Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8526522" data-attributes="member: 29398">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?).The DM should &quot;build the story&quot; without regard for which PCs or classes or species will be going through said story; and if the PCs can't* succeed at some elements then maybe the players need to think outside the box a bit and find some workarounds.* - &quot;can't&quot; is far too absolute.&nbsp; Better is &quot;less likely to&quot;, which means they still can but with greater difficulty.Advenruting NPCs are DMPCs and they're not a problem in the least IME.I'm used to big parties, but then again I'm not trying to run or play 5e.If the players wanted to play a face character then someone would play one.&nbsp; If they don't but still find that having one in the party is useful, this can be the self-inflicted result.That said, there's nothing wrong with allowing one or more players to do the talking on behalf of that &quot;face&quot; NPC, while you-as-DM talk for whoever the face is interacting with.In a realistic party I ought to be asking the same questions of the other PCs as well.&nbsp; PCs are allowed to be spies, or turncoats, or cowards, every bit as much as NPCs are....aren't they?Of course they become DMPCs.&nbsp; That's what adventuring NPCs are, and they're an accepted fact of life here.&nbsp; That said, as DMs we tend to try and pull them out if-when they look like they're getting too powerful, but on occasions doing so can be difficult because the PCs don't want to let them go; either due to their usefulness or due to their having become an integral part of the party unit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8526522, member: 29398"] 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?). The DM should "build the story" without regard for which PCs or classes or species will be going through said story; and if the PCs can't* succeed at some elements then maybe the players need to think outside the box a bit and find some workarounds. * - "can't" is far too absolute. Better is "less likely to", which means they still can but with greater difficulty. Advenruting NPCs [B]are[/B] DMPCs and they're not a problem in the least IME. I'm used to big parties, but then again I'm not trying to run or play 5e. 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. That said, there's nothing wrong with allowing one or more players to do the talking on behalf of that "face" NPC, while you-as-DM talk for whoever the face is interacting with. 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? Of course they become DMPCs. That's what adventuring NPCs are, and they're an accepted fact of life here. That said, as DMs we tend to try and pull them out if-when they look like they're getting too powerful, but on occasions doing so can be difficult because the PCs don't want to let them go; either due to their usefulness or due to their having become an integral part of the party unit. [/QUOTE]

Verification