Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6756239">"Adventuring NPCs" and by extension, DMpcs are fine...to a degree and in the right places.  DMPCs are fine when there's a more cooperatively created world, when there's not "hard DM" and everyone gets a turn at creating some part of the material and guiding the players through the world, because everyone is a player at the same time that everyone is a DM.  I find hard DMPCs and lesser adventuring PCs are also acceptable when the party is small (~2 players) and when the DM plays that character either A: as a Gandalf, and B: to not personally outshine everyone else.But otherwise I agree that anything NPC-wise should be in short lived events with the party and that long-term NPCs should be treated like full on characters.  Just because you hired them doesn't mean they're you're slave.  I find separate initiative helps with this, Bob the player may get two turns, but dividing up the actions of his primary and secondary NPC helps distinguish them as unique individuals.But generally when there's a full table(4+ people), I have enough things to that I have no interest in playing (even if I REALLY like the game) a full-bodied PC.Actually, this subject is one of my particular gripes with OoTA.  The fact that the NPCs are supposed to last you through a long portion of the game annoys the doop out of me.  As a DM, I am already not fond of published campaigns, the last thing I want to do is have to run a dozen big personalities at the same time.  As a player, my experience was incredibly un-fun, since due to some bad rolls my own character died and I've been stuck playing one of the NPCs (the dwarf) who has all the personality of a rock.  We're in the underdark, so it's not like a new, non-drow can just "show up" and join the party.</blockquote>

Verification