or has equal stake in the party. So I would not label the examples from dmsam as a DMPC, but rather an NPC.
I've personally never used a DMPC (as described above - with their own character sheet), but I have used NPCs frequently in the past. Honestly, I don't think I like the concept of a DMPC unless you have a very limited number of players. If you have a decent sized group, even the skills lacking among their classes can be filled by an NPC or other means. For example, my current party doesn't have a "healer". They were debating someone sacrificing what they wanted to do to have one, and I told them I'd rather they play what they would enjoy the most. To offset this a bit I've made potions a bit more readily available, and allow them to be used (by villians as well) with a bonus action instead of a full action. They don't abuse this, and everyone is playing a character that is more fun. I could have easily also added a healing capable NPC (which I just did, but it will be a temporary character with the party) to fill this role. He wouldn't necessarily have to have a full character sheet etc.
Perhaps part of the reason I don't see the distinction as much is that in my current group we don't do XP. We level when I feel like it's appropriate. Given our limited playing hours and the pace we run at, it would take far too long going by the book on XP.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 18, 2016 18:48:09 GMT
Also, I wanted to second the previous recommendation of One Shot Campaign and listening to Kat DM. It's also my favorite (and only) live play podcast. Having said everything I just did, I guess I consider Lintel and Tamlin to be more like NPCs. I think that they do have character sheets though, but rarely are they making rolls. The difference is that podcast is extremely story driven - it's not about gear and leveling so much as entertaining us, and themselves. They're also less focused on puzzle solving, and spend more time with social interactions instead. So if Lintel is a DMPC then she's wonderfully done, but I'm not sure how well that would play out in a more traditional campaign.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 18, 2016 20:11:23 GMT
Also, I wanted to second the previous recommendation of One Shot Campaign and listening to Kat DM. It's also my favorite (and only) live play podcast. Having said everything I just did, I guess I consider Lintel and Tamlin to be more like NPCs. I think that they do have character sheets though, but rarely are they making rolls. The difference is that podcast is extremely story driven - it's not about gear and leveling so much as entertaining us, and themselves. They're also less focused on puzzle solving, and spend more time with social interactions instead. So if Lintel is a DMPC then she's wonderfully done, but I'm not sure how well that would play out in a more traditional campaign. Thanks for posing the question I was planning on posing: what is the distinction between an NPC and a DMCP? Where do we draw the line. Using the examples cited: I'd say that in Godsfall, the Queen is an NPC and Pera is a DMPC. Interestingly, I believe both characters were originally meant to be PCs, but the players backed out. What is the distinction between the two? Mainly mechanical involvement and emotional connection to the party. The Queen doesn't really participate in battles (I'm behind though, this may have changed) and has limited involvement in the party dynamic. Pera participates actively and is closely tied in with the group. In Campaign, I would call Lyntel a GMPC and Tamlin an NPC. The difference here is less clear to me, but I think it primarily stems from the fact that Lynn is voiced by Kat exclusively, whereas Tamlin is voiced by Kat and James D'Amato about equally (except in a side quest episode, where James guest GMs and Kat just plays Tamlin). In the end, I think two distinctions can be made to separate a GM/DMPC from an NPC: 1. A sense of attachment on the part of the DM. The character feels like (is) the DM's character. The DM plays this character is if they were a player in the game, and has an attachment to the character that is similar to a player's attachment to a PC. 2. This is the major one to me: The DMPC feels like a member of the party. NPCs come and go, but a true DMPC will feel like they have a place in the adventuring party as much as any of the PCs. From there, we can make whatever judgments we want. Another interesting point/trend I'm seeing in this discussion is that a lot of it centers around mechanics. In my mind, both a DMPC and an NPC travelling with a party should take a back seat mechanically. I guess I assumed this was a no-brainer. After all, why would I, as a GM, ever want to put myself in a position where I was rolling dice for a DMPC and for the enemy fighting that DMPC? Yuck! Too much like my lonely adolescent D&D memories, back when I had no friends to run with at all. In all this, we keep referencing mechanics and how to mechanically deal with DMPCs in an appropriate manner. I may have been talking at cross purposes to the discussion, because to me, this is a non-issue. I'm not looking to insert a DMPC because I want to fight my own monsters or solve my own puzzles or defeat my own big bad guys. I want a DMPC so that I can have an in-character voice and roll in the PCs' story. This is coming from me in the context of loosening the narrative controls as a GM and allowing my players to take more initiative in worldbuilding and even encounter/environmental dynamics. They've invented whole planets and NPCs; locations, weird societal dynamics, crazy historical events. etc. As I let them take over pieces of that, I find that I have mental bandwidth leftover that could be filled with a character to develop alongside the PCs.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Feb 18, 2016 22:07:52 GMT
