|
Post by DM Windhover on Feb 19, 2016 16:55:34 GMT
Vulash, I absolutely understand the huge differences between the single player video game and the tabletop rpg. Still, I think the basic principles can still apply without something as artificial as everybody getting a DMPC to control. And let's ignore the crunch aspects for a moment, and think about the way the video game uses its "DMPCs" narratively. Mainly, I think that the was a game like DAI uses its companions in a way which doesn't relegate them to a "lackey" feel, gives them a real personality and character within the world, and yet doesn't allow them to limit player freedom. And perhaps the biggest way in which that works is that the DMPC can actually express disapproval of player actions and eventually even leave the party. A PC can't do that; it's part of the "metagame" agreement that basically no matter what happens the PCs have to figure out a reason to work together even if they have real tensions in their characters. But a DMPC can. And that could actually lead to interesting narrative moments. The paladin who becomes frustrated with the party's "murder hobo" ways can abandon them in a time of need, and even begin to work against them or even become a main "villain" figure. And a lackey can't do that. He or she is bound to the party's will in all things, which limits narrative potential. A more independent DMPC can create genuinely interesting moments. (In Dragon Age Origins, it enabled a fantastic dilemma moment: do I execute the minor "bad guy" in cold blood, or do I allow him a chance to redeem himself--and thus lose one of my close companions and potential love interests, who will immediately abandon the party forever because I have denied him his revenge?)
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 19, 2016 17:03:07 GMT
I actually do think it's a very interesting idea, and I've liked the way you are talking about working them in without making them lackeys. I think adding that element can make the world feel even more real. From a practical standpoint, I'm still struggling to think of how to do that with a group. in DAI, for example, the character is marked and the entire story revolves around that one person. It's less clear to me how to make the distinction that the group of characters are central, and the DMPCs are not necessarily. I can think of like the Fellowship of the Ring where you had a group bound by oath to perform a task, and perhaps they pick up adventurers along the way. But how does this work out in a more traditional D&D introduction - say the party meets in a tavern and hears about an adventure (I'm not really a fan of the generic intros, but I think you see what I'm getting at). I'm not in anyway saying it can't be done - it's just not clear to me how to work it in.
EDIT: I guess I have had NPCs travel with the party for safety until they reach a destination. And perhaps it's as simple as that. A DMPC joins up with the group to complete a like minded task. If he/she gets along well with the party, and doesn't have obligations, perhaps they travel with them for a time, but that would also allow the conflict you are talking about to take place organically - the DMPC is it's own person with it's own agenda, and if those no longer align with the party they seperate.
How awesome would it be to have a DMPC in the party and have tension slowly build over some issue. Perhaps the DMPC eventually leaves, and later in the campaign comes back as one of the antagonists. I think that would be a great moment, and put the PCs under some real tension.
|
|
|
Post by DM Windhover on Feb 19, 2016 17:45:44 GMT
It's less clear to me how to make the distinction that the group of characters are central, and the DMPCs are not necessarily. I can think of like the Fellowship of the Ring where you had a group bound by oath to perform a task, and perhaps they pick up adventurers along the way. But how does this work out in a more traditional D&D introduction... That's the thing, right--many D&D groups don't actually have a particularly good reason to be together permanently anyway, but they still have to be because of the "metagame" agreement that the players make, either consciously or unconsciously, that they've come together to play the game and that can't happen if one player decides "nah, my character wouldn't want to do this adventure." They have to come up with reasons or the game can't happen. But the DMPC isn't bound by that restriction, and you're right... that can actually add awesome narrative moments which can't happen among mere traditional PCs. For a more literary example than DAI, think about Aragorn as though he were a DMPC. Aragorn has good reasons to want to help the "PCs," i.e. the hobbits, but also has his own motivations and goals (ultimately, to claim his birthright). So he joins for a significant time, is a full member of the party for a good chunk of the "campaign," then leaves the party in order to pursue his own goals and is able to assist from a distance as they finish their quest; his move to assault the Black Gates doesn't steal the spotlight from Frodo and Sam's struggles, but is narratively important in setting up the situation in which they can succeed (which Frodo and Sam would only find out later, of course.) I don't know if that's a great analogy (it probably isn't) but there might be some ways in which we can use the DMPC's ability to leave the party, either for good or for bad reasons, to create compelling stories.
