Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imagicka" data-source="post: 3180406" data-attributes="member: 4621">Greetings...I wouldn't say that.  I thought I was being quite clear (if not verbose) on my defination of a DMPC. I clearly feel that a DMPC is a pejorative and negative term, and should have every such connotations attached to it.  Why?  Because in my experience, it's a DM who's trying to play a PC.  If a DM were to play a character in the party, without any abuse, or any negative aspects to the use of that character; then there really is no need to define this character anything other than an NPC.  Or if you want to go out on limb, and feel it's necessary to come up with a defination of a character that is successfully run by a DM,  call it a party-NPC.  I have no problems when a DM plays a character (or NPC if you will) who is an active and participating member of the party that doesn't have all the negative connocations that I attach to a DMPC.  If you want to use DMPC with your definition.  That's fine.  Up until a week ago, I never even heard of the term 'Mary-Sue'.  You stick with your definitions... I'll stick with mine.   No, what I'm saying is that any DM who plays a party NPC to the point that it detracts from the other players' PCs; either by being statistically superior and hogging the glory in combat situations, or more important (usually by way of plot - not just an important plot-point, but the one that guides the story with little or not input from the players), to the point where the DM is showing a certain amount of nepotism towards their own character.  That they have grown so fond of their character that their character rarely loses. I find this tandamount to roleplaying-masturbation.  Now, if someone considers that to be the defination of a 'Mary-Sue' character, then I might reconsider my definition of a DMPC. If however, your a DM that is switching an NPC to a PC, for the purposes of turning over the DMing duties to another person so that the original DM can play a particular character; such as in a round-robin game, without any fear or problem of nepotism or abuse.  I don't see a need to define it as being a DMPC, to me it is just a PC being turned into an NPC. But I also think that the DM who does this should be mindful of playing such an NPC without all the scene-stealing or limelight-basking that a regular player is afforded.  That a DM should play their PC as an NPC avoiding situations where they can take away the glory of the PCs, and just take a backseat to the players.Have I seen DMs successfully play what the felt was 'their personal character'?  No.  Not particuarily.  Every time I've seen a DM play a character that they felt should be allowed the same amount of 'input' into solving the problems within the gamel; that their character should be just as much 'the hero' as any other character in the party.  It's always felt cheap and hollow.  Because the DM's PC solved our problem for us, stole the spotlight he lit in the first place.  Giving us the lame excuse that he's a party member just like us.  It is a PC?  I don't think so.  I don't think you can play a PC when you sit behind the DM's screen.  Not when you control the game, know all the angles, and hold all the plot cards. Have I seen a DM successfully play a character that doesn't solve problems, but at least give us a hint or a nudge to point us in the right direction when we are stumped on finding the right solution?  Who help the party out, but wasn't the party leader, wasn't a problem-solving, wasn't dominating the game play?  Yes.  But I consider that successfully using/playing an NPC. Just like Illiron said, "The DM never gets to be the hero." -- Or at least I would say, the DM should never play their NPCs, especially party NPCs, to be the hero. Unless there is a good reason to do so for the benefit of the players. Oh, and for the record, I'm always against bad DMs.  GABDMs!  Gamers against bad DMs! Though I have not seen the show, I'd like to watch Entourage.  I was thinking of running a D&D/Ars Magica game where everyone plays a sidekick character to a grand-magus character.  Well, just because an artist makes something he likes doesn't mean that it can't be excellent, brilliant, enjoyable and artistic.  But we are talking about apples and oranges here.  Though most RPG material, especially when we are talking about a campaign that a DM plays out/runs for a number of players IS for public consumption.  Artwork by an artist may not necessarily be for public consumption.  An artist is only as good as public acceptance will allow.  It's rather a romantic view that an artist such as Vincent van Gogh isn't appreciated within their lifetime.  But that still drove him to suicide didn't it?  Alone and penniless.  That didn't stop Eugène Henri Paul Gauguin from being popular.Well, let me expand on it a little.  Do you think that a DM should be able to do anything he wants?  Railroading the characters into situations that the players don't want to play?  Such as a party who would rather kick down doors and kill monsters and take their stuff be forced into a storyline after storyline where they are told they have to roleplay out situations of political intrigue, or their characters will just be arrested and killed?  Or "Rock Falls, Party Dies!"?  Or situations where Mary-Sue comes and rescues the party again and again?  Or tell a player what his/her character thinks/feels, or tells a player how they should be playing their character? Let us say that you are playing a thief, and while you are attending the court of a ruler that has summoned you and the rest of the party to perform some task.  During this audience you decide that your character is bored and, 'is going to pick the pockets of the guards and perhaps the chamberlain and the king.' -- Do I as DM say 'No you don't.  You character is to scared to do that here." or do I attempt to convince the player it would be in his best interest to not attempt to do something so foolish because of the attention that they are currently receiving, and lay out the possible ramifications of the character's actions, and still let the player decide? I too love being a DM.  I love being a player.  But I specifically love it when a party of players/characters is working together, solving problems... and is in the zone.  Where they are really into the game and they are enjoying themselves and having fun.  I love the challenge of being the DM.  It's a different kind of fun than playing a character, but rarely do I find games that suit my style of play. -- But to get back on topic.  I play my NPCs as 'fully realized characters', with modivations, opinions, ideals and goals, just as anyone else would.  But I also believe that I should not be playing a character who is going to steal any of the thunder or glory away from the true players.  That my character (especially if they are a member of the adventuring party) shouldn't be upstaging the players. As a DM, I am there for them to build their story of adventure around my plot.  Well, I do consider myself an artist.  I paint and draw and take photos... I agree with you.  Roleplaying... like storytelling... is an art.  It's like drawing or painting.  Sure, almost anyone can pick up a paintbrush and paint a picture.  But not everyone is going to be good at it.  But tell me this... doesn't it feel a whole lot better when someone listens to you sing and lets you know that they've enjoyed it?  Funny story... I was in México meeting my newly born daughter at the time, which I don't resent for one second...well, maybe the one second that I heard that back home, Gary Gygax was sitting around a table with a bunch of my fellow DMs and friends at a gaming/Comic-Con that didn't have any players.  So it was something like 12 DMs all sitting around a table with Gary Gygax just chit-chatting and telling stories.</blockquote>

Verification