I'm interested in which mechanics you are referring to? (I feel kinda dumb for needing to ask, haha.) I felt like most of the conversation was centered around player agency, and how important the "voice" of the DMPC is. It is odd to roll against your own monsters, but would you not have your DMPC fight in a battle along side the PCs, or just ensure that they are backseat as possible so as to not have a slugfest between you and yourself, haha? the more we talk the less I can see a defining line between NPC and DMPC. I think that as soon as there is ever XP or treasure given to that character then it for sure a DMPC, and if they only meet a character once in a social setting then it is probably just an NPC, but everything in between feels very open to interpretation.
As per usual "know your group" will factor in hugely here. You may have to plug in a DMPC for purely mechanical reasons because of the choices that the party made when choosing their characters. They are all glass and need a damage sponge, or they are all up front fighters and need a cleric to ease their pain. I think it comes up more with small groups. The other option is planting a DMPC for purely story reasons, to help promote role play, or be a continuing story element that the PCs are attached to. All that aside, knowing if the group will do well with a DMPC is important, and the inherent risk of them not liking the DMPC is what scares me the most, haha. I can't for the life of me figure out what makes some NPCs/DMPCs so amazing to the players, and don't know that I ever really will.
I have really enjoyed this conversation, and can honestly say that I never would have expected it while making my original post!
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 18, 2016 23:23:17 GMT
I'm interested in which mechanics you are referring to? (I feel kinda dumb for needing to ask, haha.) I felt like most of the conversation was centered around player agency, and how important the "voice" of the DMPC is. I guess I am using the term broadly. When I say "mechanics" I am referring to anything and everything "crunchy"; combat balance, XP, loot, traps, skill rolls, and even the metacrunch around solving the mysteries in a campaign. Player agency was the stated topic, but every example came down to some sort of "mechanical" issue. The players will rely on the DMPC to have secret knowledge or to direct the story. The players will rely on the DMPC to be the tank/caster/healer/whatever roll. The players will be upset because they have to share XP and loot with the DMPC. As to the actual crunch of a game, the fighting and social rolls, I took it for granted that everyone would want a DMPC to take a back seat. Otherwise you might as well be sitting around talking to yourself. I would strongly discourage anyone from filling a "hole" in the party with a DMPC. Temporary disposable NPC hireling? Ok. Not a standing party member though. When it comes to the DMPC being relied upon to solve story based mysteries, well, really that's just bad GMing and bad RP. Once again, something I thought should be so obvious that it didn't even cross my mind as an issue. I had that issue when I was 13 running games, not now that I'm an adult. As to XP and loot, I have worked very hard to de-emphasize those things at my table. I don't want my players thinking about how much XP they get or how much loot they get. I want them thinking about their characters' stories and how they are interacting with the problems set before them. At first, I tried to make loot really unavailable to them. That pissed them off. So instead, I made loot not matter by throwing problems at them loot couldn't solve. The next, and most important step, was completely doing away with XP. This was D&D, where you have level tiers. So I just leveled them up every 3-5 sessions or as the story/metastory demanded. In EotE, this is less of an issue. XP is awarded every session on a flat rate with bonuses for finishing story chapters and/or clever RP. And there aren't levels, you just buy abilities and skills with your XP. Every choice you make is like closing a door on other choices until you get more XP. Loot is also less of an issue, because there aren't encounter balance mechanics like in D&D. Its all narrative and somewhat loose, which is how I ran D&D anyway. So I let them have their loot, then throw bad guys at them to use up expendable resources and damage their big expensive resources (their ship). I think two important pieces of keeping a DMPC narratively "clean" are: 1. Not having a set story arc in mind for this character. Much as one shouldn't with a PC. 2. Not focusing your larger story on the DMPC. Make the larger story/theme about your PCs.
