D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[Shasarak]

Indeed, up to BECMI, roughly 80% of XP came from treasure, and only 20% from defeating (which doesn't mean necessarily killing) monsters. In 2e the XP guidelines were rather fluid, and the DM could decide for what to award XP besides defeating monsters. The source of XPs, if stated upfront by the DM, definitely informs the way the game is played.

And the whole structure of DnD has evolved from Wargaming so there is that to consider as well.

I guess it really depends on where and how you picked it up how combat-centric it may appear to you personally

 

[ExploderWizard]

That highlights a difference between RL heroism, which is so often posthumous, and fictional heroism. D&D is primarily inspired by fictional heroism, being a fantasy RPG and all.

The superhero genre is a thing unto itself. Not all fantasy gaming has to resemble a thin veneer of hobbits and wizards overlaying a core of tights and capes. It is certainly one way to approach the game but D&D certainly didn't start there nor should it live only there. Groups that love playing superheroes in a fantasy world can play that way and those that don't can play another way.

None of that changes the fact that heroism is expressed by who you are rather than what you can do. Superman isn't a hero because he is super strong, can fly, use frost breath, and shoot laser beams from his eyes. He is a hero because he decides to use his gifts to help people. As the presence of other Kryptonians shows clearly, one can have all those powers and still be a complete dirtbag.

I enjoy that the game has enough flexibility to include so many different play styles.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is sort of a false attack on the DMPC, since all characters are typically mary-sues. There are many people who outright state they have no interest in playing anything other than themselves in a D&D (or other RPG) fantasy. I don't blame them. We all live typically mundane lives in a mundane world where we eat, sleep, work and then we die. So when we step into a D&D (or other RPG game) we want to do all the things we can't do IRL: sling spells, call upon the gods, clash swords with demons and typically people want to be pretend it's them doing all this, even if their character is called Rastlin or Tanis or Tasselhoff: David Tasslehoff.

Sure, the DMPC creates problems when they're doing things the rules typically wouldn't allow the players to do, or things that don't exist in the rules at all. I've played with those people. I'm still playing with some of those DMs and it is annoying. The idea that bad gaming is always worse than no gaming is completely untrue since it's not a black-and-white experience.

Playing a 5/10 game can still be more enjoyable than playing no D&D at all for 5 years. Turn that around and then only get to be DM for another 5 years. Eventually, you're so desperate to play you'll take that 5/10 game with the bad mary-sue DMPC and the weird furry overtones.

A DMPC can be just fine as long as they stick to the rules. Sure, they're probably going to plot-device it up a bit, but provided that beating the bad guy doesn't rely on the DMPC being the chosen one, who cares? If you're concerned about "rulings" then just don't do a lot of things that require new rulings. It's not hard to do. If you do, use them as examples for other players do follow. "Hey I used *special skill* to jump across the cavern, it worked for me so it will work for you!". Apply your rulings fairly and your DMPC will die when other PCs die, and your PCs will get to do cool stuff the same way your DMPC does.

Sorry this is really just a pet peeve for me because I often DMPC and I make a concerted effort to behave. Because I want to play far more than I want to DM and I haven't played in long enough that I'm only a hair's breadth away from playing in that game with the weird furry overtones and the mismatched-eyes and striped-socks DMPC. But DMing seems to be the only way I get to ensure the quality of the games I'm in and NO, DMing is not a substitute for playing, it DOESNT satisfy the desire to play and it's fun and rewarding in a completely DIFFERENT way.

DMing is not playing. It never will be. One is not a replacement for the other.

I'm not particularly against the DMPC. I use one more often than not, and during 4E I almost always used one if the party had less than six players. 4E really lent itself to running one more than other editions, minimizing most of the usual problems though slowing combat down a bit.

I've found there are a few general rules:

1. The DMPC does not take part in party decision making
2. The DMPC does not speak to NPCs
(These two make it generally helpful to create a character with an antisocial personality)
3. The DMPC has few if any problem solving noncombat abilities, and if they do those abilities are put into the hands of one of the players
4. The DMPC shouldn't have a big impact on the story, compared to the PCs

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not particularly against the DMPC. I use one more often than not, and during 4E I almost always used one if the party had less than six players. 4E really lent itself to running one more than other editions, minimizing most of the usual problems though slowing combat down a bit.

