Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tzor" data-source="post: 3173703" data-attributes="member: 12826">I'll start out by saying that I've been playing since 1st edition, so my comments might be a little out of sync with the younger gaming community.&nbsp; I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what a DMPC is ... I've heard different definitions and the one you use is important to how significant any objections on my part are.First of all, I have no problems with a DM throwing in an NPC or two to fill out a party.&nbsp; Back in 1E when party sizes were 6 to 8 this was an accepted practice.&nbsp; The NPC party filler serves an important niche and he or she completes a party.&nbsp; However while they may be important members of the party the are not the PCS.In the end, it's not the NPCS or the PCS that are &quot;important.&quot;&nbsp; The player's themselves are important. Each player has a PC.&nbsp; The PCS form a party.&nbsp; The NPCS that fill out the party are a part of the party but as a whole the whole party belongs to the players as a whole.&nbsp; Thus while there should be DM cooperation to ensure that the NPCS as filler are not abused, (alas poor Fr. Cleric the Holy Healing Machine) the actions of the NPC fillers should come from the players as a collective whole, not from the personal desires of the DM.&nbsp; They should complement the party, not the DM'S plot deivces or desires to be a player and a DM.That in a nutshel explains my objections to the term DMPC.&nbsp; &quot;DM&quot; as in run by the DM:&nbsp; Good for NPCS in general because they exist to advance the DMS plot, but NPC filler characters should advance the party as a whole.&nbsp; &quot;PC&quot; in that the center of attention should be on the player's characters.&nbsp; Everyone else, including the party fillers are secondary characters.Leadership etc also falls under this mantra.&nbsp; You don't want player abuse of NPC characters but at the same time you don't want the game to be significantly DM characters against DM characters.&nbsp; You want the players to be active as much as possible, directly controlling their own characters and indirectly by the supporting party characters.&nbsp; The game is really about the interaction between DM and players, and DMPCS breaks this interaction.&nbsp; That's why I don't like the term DMPC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tzor, post: 3173703, member: 12826"] I'll start out by saying that I've been playing since 1st edition, so my comments might be a little out of sync with the younger gaming community. I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what a DMPC is ... I've heard different definitions and the one you use is important to how significant any objections on my part are. First of all, I have no problems with a DM throwing in an NPC or two to fill out a party. Back in 1E when party sizes were 6 to 8 this was an accepted practice. The NPC party filler serves an important niche and he or she completes a party. However while they may be important members of the party the are not the PCS. In the end, it's not the NPCS or the PCS that are "important." The player's themselves are important. Each player has a PC. The PCS form a party. The NPCS that fill out the party are a part of the party but as a whole the whole party belongs to the players as a whole. Thus while there should be DM cooperation to ensure that the NPCS as filler are not abused, (alas poor Fr. Cleric the Holy Healing Machine) the actions of the NPC fillers should come from the players as a collective whole, not from the personal desires of the DM. They should complement the party, not the DM'S plot deivces or desires to be a player and a DM. That in a nutshel explains my objections to the term DMPC. "DM" as in run by the DM: Good for NPCS in general because they exist to advance the DMS plot, but NPC filler characters should advance the party as a whole. "PC" in that the center of attention should be on the player's characters. Everyone else, including the party fillers are secondary characters. Leadership etc also falls under this mantra. You don't want player abuse of NPC characters but at the same time you don't want the game to be significantly DM characters against DM characters. You want the players to be active as much as possible, directly controlling their own characters and indirectly by the supporting party characters. The game is really about the interaction between DM and players, and DMPCS breaks this interaction. That's why I don't like the term DMPC. [/QUOTE]

Verification