Greetings!
Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.
I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.
Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.
But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.
In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?
What do you all think, my friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
We do it all the time. I see nothing wrong with it. I don't recall anybody I ever played with objecting to it.
It's not an inherently bad practice, it's just something that bad DMs can really shit the bed with.
As always, it depends what is meant by the term. Technically all NPCs are DMNPCs. As for NPCs traveling with the party, nobody seems to have an issue with henchmen, hirelings or friendly NPCs who happen to travel along with the party. The usual objection is to what I've more often-heard called a "DMPC". Namely, a character who is both with the party and of the party, and for all practical purposes a PC, save only that they are controlled by the DM.
The usual objection there is that DMs will tend --intentionally or not-- to turn such a character into an egregious Mary Sue, which gets preferential treatment as the DM's "baby" and solves the party's problems through meta knowledge. The obvious retort there is that isn't a problem with the concept. It's a problem with bad DM-ing.
That said, I still tend to avoid them. I have enough to manage with standard NPCs, and when running that kind of allied hero I do feel some pressure to keep them in the background so as not to rob my players of agency. Consequently, when I've run them in the past they've often wound up under-characterized and being little more than overpowered hirelings. These days I only keep an NPC with the party for a long period of time if their presence is necessary to the PCs' goals
There are at least two broad reasons, the second one with a bit of legitimacy behind it if you squint when you look at it:
1. Confusing the "GM PC" with "NPC party members". The GM also playing a main character seldom works well, has a lot of pitfalls, and really only works at all in groups with GMs that can treat a "main NPC" as a full party member and still NPC, typically in a really small party. It starts to go off the rails as soon as the GM does it because "I never get to play". In short, it's an advanced GM technique to pull it off correctly, but every GM with enough advanced techniques to do it can handle the small party thing in other, better ways. In less experienced hands, the GM PC is more likely to turn into a Mary Sue PC or even wreck the game entirely. It's a bit like "Don't split the party" as player advice. It's not true that players should never do it, but it is true that they should think twice, thrice, and then again before doing it--while recognizing that it has certain pitfalls. As starting advice, it's very sound.
2. Even with true NPCs, there can be a tendency of too many other characters to overwhelm "screen time" in ways that start to leave the players out. Plus, every GM has bandwidth limits on how many things they can process, especially in fights and other tense, involved scenes.
I tend to keep my NPC usage pretty limited and/or farmed out to players when possible for exactly that reason--it's not something that I want to spend my bandwidth on--unless that NPC is going to give the game a lot of pop for that attention. It's why I tend to sprinkle in recurring NPCs 1 or 2 at a time, see which ones click with the party, and the rest tend to disappear into the woodwork as fast as I can get them there. I can pull it off--more NPCs for a longer time--but it makes me tired. Thus I don't enjoy it very much. So it's a GM tactical thing, rather than anything right or wrong with including NPCs in particular. Some GMs and some particular games, more NPCs make a lot of sense, where you are trading that attention for lowering your bandwidth on something else that is less important to the game.
Obviously, having 3+ NPCs that are practically permanent party members controlled by the GM turns all those considerations up to 11. It's something to do consciously while seeking that kind of game, rather than just, say, blindly drifting into it because the party made friends with a bunch of people early in the game, who have tagged along ever since, and the poor GM who didn't consider that outcome is forced to deal with it unprepared.
I think there is also an aspect of player continuity and campaign frequency to this question, too. If you have a stable group of players playing 1/week at the same time for a few hours, it's OK for NPCs to get introduced, and then kind of fade into the background until something arises that prompts their participation. People get to know the NPCs overtime. So they don't require constant reintroduction. In contrast, if you have a game (like one of mine currently) that is 50% to 75% of a large player group showing up, on a once every two or three weeks schedule, it is difficult to remember more than a handful of NPCs at all, let alone ones "in the party". I have to remind constantly for all but the most frequent players and NPCs. Plus, I've had a few "guest" players that are only there for a few sessions. So in effect the less frequent players are the party NPCs. They are merely played by someone other than the GM.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 10, 2024, 07:17:26 PMAs always, it depends what is meant by the term. Technically all NPCs are DMNPCs. As for NPCs traveling with the party, nobody seems to have an issue with henchmen, hirelings or friendly NPCs who happen to travel along with the party. The usual objection is to what I've more often-heard called a "DMPC". Namely, a character who is both with the party and of the party, and for all practical purposes a PC, save only that they are controlled by the DM.
