GM Techniques

[Bagpuss]

Also, I frequently (in fact almost always) have low level parties accompanied by a much higher level npc. THis guy stands in the background and says and does nothing until the party gets into more trouble than they can handle and then he's my deus ex machina.

Don't get me wrong, he doesn't carry the story and he can't be relied upon by the party to rescue them just 'cause they want. He's there as my circuit breaker, in case I've fouled up and over-clocked the scenario.

Does anyone else do this sort of thing? WHat other things do you do? I ask 'cause I want to learn.

As a player that would drive me crazy. If he is obviously more (or atleast) compedent as my character I would expect the NPC to pitch in and help all the time, otherwise why carry the dead weight in the party. If he is always the one to save the day why doesn't he go do the quest by himself, its obvious he doesn't need us.

I don't mind playing a hero and protecting weaker NPC's but I would get annoyed very quickly is a higher level NPC did nothing to help most of the time, only stepping in to "show you how its done" once you've screwed up. I'd rather sort out my own mess thanks.

 

[SableWyvern]

NEVER EVER let NPCs overshadow the players. The players have to solve their problems, not NPCs.

I have do disagree with this, in so much as it is an absolute. Absolutes are very bad, IMO.

In general, I agree (and strongly), but this depends on the style of the campaign and the particular circumstances.

I once ran a session where the party, for various reasons, ended up on a dark and haunted island, and they managed to summon an uber-being of immense and terrible power. They (and the world in general) were saved by two beings, that had been Captaining the ships they were travelling on, and who had become comatose on reaching the island.

In a vast display of magical power, these two beings kicked the uber-demigod-things butt, although one of them died in the process. The PCs were utterly incapable of influencing that battle. However, it served as the first insight for the party into the true nature of the creatures who aided them. Despite the completely deus ex machina method of ending the session, that particular session is regarded by all who participated as absolutely the best I have ever run.

There most certainly can be times when the PCs are not the spotlight - although I would say that it requires experience as a DM to know when and how you can do this, and do it in such a fashion as not to detract from the player's enjoyment.

 

[Bagpuss]

The PC did the summoning, and thus they could see themselves as responsible for bringing out the Big Guns to save them. Instead of you rescuing them with a high level NPC. Its a subtle difference but an important one.

Sure you can have high level NPC's saving the parties butts, but its much better if the PC's realise they are out of thier depth and come running to the NPC than the other way round. This way the PC's still see themselves as 'saving themselves' instead of the DM rescuing them.

The more you take the power and control away from the players the less they feel in control of their characters action and involved in the game world.

 

[SableWyvern]

Bagpuss: I take your point, and I do believe that, in general, you are right.

But in this particular instance, the PCs did not know that they were summoning this creature (they simply realised that they had the capabilities of performing a ritual, and no obvious way within their means of getting off the island, except seeing what the ritual did), nor did they asked to be rescued (their saviours just rocked up, being awakened from their incapacitated state by the presence of a demon-thing that their race had once imprisoned).

My point was simply that there can be times when things are not in the control of the PCs, and their destinies are determined by others.

In some campaigns, that concept is not appropriate. But, in a campaign where the PCs are just people (even if exceptional or potentially exceptional ones) their destiny need not always be in their own hands.

 

[Al]

SableWyvern: Your point is subtly different. Yes, the big guys came to rescue the PCs, but the rescuing of the PCs was a useful by-product of their action. They intervened to save the world, not the PCs. This is okay- it is realistic that uber-beings should intervene to save the world at large, but it is not so if they babysit the characters.

To be fair, I made this mistake. One campaign I ran, the PCs all worked for an elite organisation. Since this organisation was fairly small, they took care of their members. To whit, through most of the low- to mid-levels, they were scried on by friendly allies, and if they were in serious trouble, their allies called in the big guns: some serious battlemagi would teleport in and save them. Unfortunately, they didn't appreciate it.

