[/QUOTE]
takyris said:
Okay, were you just bringing that up for anecdotal purposes, or were you bringing up what you do and what would cause you to leave a game as an attempt to argue that having a DMPC is wrong?
I was bringing it up as an example of how i do things as related to this discussion. i find actual "this is what I do" examples to often be useful in clarifying things, as long as others dont suddenly jump in and argue as if you had said "everyone does this."
takyris said:
I'm emotionally invested in the DMPC, more so than I am in an ordinary NPC, of course, but I'm also emotionally vested in the other PCs.
I am not emotionally invested in any of my NPCs. My job is to get the PCs/players emotionally invested in them, not me.
takyris said:
I'm just as annoyed at having to kill PCs in some stupid meaningless random encounter
I'm generally against anything that can be described as stupid or meaningless playting a significant role in my games.... generally.
takyris said:
That statement, while true, doesn't really give me much to work with as far as understanding your position. Yeah, the player is on the other side of the screen. He doesn't roll for the monsters. I get that.
the player's job is to run his character, have fun, and be a good player in terms of the usual social notions.
The GMs job is to provide a world, a setting, characters, stories, challenges et al which put the characters into the "hero", star or protagonist roles giving these particular characters screentime, relevence and hopefully personal stakes in the ongoing story so their stories can come out in play.
As GM my focus is "the PCs" and "the players". ie my goal is the other guys.
As Player, my focus is me and my character, except as to the basic dont be offensive to others social concerns.
Two totally different job descriptions.
hope thats clearer.
takyris said:
So, in your mind, what's the difference?
an NPC is not someone the GM needs to give screen time to. if he gets screen time, thats cool. if he doesn't, thats cool too. An NPC doesn't need to have stories that focus on him, doesn't need to have personal conflicts, and so forth that play out over time (though these could be introduced as if to launch such if they are really about the PCs.) He doesn't need to be the "star" of any episode or scene ever. An NPC will likely as not ever see a scene in which he is acting (roleplaying the scene out) with no PCs present, but instead will simply come back later and have what happened described.
A supporting PC, as a PC, does get these things. he should get screen time reguarly, he should have his stories told, he should be on occasion in scenes alone like the other PCs if such exist at all in the campaign and he should see those played out just as much and not summarized later so as not to waste time.
A PC, even a supporting one, is someone the story is about.
An NPC is someone in the story.
takyris said:
I don't know if you watched Buffy, but I'd be curious as to which characters you felt would be PCs if that were a campaign.
if that were a campaign, of course it wasn't so one could say everyone was an NPC, i would list Buffy, Giles, Zander, Willow, Tara, Cordelia, Spike, Angel and Dawn (hope i got them all) as PCs.
takyris said:
And since you've neatly divided the world up into PC and NPC and refused to admit that DMPCs exist in this paragraph, there's no room for a third area, like, "Character who is with the party and will not be simply dismissed like a henchman, who is not tied to another character like a cohort, who is allowed to voice opinions but does not do so in such a way as to force the group down a specific path, and who is essentially played like a PC by the DM, with the understanding that the DM will not abuse this."
Well, when describing the difference between A and B, in this case NPC and PC, invoking C isn't always helpful. I acknowledge DMPCs exist, but feel that they are almost always bad.
Now, understand, what you are describing above is an NPC in my eyes. I expect and get NPCs who are treated like "real people", like characters and not like pieces of equipment on someone's character sheet as a matter of course.
It feels like your definitions run akin to this...
NPC = scenery with feet, equipment with feet, part of a "real" character, no one pays attention to or cares about.
DMPC = NPC thats interacted with or felt like an actual character/person.
PC = character played by someone at the table.
if i am wrong, let me know, but it is like your break point between DMPC and NPC is "what do the players think about that character?"
if so, what you are describing as a DMPC is what I call an NPC pure and simple. I want my NPCs to be considered as people, not just equipment or henchmen.
as i stated earlier, a DMPC as i understand it or define it is a character the GM thinks of as "my character" and someone he is emotionally invested in. this is a "problem" in my experience because suddenly the Gm is splitting his focus and his job between doing all those things he does for the PCs and also doing those things for his PC.
takyris said:
That's probably fair. For me, the difference is that I still control her in combat, and she gets a share of the experience, like anyone else.
