D&D 5E The Quest to Reduce "Sameyness" (+)

[Paul Farquhar]

It has been a consistent problems in games I play and this is the reason why. If you have a DMPC and that character is a core part of the party for balance/mechanics reasons there are really only 2 ways to play it.

1. One is the DMPC makes no decisions at all. In this case it is not really a character, it is just a set of skills the party uses to cover gaps. It rubber stamps whatever the characters do and the characters can use it however they want more or less. The party decides what magic items he gets, the party decides where they go, what they do. The character is essentially a party familiar or a meat shield.

2. The other type is the DMPC that makes core decisions and they can't really be vetoed because they need the DMPC to play the game. This is what you are talking about in the quote above. A realistic, fleshed out character is going to have opinions and there is going to be friction between that character and other characters, just like there is between PCs. As a DM though if you are playing this out there is a huge power imbalance.

An NPC that is part of the story is different. They are not there to round out the party, they are there for story purposes.

The DMPC is an idiot, so the players always ignore what they suggest?

 

[ECMO3]

I disagree with this so much. If anything, more classes should be like the warlock, built to suit a certain thematic flavor, and the warlock itself should be built even uniquely suited to its theme, treating the pact as an ongoing mechanical consideration instead of essentially relegating it to backstory. Classes just being names given to a set of interchangeable mechanics makes me think people in favor of that might like a classless system better.

See I think the backstory should do most of the heavy lifting on that, with the class mostly being mechanics.

I think a classless system would be fine and preferable to rigidly defined classes without feats or options (like spell casting fighters). You could very easily have a set of features like hit dice, weapon proficiencies, spell casting, number of attacks, skill proficiencies. ....... and you select these at various levels from a menu based on a point system.

The main downside to that is it would make the game more complicated and less friendly to new players.

 

[ECMO3]

The DMPC is an idiot, so the players always ignore what they suggest?

They can't ignore what the DMPCs suggest if the mechanics are needed to do the things the party wants to do unless the character is essentially a slave to the PCs.

They can reason, bargain, bribe, argue etc, just like the actual PCs do, but they can't really ignore him.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They can't ignore what the DMPCs suggest if the mechanics are needed to do the things the party wants to do unless the character is essentially a slave to the PCs.

They can reason, bargain, bribe, argue etc, just like the actual PCs do, but they can't really ignore him.

Minion, sidekick, hireling, pet, bumbling employer, hapless rescuee. They can all be there to supply skills, and have personalities, and not have to be listened to by the players.

 

[ECMO3]

Or go the other way and find thematic issues that can connect each class to the character definition, and in so doing make each class a bit more unique (which is the point of this thread, right?).

I think this is old school. It is certainly how it was when I started playing, I think the game is different now and better for it.

If the players wanted to play a face character then someone would play one. If they don't but still find that having one in the party is useful, this can be the self-inflicted result.

So the game should be less fun because no one wants to play a face class?

Sure it is self inflicted, but it is so easily countered by forexample letting your Ranger take a subclass that adds his wisdom to charisma skills.

In a realistic party I ought to be asking the same questions of the other PCs as well. PCs are allowed to be spies, or turncoats, or cowards, every bit as much as NPCs are....aren't they?

Typically no. There is a social contract between players (not characters) in all games. Sometimes it is explicit, sometimes it is implicit, but it almost always includes things like you don't kill other PCs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So the game should be less fun because no one wants to play a face class?

In my experience, it was funny. We bumbled around annoying every NPC in the vicinity.

 

[ECMO3]

Minion, sidekick, hireling, pet, bumbling employer, hapless rescuee. They can all be there to supply skills, and have personalities, and not have to be listened to by the players.

Ok the cowardly sidekick who is the only one who can pick locks says he is not entering the dungeon in Tomb of Horrors. What does the party do?

They can't do anything because he is needed. They essentially have to listen to him because his skills are a central, core part of the party and one that is necessary for this particular part of the adventure.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok the cowardly sidekick who is the only one who can pick locks says he is not entering the dungeon in Tomb of Horrors. What does the party do?

They can't do anything because he is needed. They essentially have to listen to him because his skills are a central, core part of the party and one that is necessary for this particular part of the adventure.

This is why Charm Person exists.

(Although I would consider a it poor design if a door on the critical path could only be opened by a successful, non-repeatable lockpick check.)

 

[Lanefan]

It has been a consistent problems in games I play and this is the reason why. If you have a DMPC and that character is a core part of the party for balance/mechanics reasons there are really only 2 ways to play it.

1. One is the DMPC makes no decisions at all. In this case it is not really a character, it is just a set of skills the party uses to cover gaps. It rubber stamps whatever the characters do and the characters can use it however they want more or less. The party decides what magic items he gets, the party decides where they go, what they do. The character is essentially a party familiar or a meat shield.

2. The other type is the DMPC that makes core decisions and they can't really be vetoed because they need the DMPC to play the game. This is what you are talking about in the quote above. A realistic, fleshed out character is going to have opinions and there is going to be friction between that character and other characters, just like there is between PCs. As a DM though if you are playing this out there is a huge power imbalance.

There's a fairly big middle ground between your options 1 and 2 above; and yes DMPC decisions can (and sometimes should be!) vetoed, in that if the DM's doing it halfway right the DMPC will sometimes make a wrong decision or come up with a bad idea just like a PC would.

As both player and DM I'd never want them to be your option 1 above, and it won't be: the other party members see the NPC as every bit as much a party member as they are, and treat it as such. It gets a vote, it can claim treasure items just like any other character, and so on.

With option 2, just because an NPC belongs to the DM is no reason for it to have any greater voice in the party than anyone else.

As for there being occasional friction between the PCs and the NPCs, why not? There's also friendships, romances, rivalries, and all sorts of other interaction between PCs and in-party NPCs - why not friction and arguments as well.

An NPC that is part of the story is different. They are not there to round out the party, they are there for story purposes.

These are often the bigger headache as DM, in that you can't really just treat them like any other character and let 'em die if they're gonna die, as they're expected to survive until the key moment when they are needed for the story.

Also, if that story-based NPC is there for a nefarious reason it can be useful to have had other NPCs come and go as well such that this one doesn't seem out of place.

 

[Lanefan]

They can't ignore what the DMPCs suggest if the mechanics are needed to do the things the party wants to do unless the character is essentially a slave to the PCs.

They can reason, bargain, bribe, argue etc, just like the actual PCs do, but they can't really ignore him.

Why not?

Let's say the NPC is the party's only Thief. Why can't the other PCs ignore him when it comes to non-Thieving-related matters, just like they ignore the PC Wizard when it comes to melee-combat-related matters?

So if the NPC Thief says at a junction "Hey, let's go this way - I can just smell the treasure down there!" the rest of the party can ignore him and decide to go the other way, toward the castle dungeon in which is the person they've been sent to rescue.