Thomas Shey
Legend
I think they can be mishandled, but especially with smaller groups in games where certain skillsets are semi-necessary, they're relatively harmless.
Yet here I am, notwithstanding.If you are as invested in the success of every single one of your NPCs with goals related to, unrelated to, and against the party to the level that players are invested in their PCs, yet also an impartial DM, you can not exist.
Needless to say, I don't feel that my position - that party NPCs and PCs are and can be the same - is nonsense.Regardless if you mean to, it feels like you are arguing in bad faith because twice in a row it feels like you have made nonsense claims just to take the opposition side.
I did follow up, see post 42 this thread. To repeat:And when called on the last one you didn't follow up - How many of your parties have characters made who never get to adventure with them because there is no social contract that the party should ever be together?
For the second time: what's the difference between these two things?DMs should be runnign NPCs true to their own motives. He's not claiming that. He's claiming he's running every NPC as a PC.
For at least the second time, a DMPC is acting as the proxy for the DM and as their personal mouthpiece, as a PC runs a player.For the second time: what's the difference between these two things?
In other words, an in-party adventuring NPC. It's the same thing.For at least the second time, a DMPC is acting as the proxy for the DM and as their personal mouthpiece, as a PC runs a player.
Not quite sure what you mean by this - maybe expand a bit further?To expand out, that's the person of a DM, not the office of the DM. And while you don't seem to have a foundational and probably not enumerated part of social contract that the characters adventure together,
Well of course it is! It's a member of the party just like the rest of 'em; and the characters would have no reason to see it as different (unless it was specifically someone's hench, but henches aren't what I'm talking about here).if you can believe that other groups do, a DMPC is expected to be treated like a character - adventure with the group, get a share of rewards, etc. It's a PC run by the DM.
Whatever that reddit bit is, it doesn't load for me.Perhaps if my definition isn't helpful, I'd suggest going outside. It's a very common term.
Nope. But I'm not going to argue it any more. There's a clear distinction you seem to either be unable to grasp to even discuss. There's no point going further on this topic. Let's talk again on something else in some other thread.In other words, an in-party adventuring NPC. It's the same thing.
Have you never had a party patron send someone along as an adventuring observer? Example: a temple missions the party to recover some stolen items, and sends a Cleric along as an observer to make sure that a) the party maintain moral standards appropriate to the temple during their adventuring and-or b) the party doesn't turn around and steal the recovered items for themselves [edit: and-or c) to help the party recognize what they're looking for]
Have you never put an NPC into a party as a plot device? Example: Bob the Fighter insists on joining the party for the journey from Spieadeia to Cyrax, then on arrival reveals himself to be a major noble who needed to get out of Spieadeia incognito on an important mission, and he used the party as cover.
For at least the second time, a DMPC is acting as the proxy for the DM and as their personal mouthpiece, as a PC runs a player.
To expand out, that's the person of a DM, not the office of the DM. And while you don't seem to have a foundational and probably not enumerated part of social contract that the characters adventure together, if you can believe that other groups do, a DMPC is expected to be treated like a character - adventure with the group, get a share of rewards, etc. It's a PC run by the DM.
Perhaps if my definition isn't helpful, I'd suggest going outside. It's a very common term.
I debate the "everyone thinks". That's the entire point - the DMPC is a DM's PC. Not an NPC. That's the world of difference.I think everyone agree that a GMPC is-a NPC; just different people have different criteria over what makes it "more than" a regular NPC. The most common opinion seems to be "because they are built using PC rules". I think Blue's is "the GM treats them differently" and mine would be "no real difference".
The third one of these is absolute for me: adventuring NPCs and adventuring PCs follow exactly the same rules for build, roll-up, level-up, etc.Here are some quotes from this thread (if you cannot access)
"My rule of thumb is that a DMPC is there because the DM wants them there. An NPC is there because the players do."
"DMPC is a pejorative for an NPC with the party who the DM is trying to get a heroic player experience out of."
"DMPCs are often made using player character leveling systems NPCs are usually static"
"They're built like a PC and they're a member of the party. An NPC might be tagging along ... but they're playing a supporting role."
"An NPC is not a PC, so they don't have to make perception checks, investigation checks, animal handling etc. you can just decide that they did stuff."
Then every levelled NPC I've ever run, be it as party member, opposition, or anything else has been by this definition a GMPC. I don't believe in (and am in fact rather hard-line opposed to) the consistency-breaking 4e-5e school of thought that has NPCs and PCs be mechanically different.My takeaways are that some people believe
- If it's built using payer rules, it's a GMPC, otherwise it's an NPC
As much favour is fine. More favour is not fine; and that's always where problems arise.
- GMPCS are NPCs that the GM treats with as much favor than a PC
This is an interesting distinction and is agnostic of all the above criteria. Oddly enough, there's even times when adventuring NPCs are forced on the GM even though she might not want to run them, as they're a baked-in and not-easily-rewriteable part of an adventure.
- GMPCs are force on you by the GM, NPCs are chosen by the players
Which, again, I just don't get. If your party goes and recruits an NPC Thief then (ideally) that Thief is going to be rolled up just like any other played character. Hell, if I'm strapped for time mid-session I might even get a player to do the basic rolling for me.Honestly, not much consensus either in this thread or our conversation. The reddit thread seems strongest on "if they are built using PC rules, they are a GMPC" which is at least the most easy to decide on,. even if no-one (I think) is arguing that in this thread.
I think everyone agree that a GMPC is-a NPC; just different people have different criteria over what makes it "more than" a regular NPC. The most common opinion seems to be "because they are built using PC rules".
If the GM's treating her NPCs differently than she is the PCs, there's a problem.I think Blue's is "the GM treats them differently"
I've nothing against NPCs having input to discussions etc. either as player or DM. That said, the trick as DM is to allow your party NPCs to make mistakes and come up with wrong or dumb suggestions roughly as often as the PCs do, to prevent the players/PCs from always looking to the NPC for the right answer or best idea.I'm not seeing much to decide the issue one way or another. Except that everyone hates a GMPC/NPC who tries to run the party. As they should.