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on Feb 19, 2016 19:47:48 GMT
Thanks for the clarifications, although no feelings were hurt in the process of this discussion.
Back to the topic, I was curious as to how you guys handled turning an NPC unexpectedly into a DMPC. For me, the situation went like this:
The PCs were trying to solve the conflict between to opposing factions. Both faction leaders wanted the PC to perform specific tasks for their own gain. Instead of merrily going off to do their quests, my bard said, "Well barbarian warchief, why don't you come along and show us how strong you really are?" Then follows to roll a 23 on a persuasion. . .
Needless to say, the level 6 werewolf barbarian warchief stole the show for the rest of that session.
How do you guys handle that kind of situation? Do you make all your quest-givers mechanically weak so that they cannot help the PCs, even when persuaded? Do you hand-wave the issue and say that persuasion is not an option for that NPC to join? Do you just make sure you design the scenario so that the overpowered NPC has some sort of prior engagement (appointment at the hair salon, dinner with the family, whatever)?
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Feb 19, 2016 19:58:43 GMT
Without having the context of having played in your game....
I would probably have not allowed a persuasion for that result (not that I think doing so is wrong). In some situations some actions are going to just not happen, no matter how persuasive someone is. A group of adventurers trying to persuade a leader of a faction to do something for them could easily fall into that for me. Due to his responsibilities as a leader, he asked the PCs to perform that task in the first place. Now, maybe he scoffs at the challenge by the bard and sends his son to show them the strength of the tribe - perhaps by saying "If my son, who is not yet at my ability, can do it - then you know we are strong".
However, I would say the way you handled it was fine. In fact, I'm not even sure anything went wrong. It was the player that chose to have him come along, and the consequences of that action were that the DMPC stole the show. And while that particular session may not have been as fun, it may have 1) helped your players realize there will be consequences, but 2) Shown your players that they are playing in a living and breathing world where things happen - and that world won't cater to them. Of course future scenarios WILL cater to them, but the PCs will be the center of the narrative, but feel like the world could move on without them, and they have to fight to be the heros they wish to be. I'm not sure all of that made sense - but I love the concept of a world where the PCs don't solve every problem. Normally that won't play out in a session - but maybe dynasty gets toppled by a revolution in a neighboring land while the PCs are off adventuring elsewhere. The world grows and changes. I think in a sense the way that played out for you has demonstrated that to your players that reality won't always bend to their reality, and that can be healthy.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 19, 2016 20:20:04 GMT
I agree with Vulash's call: I don't allow rolls on things I don't want happening, or on things that don't make sense to happen. If you let the group roll on something, you better be prepared for them to succeed. Even if you set the DC prohibitively high, there's always the natural 20.
Also, in what way did this barbarian chief cross the line from NPC to DMPC? Did he stick around for the remainder of the campaign, or just a session or two? Was he deeply invested in the RP/story elements of the campaign? Were you, as the "player" to this "PC" invested in this character? He sounds to me like an NPC who was more powerful than the group. In what context are you thinking of him as a DMPC?
As to having overpowered NPCs, I tend to run my campaign in a very "living world" style. There are forces far greater than the PCs at work in the world. If the PCs encounter them, I don't nerf them mechanically, although I may play some narrative cards to keep the game from going in a weird direction.
|
|
|
Post by DM Windhover on Feb 19, 2016 20:30:00 GMT
I agree with Vulash's call: I don't allow rolls on things I don't want happening, or on things that don't make sense to happen. If you let the group roll on something, you better be prepared for them to succeed. Even if you set the DC prohibitively high, there's always the natural 20. This. My general principle is not to point a gun if you aren't willing to pull the trigger. Do you know the Angry GM? He's abrasive (understatement), but he has some excellent articles about how to use persuasion and conversation in such a way that it isn't treated as if persuasion is just another button that players can push. That said, I agree with Vulash that your players may well have learned something positive from the experience, so there's nothing at all wrong with resolving things the way you did.
