My DM, co-player conundrum

[scruffygrognard]

Here's the dilemna,

One member of our rpg group insists on running (N)PCs in the games he GMs, despite the fact that we have enough players in our group and, as such, don't need his "extra help." Several members of our group have expressed to him that they'd rather he not run a character (especially because he tend to play paladins and authority-types) but he doesn't seem to get the point.

Recently this same group member proposed starting up a DC Heroes game in which he would run a "Batman-esque" character and I opposed him in this decision. He feels that I am unfairly persecuting him but I feel that he repeatly ignores the wishes of his players and is taking advantage of our collective non-confrontation nature. At this point he claims that he is dropping out of our group (trying to make me into the bad guy in the process).

Have any of you had a similar problem and, if so, how have you resolved it?

Thanks is advance for your advice...

 

[Morpheus]

Wish him luck and get on with your gaming...

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Well, if several members of your group have expressed to him that they'd rather he not run a character, then I don't think his "I'm leaving the group and it's all his fault!" schtick will carry him very far.

We've never had a problem with GMPCs, but we have had problems with GMs who would rather be playing (which is what this sounds like, to be honest); we resolved it with a "bribe game," in which someone else runs a game that the player-wannabe is interested in playing, so they're not just GMing all the time. In our case, it's so the GM will be happy and won't burn out on running a game so quickly, but I imagine it might work for you guys, too.

Unless the real reason he's so interested in running a GMPC is because he likes the power trip that goes along with running a favorite PC for yourself and making sure you get to do all the cool things and get all the cool stuff.

--
which might very well be the case; if so, losing him will be a good thing
ryan

 

[scourger]

I have found many times that when a DM is running a recurrent NPC then the DM is really playing too. I have done this myself in the past. It is better, in my opinion, to focus on one role or the other: DM or player. So, I no longer run recurring NPCs who are allied with the party. The story focuses on the PCs, not the NPCs. I let the players decide what the NPC allies do. Sometimes, the NPCs do suicidal things; but who cares?! Everyone had fun and the story moved along.

It sounds as if your DM really wants to play, too. Stick to your guns and see if he backs down. Maybe he'll relent. Maybe he needs to play while someone else in the group DMs (without running a character). The advice of the "bribe" game sounds good for this goal. Otherwise, here's a trick I used recently. I nicknamed an entire campaign after an NPC who had been dominating the party. The DM got the hint, and the NPC is not the center of attention at the moment.

 

[Piratecat]

It might help to ask him if he can have fun DMing without playing a character as well. Learning that might be the first step to easing him away from his NPCs.

 

[scruffygrognard]

We play in a number of other campaigns where he plays rather than DMs. Members of out group are willing to run any game he'd like to play/DM... but he insists playing characters whenever he runs a game (wherein lies the problem). Rather than allow others to take up the reigns so that he can play, he gets offended that he can't do both.

Thanks for the advice so far....

 

[Len]

Why is it that you don't like your DM to play a character? Is it:
1. he always tries to be the party leader?
2. he tries to grab the limelight away from the player characters?
3. he would rather be a player than a DM?
4. you don't think a DM should have an NPC in the party?

If 1 or 2, that's a problem because the DM is already the main power in the game, and he has to leave room for the players to show off. If he's the type of person who just can't bear to let anyone else be the centre of attention then I don't know what you can do other than find a different DM.

If 3, then you should find another DM, but at least he could stay in the group as a player. (But I know it can be hard to find a good DM.)

If 4, then I think it's more your problem than his. Would you feel OK if he played a cohort-type NPC that had a distinctive character but didn't take a leadership role in the party? Maybe you can agree on some guidelines for party NPCs.

Here's my experience in the matter:

My DM has run party NPCs quite successfully. They've been interesting characters (annoying, even ), but they don't try to tell the party what to do. We players all think this is an enjoyable aspect of the game. (Plus we'd never have a wizard or cleric if it wasn't for NPCs!) The last party NPC has become a cohort so he's now run by a player.

One of the players in my group runs an alternate campaign when the main DM can't make it. He has also run NPCs that were sort of in the party, but again they don't take over from the PCs. In other words, he plays an NPC differently from how he plays a PC.

So, in my experience, party NPCs can be great fun as long as the DM keeps them in a subsidiary role. If you can get your DM to do that, there should be no problem.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

In the game were I am a player, the DM runs a regular party member as an NPC. It has rarely been a problem, as he tends to keep him out of the roleplaying as much as possible. On the occasions that the NPC has been used as a Deus ex machina, we have teased him mercilessly. We also "notice" when he gets good d20 rolls, and tease him that his ability scores are better than ours - but it's all in good fun.

So I would ask you to ask yourselves: "Why do I have a problem with this?"

I know you said that several of you have spoken with your DM about this, but perhaps you need to do so again, this time doing a better job in expalining to him exactly WHY you have a problem with it.

I know if I came to my DM and said:

"You know Bob, we really appreciate that you spend so much time and energy preparing for and running our game. We are really enjoying ourselves, but feel that the NPC you are running sometimes overshadows our characters roleplaying efforts. As you know, the group is well balanced enough so that your NPC is not really needed, and you have plenty enough to do running all the monsters, NPC's, and everything else. We'd like to give our characters more of a chance to shine, by having more time in the spotlight. Do you think we can give it a go without the Paladin for a while and see if it works out?

He would go for it.

That said, it would be funny if in one of the games where he is a player, the GM ran an NPC that was such an over the top attention hog ( in terms of game time ) that he couldn't fail to get the message. But that would be a much less "mature" way to handle things.

Goodluck & make sure you are having fun. If you aren't - don't play! Life is too short for that!

 

[rushlight]

As a DM, I've usually got my hands full playing every other person in the world. I can't see why I'd want to add another NPC with the party just to steal some of their thunder too.

That's not to say there aren't NPCs in the party - there have been. They were played by other players. There was a bit of DM "supervision" though. The NPC thief isn't going to go into the Temple of Death and Destruction alone, find and defeat all the traps, backstab the monsters, and give an "all's clear" signal for the party to come in and clean up all the loot. But he will do his thiefly duties as long as the party is there to support him with backup power and healing. There aren't any suicidal NPCs in my world, unless they were designed (by me) to be that way.

I once got into quite an argument with a player who decided that - although the NPCs did a quarter of the work and took a quarter of the risk - they should not get any of the treasure "because they weren't players". I tried pointing out that, from the game world perspective this arguement holds no weight. They are people (in game terms) just as the players were people (in game terms) and they had all agreed beforehand to split things evenly. He didn't see it that way, and felt the the NPCs were there basically as meat shields for his PC, and they deserved no recompence for their efforts. In this case, I did take over the NPCs - since the player was way out of line. Eventually, things were resolved (mainly because the rest of the players agreed with me, and he had to back down or quit).

 

[jollyninja]

i have played in games where the dm seemed to want his pet npc to outshine all. i just left. took me a few years of frustration and sarcastic remarks about how useless my level 12 characters were. "why would i bother to go out there, (enter the specific campaign's overpowered npc) can go take care of the horde himself i'm sure." never seemed to sink in that it bothered the players that no matter how powerful they got, his pet npc would be better equiped and get all the glory.

as a dm i try to use tagalongs as little as possible, if the party hires a guy, i'll run him, if they take a prisoner and use his skills or convert him to good, i'll run him. other then that, nope. i derive no sense of accomplishment from the tagalongs doing well.