Essentially, characters like to make their own way. They prefer different levels of autonomy with regard to the plotline and such like, but no-one likes to be watch over with babysitters and stabilisers. The deus ex machina is the tool of the desperate DM, one used perhaps once a campaign to circumvent a TPK- if used frequently, it screams that something is amiss. Players don't like being babysitted. It goes against logic (usually, it is hard to explain why this nice high-level NPC is travelling with them and not actually just doing the quest/fighting with them). It removes the edge of danger (and hence excitement). And most significantly, it dulls the edges of the PCs' successes: the PCs should be jubilant if they slay the vampire count; they tend to be disappointing if they were trounced and then a top-level NPC destroys their adversary for them.

 

[dren]

my style

My DMing style is to give players lots of choice, then bombard them with details along with danger upon danger. I try to use props whenever I can, and will often use pictures and images off the net. My old group used models, but I've really found them unnecessary with 3rd edition.

I like to include an NPC who is a couple of levels lower and their role is often to point out the "obvious". It sometimes avoids players following a red herring and getting the group back on-track. Also NPCs can also end an in-game stalemate between PCs. They are there to help out, but they do not save the day.

Players know that everything is for sale, whether an item or some knowledge. It will cost them either in coin or other items, but whatever they want, they can eventually acquire.

 

[Harlock]

Sometimes I give players lots of choices and sometimes I don;t give many options. Depends on the adventure, the gaming group and even my mood. As far as NPCs go, they seldom travel with the party (because my group right now is paranoid after they "rescued" a human slave who tunred out to be a doppleganger who murdered one party member and indirectly led to a TPK because the group split up. Whoever said they fudged die rolls, I hear ya. I do it too. It just seems that if I didn;t I would have TPKs on my hands all the time. Not poor playing, or too high a CR, but unusually lucky rolls on my part. If something bad does happen i.e character death, there is always a way to get them raised or essurected, though even that has it's consequences. As long as the players are having fun with their characters and there is some penalty for death (losing a level, items, money, all of the above) then there is some danger and it keeps the thrill level high enough for this group. I always try and have a way back for them. Even if it is to make another group to retrieve bodies, etc. And, if the group is tired of the characters (hasn't happened yet, but I assume it will eventually) then they can just choose not to come back and ask for a new campaign. I'm out to please my players. I work with them to make this game fun, not against them to get my fun.

YMMV

 

[Trevalon Moonleirion]

I agree wholeheartedly with Umbran...I really don't like NPCs hogging all the glory from the PCs. I was sort of wary of posting the technique, but I'm very glad Umbran broke the ice. FUDGE WHENEVER YOU NEED TO!!! No one knows the real stats of the monsters, and if you've made a grevious misjudgement of power and the group wasn't being stupid when getting into the situation, then change scores, drop spells, lower hp...or if you're really desperate ignore some of the dice.

Just don't overdo the technique...that's cheating

 

[SableWyvern]

SableWyvern: Your point is subtly different. Yes, the big guys came to rescue the PCs, but the rescuing of the PCs was a useful by-product of their action. They intervened to save the world, not the PCs. This is okay- it is realistic that uber-beings should intervene to save the world at large, but it is not so if they babysit the characters.

Hmm. Perhaps my example was not deus ex machina enough...

My original purpose in posting was simply to say that sometimes it can be ok for NPCs to take a bit of spotlight, and thrust the PCs into the background for a few moments. I agree with the bulk of posters who have commented that this should not be the norm, and that it should be handled carefully by the DM.

The example you use from your own campaign is definitely a bad way of doing things. Of course, it's no worse than giving first and second level characters a heap of near-artefact weapons (not that I ever did that in my early days...... ).

To reiterate, my disagreement was only with the NEVER EVER part of this comment:

Originally posted by Clockworkjoe
NEVER EVER let NPCs overshadow the players. The players have to solve their problems, not NPCs.

Edit: Actually, Als thoughts on my example may actually have made a point I made a little less clearly earlier: If NPCs are going to step into the foreground and briefly overshadow PCs, then there should be a good reason for it, and the experience should add to the ongoing story of the campaign. If the players walk away knowing that their PCs have learnt something/paricipated or watched a pivotal moment in history/influenced the events which caused others to take the spotlight, or if the players themselves have an improved appreciation for the the scope of the game world, then the situation was probably justified.

If the players know the NPC's ongoing role is merely to get them out of the dung whenever they're in over their heads, you have a problem.