|
|
|
Post by galakan on Feb 18, 2016 23:25:33 GMT
In my experience, a DMPC is one that travels with the party and plays an active role in combat/story. They are meant to grow with the party and become part of the overall investment with the game. I usually use them as a tool for players to use if there are few people in the party. For instance in my campaign the party were space pirates and had a crew. There were only two players (each of which claimed to be the captain) and so I made them 6 DMPCs that made up the crew that they had. It was INCREDIBLY successful, but only because I was very careful to remember that the players were the heroes and I was not. This campaign lasted for a long time, and I have some tips that I wrote down a while ago to help a friend out that I will share with ya'll. (sorry for rambling) - Make them slightly under-powered and serve a specific role mechanically.
I love me some power gaming, but as a DM I usually leave that side of me to designing encounters rather than my DMPCs. Making your DMPC purely supplemental makes it much harder to take over the experience. Also, if you make them very focused in their abilities, many players will simply leave them behind if they think that purpose wont come into play. For instance my players simply would task most of their crew with maintaining the ship unless their specific skill was needed. - If you have more than one DMPC, make some limit to how many the players can have at once.
In my case I had 6. But the players were space pirates so I made some lame excuse that their landing craft had limited space and they could only take one crew member at a time. They got that it was a purely mechanical choice and it provided us with some very interesting moments when the players were trying to pick the right tool for the job. - For casters, have players control which spells are available to the caster that day.
So I originally just gave my mage a set list of spells that never changed, which was sometimes useful and sometimes not. One of the players decided he wanted to control the spell list so that they could optimize them, and it worked out great! Might not work in every group though. - Also if you have multiple, introduce them slowly.
I introduced party members very slowly in my campaign to get the players used to how that character's specific gimmick worked. This way you can setup scenarios that show the DMPCs strengths and weaknesses in different encounters. - Have players control the DMPC in combat, and (so long as they don't break character) even roleplay the character a little if they want.
After a time my players got so invested in their crew, they started to do side-mission type things in the middle of sessions that were PURELY them playing out what they crew was doing. For long running campaigns, some people get tired of playing the same person over and over and this gave them the perfect opportunity to pick up a character they were already invested in and dabble with playing them for a time.
Anyway, these were some things that worked out great for me in the past. It mainly worked because I had a small party, and was very cautious to not put the spotlight on my DMPC. My players were also pretty awesome in understanding how the mechanics of the crew would work and that THEY needed to control the DMPC in combat.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 19, 2016 5:51:38 GMT
It was pointed out to me that some of my comments on this thread today may have come off rude or condescending. I was posting at work, in a pretty rapid fire manner, so I fear I may have missed the mark on keeping my posts respectable. I apologize if I rubbed anyone the wrong way and beg your pardon and indulgence as I clarify my remarks.
Earlier, I said: I think it is the last couple sentences that may make this sound off. My point in general was that I was approaching the argument under a potentially faulty assumption. That assumption being that no DM would want to put a DMPC in the forefront. This statement: "Yuck! Too much like my lonely adolescent D&D memories, back when I had no friends to run with at all." is a very real reflection of my initial experiences with D&D. I was a pretty lonely kid. When I found D&D, I didn't have friends to play it with. I created characters and ran mini adventures by myself. This was not a happy time in my life, hence the "Yuck!" comment. This wasn't meant to be belittling to anyone. On the contrary, its a situation I would never wish on another.