The usual objection there is that DMs will tend --intentionally or not-- to turn such a character into an egregious Mary Sue, which gets preferential treatment as the DM's "baby" and solves the party's problems through meta knowledge. The obvious retort there is that isn't a problem with the concept. It's a problem with bad DM-ing.
That said, I still tend to avoid them. I have enough to manage with standard NPCs, and when running that kind of allied hero I do feel some pressure to keep them in the background so as not to rob my players of agency. Consequently, when I've run them in the past they've often wound up under-characterized and being little more than overpowered hirelings. These days I only keep an NPC with the party for a long period of time if their presence is necessary to the PCs' goals
This. I haven't experienced it personally, but I've heard plenty of stories about a bad DM wanting to be the star in his own game, so he makes a DMPC and the other players get to be supporting actors at best. If you have a hard time separating yourself as DM from yourself as player this is going to be a problem. Also, as mentioned, when I DM I'm fully occupied with running the game. I don't have time to be a player, and if I try the game will suffer. Having an NPCs in the party is something else entirely.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 10, 2024, 07:17:26 PMThe usual objection is to what I've more often-heard called a "DMPC". Namely, a character who is both with the party and of the party, and for all practical purposes a PC, save only that they are controlled by the DM.
The usual objection there is that DMs will tend --intentionally or not-- to turn such a character into an egregious Mary Sue, which gets preferential treatment as the DM's "baby" and solves the party's problems through meta knowledge.
This is why I insist on one of my players
not using the term "DMPC" for the NPCs I attach to their parties. They have enough personality to make them distinct, so if a player
wants to engage them in conversation, they can, but they're not intended to be characters in the same way that the PCs are.
Because of the current metaplot, the current crop of NPCs are basically just living McGuffins, so they sometimes have narrative importance (one game, the end fight was against the alhoon who's been in the setting for millenia -- their NPC was able to put the party on a level playing field with him due to her importance as a McGuffin in relation to another McGuffin) and do stuff in important "cut scenes" now and again, but that happens maybe... twice a campaign, if even.
This is a huge thing on Reddit.
Friend of mine was telling me about how nearly every damn thread over there complaining about "teh horribible DMPC!" was not actually a damn "DMPC". It was a bog standard NPC in the party.
There are morons over there who absolutely can not get that these things are, you kn ow... FUCKING DIFFERENT!
A DMPC is indeed a problem way more than it is a boon. This is when the DM is playing in the party as a player AND DMing in the same breath. They are not running an NPC. This is their character and they are acting as a player.
Party NPCs are just that. NPCs in the party. But these Reddit halfwits think they are exactly they same thing.
Welcome to yet another term completely twisted out of shape and now has no meaning because its been stretched to essentially include everything on earth.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 10, 2024, 07:26:25 PMPlus, every GM has bandwidth limits on how many things they can process, especially in fights and other tense, involved scenes.
For me at least, it's also just not a lot of fun to play both sides of the table during battle.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 10, 2024, 07:33:13 PMThis. I haven't experienced it personally, but I've heard plenty of stories about a bad DM wanting to be the star in his own game, so he makes a DMPC and the other players get to be supporting actors at best. If you have a hard time separating yourself as DM from yourself as player this is going to be a problem.
I've experienced it personally, albeit not since I was a teenager. Even then, we thought it was lame and made fun of the people that did it. Sadly, a large percentage of the allegedly adult players of D&D have the emotional maturity of teenagers.
As explained by others, it is about basically the GM sneaking in their pet Mary Sue/Gary Stu into the story and a) hogging the spotlight for how cool they think their character is, b) shepherding the party through the proscribed adventure arc, c) being the safety net to prevent party mistakes that could lead to party failure and PC loss.