I've found there are a few general rules:

1. The DMPC does not take part in party decision making
2. The DMPC does not speak to NPCs
(These two make it generally helpful to create a character with an antisocial personality)
3. The DMPC has few if any problem solving noncombat abilities, and if they do those abilities are put into the hands of one of the players
4. The DMPC shouldn't have a big impact on the story, compared to the PCs

Then why not simply tell your players to run an extra character, because to me these sound like you're not actually participating.
1: Then give your players a pet with no brain and let them run it. As a player I will typically go along with party decisions and this holds true for a DMPC. But I'm not going to do nothing while they're planning. I will typically remind them of the goals of certain quests we've been given and I do this just as much as a player, maybe point out which are closer or drop hints on which might be easier for the party to accomplish.
-If you're going to participate, DO IT, if you're not, DON'T. Don't sit on the fence and "play" but not really "play".
2: This tends to mostly be for sanity's sake than anything else. I have no interest in carrying on a conversation with myself. This is more easily resolved by having the NPC not want to talk to the DMPC, rather than the other way around. If you're going to be anti-social, the party is going to beg the question of why they're putting up with you. It also refers back to my previous point: Do, or Do Not. Don't half-ass.
3: If you're not going to play, DONT PLAY. A DMPC who asked me to roll for his skill checks would be ten times as annoying as an under-staffed party.
4: The DMPC shouldn't be the chosen one, but he shouldn't be irrelevant either.

To me your "rules" read like: well the DMPC shouldn't really contribute to the party or the game other than be hired muscle. In which case, why the bleeping bleep did you bother to make it and play it? Why are you wasting the party's time by not participating? If you want the party to have hired muscle: create a band of mercenaries who will work for the party for pay. Let the players run the hired help.

I'm not going to waste my time running NPC "hired help". That's not playing. The whole point of the DMPC is to allow the DM to get in a little play time, especially for DMs who are almost permanently DMs.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Can you expand on that? The 5e base, to me, is more robust than 1e & 2e, and at least on par with 3e and maybe slightly behind 4e IMHO. But I guess depends on what you mean by base. But in terms of content in the core 3, what I would call the base, 5e is very robust.

I more or less agree with you in terms of being robust, but it's not the only consideration. When I say base I mean the core of a game in a general sense where if you're customizing its what you build your game on top of and don't really change. It kind of goes back to my main complaints with 5E, the lack of PC customization, bounded accuracy making the game too random, and the base combat engine being IMO a good deal worse than previous editions.

 

[Rhenny]

If a player did that in one of my sessions he would be out for good! As a player I prefer RP/exploration to combat, but as a DM I try to ensure a session is as evenly balanced as possible, so that everyone gets a chance to do something they most enjoy. If one player left during the bits he/she didn't like then I'd see that as extremely rude, intolerant, and disrespectful towards everyone else in the game. The same goes for people who switch off and play with phones/laptops etc when it is not their turn.

You play all of it, or none at all.

(The only acceptable exception imho is if the party is split, and are having to resolve sections independent from one another)

I have been thinking about booting him, but nobody else really cares if he is there or not so I'll let it ride for now. The other people in the group make up for his lack of creativity and we kind of "get" it.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry this is really just a pet peeve for me because I often DMPC and I make a concerted effort to behave. Because I want to play far more than I want to DM and I haven't played in long enough that I'm only a hair's breadth away from playing in that game with the weird furry overtones and the mismatched-eyes and striped-socks DMPC. But DMing seems to be the only way I get to ensure the quality of the games I'm in and NO, DMing is not a substitute for playing, it DOESNT satisfy the desire to play and it's fun and rewarding in a completely DIFFERENT way.

DMing is not playing. It never will be. One is not a replacement for the other.

