Greetings...
Stole your lucky charms?!? Yellow-Grubs, Pink-Slugs, Green-Maggots!? They're magicaly disgusting!
ThoughtBubble said:
So, you're saying you wouldn't have a specific categoriztion for an NPC who travels with the party, gains one share of xp and loot, and gains whatever special benefits the rest of the party does (ie: free room and board at the town they rescued)?
I know I don't. Hussar put it more elegantly than I ever did. I totally agree with what he said. I personally don't have a need to classify a party-member NPC, because if the DM is playing as such that he needs to be classified as something
other than just an NPC. That is the point where it starts becoming a problem for the players, and
I start throwing around the term 'DMPC'.
rounser said:
Fortunately, the way to get rid of DMPCs is easy: have all the real PCs attack them at once (have an unscrupulous and annoyed member of the party set them up if there are paladins or other ethical characters involved). The DM is then forced to choose between the campaign and their Mary Sue.
Well, it never works like that. At least in my experience. Even if the alignments of the party members would allow it, and all the players were willing to attack and kill this character. Even when there is in-game justification for it. The DM would always find a way to either say the attempts fail, or the attackers become the victim of the fudging DM who doesn't want his Mary-Sue to die. Even to the point of where the game breaks down.
Whenever I've seen someone (or I have myself) attempted to snooker the DM into losing his DMPC, through any number of methods, it usually ended up badly for the player. Such as... I once framed the DMPC for murder by placing evidence. Put stolen objects into his backpack. Commited crimes in his name (and appearance.) Even when I thought the situation was fool-proof, and I kept the DM in the dark by doing actions to prepare for it, and only when I spring the trap does the DM realize what I'm doing in-game. The DM still would do something to weasel out of the situation.
Even if the DMPC teleports away, or indulges in similar deus ex machina to avoid both TPK and the DMPC dying, it's a wakeup call that's difficult to ignore (although some DMs will throw a tantrum over why the players are "ruining the game").
Exactly, so I would suggest anyone attempting to do such a thing, get all the players behind the action (not just one person -- because the DM can usually always replace one player). Also, do it for petty reasons such as to get revenge on the DM, or just to screw with them and have fun doing it. Otherwise, plan and expect failure.
Dykstrav said:
As a DM, I've never felt the need to join the characters in the party on the quests. In my opinion, the DM gets to play every other character in the entire world. I get to make all the characters I want, at the levels I want and with the abilities I want. Besides, playing the monsters and villains has a certain dramatic charm that you just don't get from playing a heroic character.
Which I think is probably the healthiest of attitudes.
Whenever a party role isn't being filled, I generally allow the characters to pick up Joe Adventurer in the tavern and simply let a player run two characters. This is with the understanding that the character gets to leave if a new player joins and they have to play it cool (i.e., no heroic suicides to save their other character or any of that BS). This system has always worked for me.
This is what I like to do myself too. My players become too worried when I start playing a party-member-NPCs, because they (rightfully so) believe that they could be double-crossed by this NPC. -- That's why I like to give out NPCs to the players and have them play secondary characters, and get them to play the evil betrayers. But that only works a couple of times too, before the players catch on. But they always jump at the chance to play a throw-away character.
DMPC's as described in this thread are one of the big reasons I didn't/don't like Forgotten Realms games. The setting has its strong points and areas for improvement, like any other setting. But virtually every FR game I've ever seen has included either Elminster or Drizzt as DMPC's, whom the PC's are essentially working for as cohorts. A 2E Undermountain campaign I played was inexplicably lead by Elminster, who blasted the critters with magic while we basically hauled the treasure out of Undermountain for him. I don't call that game a 'Monty Haul' because we were essentially moving men for a steady supply of chests and sacks stuffed with gold and gems.
I think if done right, the 'gandalf-charlie boss' trick can be pulled off correctly. Where the players have to work for a powerful 'charlie' who sends them on missions. The secret to success there is never let the PCs rely on gandalf for his firepower, he shouldn't be there to save their bacon. I usually portray the character as having his own problems and situations requiring his attention. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Goddess FallenAngel said:
What happens if a player doesn't want to play 2 characters? Personally, I detest it. I feel my attention is split over trying to RP two different personalities. For that same reason, I don't allow more than one PC per player at the same time when I DM (if one PC is off doing something else, that is fine, but only 1 travels with the party at any given time).
You know, I've never had that problem. But I tend to run my games like Ars Magica. Which is a system where most players have one powerful central 'mage' character. Then that player could have a secondary 'companion' character or a 'grog' character. Whenever your main character is off on an adventure, or spending months researching a new spell or making some magickal item. Then they can pull out their secondary character. It works best when I can focus the aventure around a particular player's character. One of the best adventures I had run in Ars Magica was the one where there were 5 magi, and one grog, and the story revolved around the grog. The mages were tripping over themselves to make the grog the hero of the story. It was great fun.
I like to get the group's first characters up to nice mid-to-high level. At which time they usually either way to play a secondary character or are quite happy to play a throw-away character for an adventure or two. That's if they don't think they have their plate full with familiars and cohorts and such. -- If a player doesn't want to play a second character, then hopefully there are at least three other people around the table that are willing to play the character. If it's important enough, then I'll step up and take the character if I have to.
That's bad DMming. It has nothing to do with the world - I've had the same issue in a homebrew setting, where the DM had the super-powerful NPC of the world ordering us around. (Didn't stay in that game long.) Blaming the setting because your DM made the party cohorts to the NPCS is sorta like blaming Toyota because someone who owned one was a bad driver and damaged your car.
So, what made your 'charlie' experience a bad one? I find that some players don't mind working for a gandalf-charlie, as long as they are well paid, and they are interested in doing the work. Not to mention, I try and give the 'down-time' as well as to explore their own characters' plots/stories.
The only thing I find is that a lot of players don't like it when you play established NPCs. Either it's because the DM never measures up to the concept the player had of the NPC in fiction or from another DM. Or they just don't like the cliché. Or it just felt lazy of the DM to take something from the book, without making an effort to do it himself.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Same reason I like to have at least one NPC in the group...