But it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.
Good rule of thumb: the players' PCs are special because you have priority of my GM attention.
That doesn't mean players cannot walk and chew gum, as if it is some grave risk to have their PCs talk to "my" NPCs, be they walk-on cameos, hirelings, henchmen, or whatever. My attention is on your PC and your journey, my NPCs will talk and act rationally in-charcter but the core of on-screen playtime is your PCs being and doing (including talking and listening) in the fictive world. I'm not interested in making players sit there and watch me play NPC puppets talking to themselves off in their own little world without the players interest in doing so. Want to listen in on NPC conversations? OK, you are asking me as GM to whip up NPC conversations on the fly to give your PC the spotlight of listening -- but the spotlight attention is about your PC doing the listening.
However the usual degradation of guidelines and best practices becoming diktat about grave pitfalls; typical human group exaggeration and splitting behavior applies.
Quote from: Opaopajr on December 10, 2024, 08:20:26 PMBut it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.
These should all be run by the players.
No need for a GM to run any of them.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 10:12:48 PMQuote from: Opaopajr on December 10, 2024, 08:20:26 PMBut it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.
These should all be run by the players.
No need for a GM to run any of them.
There are players who complain if the DM makes them handle the NPCs. There are players who complain if the DM doesnt let them handle the NPCs. There are players who dont even want to roll and make the DM do all that because rolling "breaks muh immershun!"
I have also heard these characters called GMNPCs.
In the Star Trek RPG campaigns I have run you can't avoid having one or two NPCs run by the GM in the landing parties that beam down.
Its not always Security officers, often its Science Officers, Medics or Shuttle Pilots.
The last time I ran a Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery setting I ran a GMNPC that was a Half-Orc Knight named Sir Peter. He was friendly, a bit dopey at times, but very loyal to the adventuring party. Strangely he was also literate in church Latin. (Long story)
- Ed C.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 10:12:48 PMQuote from: Opaopajr on December 10, 2024, 08:20:26 PMBut it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.
These should all be run by the players.
No need for a GM to run any of them.
There's a tradeoff. The players running the NPCs is less work for the DM. But you also get NPCs that do whatever the players want even if it's not something reasonable for them to do, like test all of the doors for glyphs of warding.
Some games can be OK with a "GM PC" - a character that the GM identifies as "their PC" - in the party. But it is always a red flag when the GM also wants to be a player, IME.
Obviously NPCs in the party are fine, as a rule.
The situations I've seen where GM PCs have not been particularly destructive happen where the GM wants to "play" but (a) is interested only in the social interaction side of play, not the power/loot acquisition and (b) treats the other PCs as well as or better than their GM PC.
GMs who come out of the online Simming tradition are often like this. They tend to be weak RPG GMs in other respects, with a poor grasp of the rules and a tendency to Monty Haul play, but their playing a GM PC doesn't really make it better or worse.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 11, 2024, 12:47:07 AMThere's a tradeoff. The players running the NPCs is less work for the DM. But you also get NPCs that do whatever the players want even if it's not something reasonable for them to do, like test all of the doors for glyphs of warding.
True. If find the tradeoff easy to finesse, though. There's the tried and true gambit of players handle the NPCs but GM reserves the right to step in if they start being unreasonable. My favorite though is in a game where death is a real possibility, the NPC is going to be your next character when you bite it. Tends to concentrate the mind.
I had a one-on-one game long ago and had a DMNPC traveling with the PC.
Player really felt it when that NPC died.
my way is to let them blend into the background until a PC chooses to interact with them. I run them technically, but ask the players what they want them to do and if need be, roll to see if they go through with it.
I have basically two conditions where I'll include a GMPC;
A) there are three players and a needed party role isn't being covered.
If there are two players I'll have them each run a primary and secondary PC that should cover the main bases. If there are 4-5 PCs then they should be able to cover them with a PC each.
But at three players you're either looking at a 6 PC party which a big bigger than I prefer (combats in systems I enjoy running seem to slow down exponentially past 4-5 PCs) or insufficient PCs to cover all the needed roles.