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on Feb 19, 2016 20:39:19 GMT
In this case the barbarian chief became a DMPC for that session only. After the conflict was resolved, he no longer had a reason to stay with the party. Because DMPCs do not have to metagame bounds that a PC does, he parted ways and lived happily ever after.
In fact, going by the general consensus of what a DMPC is, he was just a powerful NPC tag-along. Unfortunately, he did steal the spotlight from the characters the way a DMPC would for those few hours. It made sense for a warmonger barbarian to desire a fight (which was the conflict in this case), so he agreed to come along. I was somewhat prepared for the scenario, as he had stats and a character sheet already.
What I was not prepared for was the shifting of party dynamics, or the shift in spotlight. Every player instantly deferred to the NPC for every decision. They would go if the chief said go, stop if the chief said stop, charge if the chief said charge, etc. In the end, I pretty much fought my own battles and solved my own conflicts, rather than letting my players solve them.
The funny thing is, the players LOVED it. They took down a t-rex, a hydra and a chimera at level 3 at the end of the day!
So did I fail as a DM in this situation? My power-gaming players certainly enjoyed it, but I am sure that a more narrative bunch would flip the table.
|
|
|
Post by DM Windhover on Feb 20, 2016 5:48:14 GMT
The funny thing is, the players LOVED it. They took down a t-rex, a hydra and a chimera at level 3 at the end of the day! So did I fail as a DM in this situation? You answered your own question there. The goal of the game is to have fun. If you helped your players have a great time, then you succeeded in the only way that really matters. Which maybe should act as a reminder that we can get too caught up worrying about these things. At the end of the day, the primary thing we need to be careful about is making sure our players have a great time. And that is usually going to mean doing our best to maintain player agency/freedom, but sometimes the players themselves want to be "put on the rails" for a bit and just experience a cool story. And every group of players is different. None of that means we can't come up with a solid list of principles to use in most situations. But maybe the most important principles for running a DMPC can be summed up as follows: 1. Don't be a jerk. 2. If the players are having fun, you're doing it right... and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Feb 23, 2016 22:00:43 GMT
I haven't been able to read the thread up to this point (I only just this morning managed to listen to the episode) but I have had a DMPC in my campaign for the better part of the last year. I'd had some concerns when I was first considering adding the PC and when I'd asked on these boards the general response seemed to be "Careful! You might not want to do that" (at least, that's how I remember it). A year later and I feel a fair bit better about including the character.
My situation was a bit different than the ones spelled out on the podcast. My story was coming together in such a way that it called for a "Chosen One" sort of character. I know my players well enough to realize that none of them would appreciate their PCs being in that position. IIRC, two of them had flat out told me they didn't want to "Chosen One"ish. That's quite well and good, and I appreciate knowing what my players will find fun, but it left a hole in the narrative. I came up with a DMPC, Cara, to fill that hole and it's worked fairly well so far.
As the DM I run Cara in most respects, I roleplay her and manage her equipment, but when it's time for combat one of the players runs her. That's turned out particularly well since that player's PC and Cara have formed a strong IC relationship. Cara is built as a homebrew Fighter Archetype (based off the old Marshall prestige class) so that she would enhance the other PCs without overlapping with any of their abilities. She's gotten an occasional killing blow but all in all she buffs the others more than dpsing or tanking. Story-wise she's the central figure in a typical "save the world" plot but she's no more powerful than any of the other PCs. They've become her knights/companions, helping her accomplish her mission while keeping her alive.