I don't think I could self police life that. I'm a drama queen, I tend to draw the spotlight, a DMPC would be a bad fit for me. But yes, they are different things.

I'm not particularly against the DMPC. I use one more often than not, and during 4E I almost always used one if the party had less than six players. 4E really lent itself to running one more than other editions, minimizing most of the usual problems though slowing combat down a bit.

I've found there are a few general rules:

1. The DMPC does not take part in party decision making
2. The DMPC does not speak to NPCs
(These two make it generally helpful to create a character with an antisocial personality)
3. The DMPC has few if any problem solving noncombat abilities, and if they do those abilities are put into the hands of one of the players
4. The DMPC shouldn't have a big impact on the story, compared to the PCs

Those are good rules, too bad 1,2 and 3, is more or less the kind of things I like to do. I prefer to be a sidekick so 4 is no issue, but most of the time I find combat the least interesting part of the game. Thanks for proposing this, I find this a more likely solution than everything else before.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think I could self police life that. I'm a drama queen, I tend to draw the spotlight, a DMPC would be a bad fit for me. But yes, they are different things.

Sure, if you can't self-police, then at least you can recognize that about yourself. That's good.

My DMPCs are always just my excuse to get in a little play time, and aid the party. So they're a normal PC, who helps the DM drop hints in game about important events, locations or other NPCs. My party is pretty smart, so I rarely need to do the latter anyway.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Then why not simply tell your players to run an extra character, because to me these sound like you're not actually participating.
1: Then give your players a pet with no brain and let them run it. As a player I will typically go along with party decisions and this holds true for a DMPC. But I'm not going to do nothing while they're planning. I will typically remind them of the goals of certain quests we've been given and I do this just as much as a player, maybe point out which are closer or drop hints on which might be easier for the party to accomplish.
-If you're going to participate, DO IT, if you're not, DON'T. Don't sit on the fence and "play" but not really "play".
2: This tends to mostly be for sanity's sake than anything else. I have no interest in carrying on a conversation with myself. This is more easily resolved by having the NPC not want to talk to the DMPC, rather than the other way around. If you're going to be anti-social, the party is going to beg the question of why they're putting up with you. It also refers back to my previous point: Do, or Do Not. Don't half-ass.
3: If you're not going to play, DONT PLAY. A DMPC who asked me to roll for his skill checks would be ten times as annoying as an under-staffed party.
4: The DMPC shouldn't be the chosen one, but he shouldn't be irrelevant either.

To me your "rules" read like: well the DMPC shouldn't really contribute to the party or the game other than be hired muscle. In which case, why the bleeping bleep did you bother to make it and play it? Why are you wasting the party's time by not participating? If you want the party to have hired muscle: create a band of mercenaries who will work for the party for pay. Let the players run the hired help.

I'm not going to waste my time running NPC "hired help". That's not playing. The whole point of the DMPC is to allow the DM to get in a little play time, especially for DMs who are almost permanently DMs.

It kind of depends on what you enjoy playing. I enjoy playing the brooding antihero, and I found that this sort of character makes for a very unintrusive DMPC. You aren't a big part of decision making because you don't care, and you aren't really social with strangers but can still be someone your friends can count on. There are others as well, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of characters with a traumatic past they are still struggling with, for example. I find the most effective DMPCs are very introverted. Rolling skills is something I'll do personally with a DMPC, but things like utility magic end up you playing the game for your players. Personally, I'd try to avoid making a DMPC with utility magic in the first place, but if was necessary(the players want it in the party but nobody wants to play that character), I'd put the use of utility magic in somebody else's hands.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sure, if you can't self-police, then at least you can recognize that about yourself. That's good.

My DMPCs are always just my excuse to get in a little play time, and aid the party. So they're a normal PC, who helps the DM drop hints in game about important events, locations or other NPCs. My party is pretty smart, so I rarely need to do the latter anyway.

I find a decent portion of the game to be the PCs being social with each other in game, and a DMPC gives me a seat at that table. They're also useful in moderation in getting the game unstuck. If you are helpful, don't hog the spotlight, and have an interesting personality players don't have too many problems with it.