I run all my NPCs in combat (unless its a busy combat and i sluff off some guys to players, which is rare but does happen) and NPCs never "get a share of experience." I consider getting assistance or making allies willing enough to help as one means of "beating the challenge" and don't feel the party should be reduced in awards for such play.
takyris said:
Because I'm also the DM, I try to be as undemanding a player as possible, so I'm not demanding about treasure or spotlight time. The advantage I have, of course, is that I can come up with whatever background story I want for her and not worrying about the DM not approving of the story. And I can have as much spotlight or solo time as I want -- it just happens purely in my head.
uh... ok?!?! Well, ignoring whatever goes on when you are alone with yourself in your head for the moment, if your DMPC doesn't get screen time considerations, doesn't get solo notions and such in play, and so forth, then you are describing an NPC.
Again, your breakdown seems to fall more in line of what i would describe as "typical NPC", "badly played NPC or throwaways", and "PC".
takyris said:
Except that we haven't gotten "a problem more than not" from this thread. We've gotten multiple people saying "Can be good, can be bad," some people saying, "I've had bad experiences," some people saying, "I've had good experiences," and a few smart folks saying, "Probably like anything else, a few notoriously lousy cases have made everyone leery of the idea, but it's not actually a problem most of hte time."
and my experience differs.
however, part of this may be simply that the term DMPC, as used here at least by you if not others, is actually what i call "a typical NPC." It is common in my games for NPCs to be cared about by the PCs, to be working with them, even adventuring with them, sometimes for long periods of time.
Example: My stargate game has a six man team, four PCs and two NPCs. The two NPCs are with them all on most missions and interact with them routinely. The NPCs have backstories and some of those issues are being unveiled as the campaign progresses, typically in such a way as to spotlight one of the PCs. The NPCs make suggestions, sometimes refuse to do things or act "against orders" and so forth as their "nature" requires. repeating for emphasis: they are part of the team and have gone on almost every "mission" with the PCs.
those two are NPCs, not "my characters."
its not uncommon for entire sessions to go by without them "doing anything." Sometimes they have not even been involved in a scene of note during the run, maybe only getting a summary of what went on with them. certainly its not common but infrequent, but it happens.
I would NEVER EVER run a session in which a player at the tabel had the same happen to him, where he sat for the run and saw his character not participate in a scene of note.
These NPCs, like the base commander, like the alien seke studying the humans, like the oannes fish guy living in the nearby ocean, are all treated like characters, not as someone's equipment, someone's henchman, or a part of someone's character.
they are all NPCs.
takyris said:
So I'm describing an NPC who gets an equal share of the treasure and XP, won't get dismissed at the end of the adventure like a hired henchman, isn't tied to one character like a cohort, and is treated by all the PCs exactly like one of their own.
you are simply describing an NPC run well in a group of good roleplayers. IMX, thats what i expect from my players.
Exception on the Xp share thing. I don't penalize my players for using social skills to bring in allies as one choice of "how to beat the challenge."
You are not describing a DM's PC.
takyris said:
Realistically, the last line. It's how the other PCs treated her that made the difference. They weren't thinking "Bob's cohort" or "Our hired henchman". They were thinking of the DMPC as a member of the team, as much so as any of the PCs.
Again, in my parlance, thats just an NPC.
An NPC "who is treated as a real character" by the PLAYERS characters is not a problem in my experience, its the expected norm in my games. if that is what you call a DMPC, then thats not a problem, IMX. An NPC whi is treated as scenery or part of my equipment or part of my character by the players is also an NPC in my games, though an example of a bad one or bad roleplaying.
A DMPC which is described by, and thought of by, the GM as "my character", who the Gm has a personal interest in, who the Gm feels deserves his own screen time and stories... that is a problem in my experience.
takyris said:
We may be having an extended argument over semantics, here.
No, just totally different definitions of what a DMPC is.
your DMPC = my typical NPC, except for penalizing the players xp if they avail themselves of the NPC/DMPC.