Later in the thread, in a similar vein, I said:
This was delivered poorly. What I meant here is that it is huge mistake for a GM to ever use a DMPC or NPC as a central protagonist in a game story. The PCs should always be the primary heroes. I was again speaking from negative past experiences. When I was 12 I moved out of my mom's house to live with my dad. New state, new school, whole new life. I met my first real friend when I was 13, in 8th grade. At one point, I tried to introduce D&D to him. But it was just the two of us, so I rolled up a character too. I made my character the central protagonist of the game story, and made his my side kick. Needless to say, the game didn't last long. Now, we are still friends all these years later, but I didn't play D&D again for over 20 years after that game! As far as I know, my friend has still never played another game of D&D.
It was also stated to me that I seem very against the idea of a DMPC. This is actually not true. I fully intend to use a DMPC in my next campaign.
I hope I didn't rub anyone the wrong way. I feel a bit strongly on this subject, and may even have gotten a bit defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 19, 2016 15:27:59 GMT
It was pointed out to me that some of my comments on this thread today may have come off rude or condescending. I was posting at work, in a pretty rapid fire manner, so I fear I may have missed the mark on keeping my posts respectable. I apologize if I rubbed anyone the wrong way and beg your pardon and indulgence as I clarify my remarks. Earlier, I said: I think it is the last couple sentences that may make this sound off. My point in general was that I was approaching the argument under a potentially faulty assumption. That assumption being that no DM would want to put a DMPC in the forefront. This statement: "Yuck! Too much like my lonely adolescent D&D memories, back when I had no friends to run with at all." is a very real reflection of my initial experiences with D&D. I was a pretty lonely kid. When I found D&D, I didn't have friends to play it with. I created characters and ran mini adventures by myself. This was not a happy time in my life, hence the "Yuck!" comment. This wasn't meant to be belittling to anyone. On the contrary, its a situation I would never wish on another. Later in the thread, in a similar vein, I said: This was delivered poorly. What I meant here is that it is huge mistake for a GM to ever use a DMPC or NPC as a central protagonist in a game story. The PCs should always be the primary heroes. I was again speaking from negative past experiences. When I was 12 I moved out of my mom's house to live with my dad. New state, new school, whole new life. I met my first real friend when I was 13, in 8th grade. At one point, I tried to introduce D&D to him. But it was just the two of us, so I rolled up a character too. I made my character the central protagonist of the game story, and made his my side kick. Needless to say, the game didn't last long. Now, we are still friends all these years later, but I didn't play D&D again for over 20 years after that game! As far as I know, my friend has still never played another game of D&D. It was also stated to me that I seem very against the idea of a DMPC. This is actually not true. I fully intend to use a DMPC in my next campaign. I hope I didn't rub anyone the wrong way. I feel a bit strongly on this subject, and may even have gotten a bit defensive. Friar, thank you for clarifying. I think all of us that have been around the boards for even a little bit recognize that these comments weren't meant in the negative way in which they could have been taken, but it's great to leave no doubt so the (interesting) discussion can continue in a healthy manner. Now that I've said that I think I'm going to disagree with your last point despite the fact that I'm not sold on the idea of a DMPC. I successfully ran an epic campaign several years in which a young orphan was the rebirth of an old god that had been slain by her rival. The rival had done it in such a way that the world was unaware of her victory, and the church and state slowly became more corrupt as it's leadership was replaced by the victorious (and evil) god's pawns. My PCs were a group of characters in a small logging village. The village was home to an orphanage. One was a Paladin who's family was one of the protector knights of old that follow the dead god - now hidden in seclusion and passing down the what little knowledge remained. His family was the only out of 13 that didn't corrupt and turn. My group didn't know any of this, but they slowly realized that events in the world were happening, and many people were searching for this orphan. I ran the girl as a teenage orphan sorcerer. She was central to the narrative, but her true time in realizing who and what she was, and the showdown that would ensue, wouldn't come for years. Instead, my PCs were central in protecting her and trying to uncover the plots surrounding her. I realize this probably isn't quite the scenario that you meant, in that even though the NPC was central to the main narrative, the PCs were central to the more immediate narrative. Had we not finished graduate school and moved away I had fully planned to keep building up to the epic encounter in which this girl realized her full powers and gods collided. The PCs would be involved in the battle, but the gods would be the forefront. I don't know how that would have played out, but I imagine that the party would have fully embraced seeing this girl they protected for so long fully realizing herself and fighting evil with unimagined powers. I guess I'm not fully disagreeing so much as putting forth that it CAN be done, but it needs to be handled with care. In this case: 1) The girl was vulnerable and relied entirely upon my PCs to protect her. She lacked confidence and was shy and therefore wasn't involved heavily in decision making. 2) The final battle would have played out more like a cut scene in a game that is focused on the story, and less like a mechanics based combat - even though the PCs would play a critical role. Also, it would only happen like this once, and at the end of an entire campaign's worth of buildup.