The biggest problem I've had with Cara is I tend to forget to include her in RP. Without a player sitting at the table it's easy for me to lose track of her. It's often the player who plays her in combat who gives me a reminder if I've overlooked her. There've been an awkward scene or two where Cara is having a conversation with an NPC (which in reality winds up being me conversing with myself) but I try to keep those to an absolute minimum.
If anything I think it's something I've underutilized but there haven't been any of the common problems listed in the podcast. Having a player operate the DMPC in combat and treating it like another member of the party has been an effective solution for any of those common issues. I do think DMPCs warrant some careful consideration but I don't see them as something to be avoided either.
|
|
|
Post by dmsam on Feb 24, 2016 1:57:17 GMT
Glad to hear that you have a good time playing a DMPC. A couple ways I make talking to myself less awkward are: a) Translate the whole dialogue into a narrative and tell the players what happened (breaks immersion, somewhat). b) Turn my head and lean to one side to pretend as one NPC and the other way for my other NPC. c) Use different voices.
As for how to remember participating in the RP, have some sort of visual representation of the party members close at hand. It can be an index card with all the names of the characters, or a bunch of minis behind your screen. That way, every time you look at that card (the way you would at a GPS or your rear view mirror), you won't miss someone. Remember that bar with the character icons on the left side of the screen in most games? Emulate that.
Sometimes it's fun to play a story out from a support character's standpoint, and players often naturally fall into those roles. Personally, I have never been in a game where a naturally strong personality doesn't just fall into the role of the leader. If your group just lacks a natural leader and needs someone else to lead for them, it's not bad to throw in such a "leader" or "sponsor" type character to lay out the goals for them. Remember, the leader's job is simply to articulate the vision of the group. It's everyone else who needs to come up with the plan and execution. With that in mind, you have full control of the spotlight and can shine it at whichever PC in need of screen time.
In fact, you can make the argument that you have more control over where the spotlight goes from a leader DMPC's perspective than the DM who has a dominating party-face PC in the group.
|
|
|
Post by janewalksfar on Mar 12, 2016 23:05:46 GMT
This is a mad-thoughtful and informative thread. However, I have to drop in just to shout, "DMPCs ARE THE WOOOOORST."
One of my DMs took over DMing a game, so his original PC still lives in the city. He shows up and steals the show every couple of sessions. This DM also enjoys dropping in crazy-powerful NPCs to "help". Once my rouge tried to refuse the help, but the NPC came along anyway.
I pushed her into a pit trap.
DMPCs are the worst.
Please continue your thoughtful discussion...I just had to rant. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Chickadee (DM Trish) on Oct 22, 2017 5:50:03 GMT
I just listened to this episode and so I thought I would share my extremely positive experience with a DMPC. My hubby ran a solo campaign for me while I was DMing for our group (so that I could also get the chance to play). I was playing a level 1 Bard so I was extremely squishy and could easily get in trouble in a fight. To help this, he included a character named Arl. He was a great guy and a v. strong fighter but had suffered a brain injury. I believe my hubby's thinking was that this would be a good reason for Arl to have extremely low intelligence so he wouldn't be able to help me make any decisions. However, my PC (and myself) became so attached to Arl that my PC's motivation for getting involved in a major conflict in the area was motivated largely by a desire to have Arl healed (I had to do something drastic enough to gain the good-will of a powerful mage who could do it). As well, when the time finally came to decide on whether or not to have Arl healed, I literally agonized over the decision for the entire week until we next were able to play. (Arl was content and happy with his lot - it was a brutal moral dilemma to know his family and tribe wanted him healed but that he would likely be less happy in many ways) Best of all, because he had become my PCs friend, he trusted in her to make the best choice - even when she tried to ask him what he would like. After listening to all the potential pitfalls and awfulness people have experienced with DMPCs, I've gained a whole new level of respect for how fantastically my DM played this character. Not to mention the fact that he played a brain-injured character in an incredibly respectful way. He is still one of my favourite D&D NPCs of all time. oh..and he was healed in the end and it turned out to be a good decision.
|
|