Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3179516" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm with Fusangite in not playing with those DM's (anymore).&nbsp; I've had way too many problems with that.&nbsp; I believe, as a player and as a DM, that the PC's are the stars of the show.&nbsp; While it might be great to have an episode that revolves around NPC's once in a while, you don't watch Star Trek to see Nameless Red Shirt #23 chatting up Nameless Blue Shirt #11.&nbsp; You watch the show to see the main characters.&nbsp; I view gaming in much the same way.&nbsp; IMNSHO, NPC's are NEVER as important as PC's.&nbsp; Dagger of Lath - to me, DMPC and Mary Sue are synonymous.&nbsp; If the DM is running an NPC that is not stealing the stage from the PC's, then there's no problem.&nbsp; However, when a DM begins to tailor the campaign around a long term NPC rather than the PC's, then it's a case of DMPC and a bad thing.To me, it's not even really a case of the NPC being more powerful than the party.&nbsp; That can work.&nbsp; However, when the DM begins having that more powerful NPC deal with all or even a large number of the situations in the game, then it's a problem.&nbsp; An NPC that is central to the plot is fine.&nbsp; An NPC which resolves every plot is not.&nbsp; That's where it steps over the line, for me, into the realm of DMPC.Actually, I'm going to backtrack a bit about the Mary Sue thing.&nbsp; A DMPC doesn't necessarily have to be better than the PC's.&nbsp; However, to cross from NPC to DMPC requires that the NPC become the primary actor in many situations.&nbsp; When NPC's you meet talk to the DMPC first, when the DMPC begins giving orders to the PC's, when treasures found are tailored to the DMPC, then there's a problem.Otherwise, the character is simply a long term NPC.&nbsp; That's groovy.An NPC that starts with the party and stays for a long time isn't necessarily a DMPC.&nbsp; Filling niches with NPC's doesn't mean that there's a problem.&nbsp; Filling niches with a DMPC is always a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3179516, member: 22779"] I'm with Fusangite in not playing with those DM's (anymore). I've had way too many problems with that. I believe, as a player and as a DM, that the PC's are the stars of the show. While it might be great to have an episode that revolves around NPC's once in a while, you don't watch Star Trek to see Nameless Red Shirt #23 chatting up Nameless Blue Shirt #11. You watch the show to see the main characters. I view gaming in much the same way. IMNSHO, NPC's are NEVER as important as PC's. Dagger of Lath - to me, DMPC and Mary Sue are synonymous. If the DM is running an NPC that is not stealing the stage from the PC's, then there's no problem. However, when a DM begins to tailor the campaign around a long term NPC rather than the PC's, then it's a case of DMPC and a bad thing. To me, it's not even really a case of the NPC being more powerful than the party. That can work. However, when the DM begins having that more powerful NPC deal with all or even a large number of the situations in the game, then it's a problem. An NPC that is central to the plot is fine. An NPC which resolves every plot is not. That's where it steps over the line, for me, into the realm of DMPC. Actually, I'm going to backtrack a bit about the Mary Sue thing. A DMPC doesn't necessarily have to be better than the PC's. However, to cross from NPC to DMPC requires that the NPC become the primary actor in many situations. When NPC's you meet talk to the DMPC first, when the DMPC begins giving orders to the PC's, when treasures found are tailored to the DMPC, then there's a problem. Otherwise, the character is simply a long term NPC. That's groovy. An NPC that starts with the party and stays for a long time isn't necessarily a DMPC. Filling niches with NPC's doesn't mean that there's a problem. Filling niches with a DMPC is always a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification