Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imagicka" data-source="post: 3184097" data-attributes="member: 4621">Greetings...Stole your lucky charms?!?  Yellow-Grubs, Pink-Slugs, Green-Maggots!?  They're magicaly disgusting! 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'. 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. 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.  Which I think is probably the healthiest of attitudes.  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. 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.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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification