My DM, co-player conundrum
- Thread starter scruffygrognard
- Start date
[Rant]
I have had similar problems myself. DMPC + DMGirlfriend at the same time is about the worst that I have seen and I didn't stay in that group for long.
Reasoning with this types of DMs/Players is usually not very effective since they see that they have done all the hard work to build a campaign. Now the players are running everywhere without a clue as to what they are supposed to be doing. So here comes the DMPC with all the cool moves, good ideas, story hooks, equipment and stats that just blow your mind away. He wants to lead the party trough the adventures he has personally prepared for you, but he won't let a bunch of ignorant players run amock in his world. No, he wants to enjoy every last minute of that fantastic game he created!
I don't use DMPCs because they are a huge power trip and an even greater temptation to lead the characters by the nose trough the entire campaign. Whether or not the actual players are enjoying themselves is a secondary concern. The DM is having a good time.
[/Rant]
I have had similar problems myself. DMPC + DMGirlfriend at the same time is about the worst that I have seen and I didn't stay in that group for long.
Reasoning with this types of DMs/Players is usually not very effective since they see that they have done all the hard work to build a campaign. Now the players are running everywhere without a clue as to what they are supposed to be doing. So here comes the DMPC with all the cool moves, good ideas, story hooks, equipment and stats that just blow your mind away. He wants to lead the party trough the adventures he has personally prepared for you, but he won't let a bunch of ignorant players run amock in his world. No, he wants to enjoy every last minute of that fantastic game he created!
I don't use DMPCs because they are a huge power trip and an even greater temptation to lead the characters by the nose trough the entire campaign. Whether or not the actual players are enjoying themselves is a secondary concern. The DM is having a good time.
[/Rant]
Last edited:
The_Gneech
Explorer
I would just like to comment here that the "GM PC" is not always a bad thing; in my own games, I've had NPCs that were intended as one-time support join the party permanently by popular demand. The key to doing one successfully is to remember that the players are the stars of the show, and the GM PC is a support character. Clerics, monks, and bards are particularly well suited as GM PCs; anybody who's likeable but not prone to taking the role of hero is a good candidate.
-The Gneech
-The Gneech
Gneech - sure, I agree with you. But these work best when they're NPCs, not "GM PCs", IMO. The GM needs to maintain a detachment from the party. If I have PC-like NPCs with the party I usually try to ensure they're a bit weaker than the PCs, so they're not hogging the glory. And I don't use "GM PCs" who I identify with, track XP of, and treat as "my" character.
just__al
First Post
This is clearly my biggest flaw as a DM and one I've Vowed to never do again.
I did OK the last game I ran. There was a NPC who was 3 levels higher than the Party's paladin who randomly showed up to try to recruit the Paladin into his order (and spiffy prestiege class) and two local rangers from the city the party was trying to defend. They were actually of equal level to the party but their knowlege of the local area and wilderninja skills made them at times very, very valuable to the party. Other than that, they were on their own.
It's my goal for the next campaign to not introduce any NPC's that tag along with the party unless they specifically seek one out and convince them to join.
It's all a throwback to 2e where I needed someone to pull the party's ass out of the fire when I misjudged the challenge of an encounter.
I did OK the last game I ran. There was a NPC who was 3 levels higher than the Party's paladin who randomly showed up to try to recruit the Paladin into his order (and spiffy prestiege class) and two local rangers from the city the party was trying to defend. They were actually of equal level to the party but their knowlege of the local area and wilderninja skills made them at times very, very valuable to the party. Other than that, they were on their own.
It's my goal for the next campaign to not introduce any NPC's that tag along with the party unless they specifically seek one out and convince them to join.
It's all a throwback to 2e where I needed someone to pull the party's ass out of the fire when I misjudged the challenge of an encounter.
Sage
Explorer
So you've tried to deal with it OOC, why don't you deal wiht it IC?
Aouthority members of groups tend to be annoying anyway if they aren't diplomatic enough. Have the rest of the group kick the NPC out of their party unless he conforms to something better.
I realize that this probably doesn't solve your problem completely, and I personally like the nickname idea much better, but maybe it's worth a shot.
Sage
b.t.w. Telperion, thanks for the [RANT] header so that I could just skip your post ;D
Aouthority members of groups tend to be annoying anyway if they aren't diplomatic enough. Have the rest of the group kick the NPC out of their party unless he conforms to something better.
I realize that this probably doesn't solve your problem completely, and I personally like the nickname idea much better, but maybe it's worth a shot.
Sage
b.t.w. Telperion, thanks for the [RANT] header so that I could just skip your post ;D
Last edited:
I have been running a campaign for the last 2 years and there have been multiple NPCs tagging along with the party at various times. But none that I considered my PCs. They were little more than an afterthought. They had their support role, and if the party wanted them to stay, they stayed, if not, they left. There has been one NPC Cleric who has been with the party from the beginning. He is very non-descript and typical of any NPC cleric of his level. I could probably take the example NPC out of the DMG for his level and this particular Cleric in my campaign would be so similar it would be eerie.
The party members have always insisted he stay. I admit that I have found myself bothered by continually having to monitor him throughout the campaign. But after 2 years and 13 levels, the party is loyal to him and vice versa. I do find that whenever the party is lost and at a crossroads in the plot, a couple of players try their best to find out what the Cleric thinks they should do, as if maybe I will slip up and use the Cleric as a plot device or try to steer them in the right direction. 99% of the time he shrugs noncommitally and asks them what they think.
He died twice and both times the PCs did not hesitate to have him raised and brought back into the group. (I even attempted to suicide him once about a year ago when I believed it was necessary to aid me in speeding up my game management. I vowed never to do it again, unless it was for good roleplaying reasons, not for metagame reasons.)
The bottom line IMO is that it is ultimately about the players. The GMs role should be that of referee or mediator and to keep the game going. Everyone should have a good time, as it is a game. The Gm already has the attention and spotlight in normal circumstances, and should not seek to steal the glory and thunder from the players. If the GM is spending his best efforts on a PC he controls in his own game, the game is probably suffering in many other areas from his lack of focus.
The party members have always insisted he stay. I admit that I have found myself bothered by continually having to monitor him throughout the campaign. But after 2 years and 13 levels, the party is loyal to him and vice versa. I do find that whenever the party is lost and at a crossroads in the plot, a couple of players try their best to find out what the Cleric thinks they should do, as if maybe I will slip up and use the Cleric as a plot device or try to steer them in the right direction. 99% of the time he shrugs noncommitally and asks them what they think.
He died twice and both times the PCs did not hesitate to have him raised and brought back into the group. (I even attempted to suicide him once about a year ago when I believed it was necessary to aid me in speeding up my game management. I vowed never to do it again, unless it was for good roleplaying reasons, not for metagame reasons.)
The bottom line IMO is that it is ultimately about the players. The GMs role should be that of referee or mediator and to keep the game going. Everyone should have a good time, as it is a game. The Gm already has the attention and spotlight in normal circumstances, and should not seek to steal the glory and thunder from the players. If the GM is spending his best efforts on a PC he controls in his own game, the game is probably suffering in many other areas from his lack of focus.
Whnever I have npcs join a PC party, I give them the npc's character sheet. They have full knowledge of the character's abilities, stats and items. If they are a spellcaster, they usually will pick out his/her spells, or at least make recomendations on the matter. The PC is usually LG, meaning they can trust the npc's word and he will always work for the betterment of the group. (LG does not mean an alignment bully or know-it-all.)
By having a character join in this way, the character becomes more of a group PC. Also, if any of the PC's die, this is a quick replacement until a new character is created. In addition, this is a great way to introduce new races and PrCs.
By having a character join in this way, the character becomes more of a group PC. Also, if any of the PC's die, this is a quick replacement until a new character is created. In addition, this is a great way to introduce new races and PrCs.
MarauderX
Explorer
I am used to running mass NPCs. Why? Deaths of these NPCs instill a bit of fear into the players, whether they should keep moving, get out of the way, or if a NPC made a bad decision that a player might have made. I don't run any NPCs that stay with the group right now, as the players arranged to try to cover all the classes with their characters. With 5 players there is no need for NPCs. In other groups of 3 players I have put an NPC into place whose name they would remember then have them killed 3-6 sessions later once they got used to them being there and not calling the NPC 'redshirt'.
Similar Threads