|
|
|
Post by DM Windhover on Feb 19, 2016 15:47:05 GMT
I'm loving this discussion. Here's a question that just crossed my mind:
Many single player RPG video games have characters who might be considered equivalent to DMPCs. (The Dragon Age series comes to mind specifically; you are working with a traditional 4 person party, but only 1 of the characters is really created by you.) How might we be inspired by the design philosophy for such video game characters to run better, more effective DMPCs in our tabletop RPGs? Because although a huge gap exists between the two mediums, I think this is one place where we might actually learn something from our virtual equivalents as DMs.
A few initial thoughts, based largely on DA: Inquisition, because it's the most recent game of this type I've played:
1. The "DMPCs" in the party are equal in power to the single PC (i.e. usually at the same level, same access to abilities mechanically, etc.) 2. The "DMPCs" have their own (very strong) personalities, goals, and desires which sometimes do and sometimes do not align with that of the PC. 3. However, the PC can take control over each "DMPC" in combat situations, and has complete control over their leveling, ability choices, and equipment. 4. The "DMPCs" see the PC as their leader and defer to him/her in judgement decisions, but may still question those decisions or even leave the party due to disagreements. This allows them to feel like real people, but doesn't restrict the PC's freedom.
This might be a model we could learn from. It sounds similar to a lot of the ideas we've already been throwing out, but may help us expand on them.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 19, 2016 16:08:42 GMT
It's a very interesting thought that could be fun. I would pose a few questions, however. The main difference I see is that in the PC game - you're the only player. In the rules you've listed it's "PC" singular. I think it would be easier if you were running one player to create DMPCs that the player effectively controls and rolls for mechanically, but that you roleplay. With a group, I see this being a little trickier, although I'm sure there are clever solutions out there. It's harder to label a group as leader, and another group as taking a backseat to decisions.
If you have four PCs, do you have four DMPCs and each player controls one? Do you just have one? How do you make it work that the four serve as leader, and the others take a back seat role in decision making?
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 19, 2016 16:12:51 GMT
Friar, thank you for clarifying. I think all of us that have been around the boards for even a little bit recognize that these comments weren't meant in the negative way in which they could have been taken, but it's great to leave no doubt so the (interesting) discussion can continue in a healthy manner. Thank you for the sentiment Vulash. In general, I agree. I always assume everyone here means things constructively. However, dmsam made his fist post ever here on this thread. I thought it was a good idea to clarify my intent, for him and for any guest readers who may stumble across this thread. In regards to your campaign/DMPC, I have a question: If one could read your campaign like a novel, would that novel be told from the perspective of the little girl, or the PCs? It sounds to me like it would be told from the PCs' perspective. That makes them the protagonists of the actual story, even if the little girl is a central element in world's story. This is as it should be, and is likely why this worked well for the group. I think that is really the central point of concern that I keep trying to circle back to (with greater or lesser degrees of success); the PCs need to be the primary focus of the game story. When a DMPC interferes with that, they become a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 19, 2016 16:25:18 GMT
Ah, now that's an interesting way to make the distinction. I guess in that case you are correct - the novel would have been about the PCs absolutely. And with that, I think I'm fully on board with your point.
|
|