In that case I just include a GMPC that's as basic as possible to cover a missing role (a healer or tank most typically is what's missing) and is involved for the most basic of reasons (three players means there's never a need for a tie-breaker; they just follow the majority).
B) The group has been particularly indecisive and/or just really sucks at considering the ramifications of their actions and having someone there to give literal voice to my frustrations at it/point out what is supposed to be obvious can usually get things back on track.
Having a TPK with a group due to poor choices in the first couple sessions is only funny the first few times.
Past that, having someone to point out things like "we've been here 40 minutes trying to decide whether to go left or right and there's no clear right answer, how about we just flip a coin?" is worth any potential grumbling from the players over having a DMPC present.
Typically in this case the DMPC is just a human fighter who doesn't do anything other than some color commentary, carries stuff, and hits things with his sword.
A reasonably decisive party of 2 or 4+ players just doesn't need a DMPC around.
Quote from: Koltar on December 11, 2024, 12:31:23 AMI have also heard these characters called GMNPCs.
Its just misuse of the term. The whole argument falls apart when you point out that every monster and villager and merchant is a 'sic' "DMNPC". And still there are halfwits who will argue that these are all really just DMPCs!!! and must be put an end to!!!
Stupid has no limits.
I don't have problem with retainers, but I treat them like inventory, always refering to them in third person. Otherwise, players start asking them too much questions.
The unspoken social contract of the RPG game genre is that the players are the heroes and not your GM PC or other NPCs. It is perfectly acceptable to have GM PCs who are there for comic relief or to perform story functions or to add flavor. I've even run campaigns where I had characters who were all about teaching inexperienced players how to roleplay and how not to roleplay. While the PCs are strategizing what to do, then undercover cross-dressing pro-wrestler NPC burst out of his disguise and attempts to hijack the airship back from the gestapo only to be blasted out a window and fall 300 meters into the icy cold waters below.
You know, the simple stuff.
It is much less acceptable for the GM PC to displace the player spotlight time, especially when it comes to actually fixing the problem. The goal of a PC is to enjoy the spotlight, and the goal of an NPC or GM PC is to reduce the amount of time players spend in the spotlight so that it can be a brighter spotlight while they are in it.
Quote from: Omega on December 10, 2024, 08:05:51 PMThis is a huge thing on Reddit.
Friend of mine was telling me about how nearly every damn thread over there complaining about "teh horribible DMPC!" was not actually a damn "DMPC". It was a bog standard NPC in the party.
There are morons over there who absolutely can not get that these things are, you kn ow... FUCKING DIFFERENT!
A DMPC is indeed a problem way more than it is a boon. This is when the DM is playing in the party as a player AND DMing in the same breath. They are not running an NPC. This is their character and they are acting as a player.
Party NPCs are just that. NPCs in the party. But these Reddit halfwits think they are exactly they same thing.
Welcome to yet another term completely twisted out of shape and now has no meaning because its been stretched to essentially include everything on earth.
^^This^^
Of the Redditors that aren't just bots, half of the rest are idiots who want to be part of the conversation but contribute nothing of substance because they are clueless and it just muddies the conversation.
NPCs only become a problem if their actions overshadow the group. I've had the best success with NPCs who had the jobs for the PCs, but couldn't do it themselves because they lacked the skills or temperament. One of my favorite NPCs for fantasy games is an Awakened former cat familiar of a wizard. It has got all the knowledge and knows most rumors regarding adventures, but is a cat and so doesn't have the physical nature for adventuring (no hands for one) and must have others adventure for it. I never had to worry about Mischelle Greymalkyn overshadowing the player characters.
On the other hand, I've seen plenty of Players use the hirelings and retainers of their player characters as expendables. Things like, "You, torchbearer! Walk into that odd translucence in the passageway and see if it is a Gelatinous Cube!" With the Players fully expecting these NPCs to lay down their lives at their whim without a second thought.
Misuse of NPCs happens all around the game table.
Quote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 06:28:40 PMGreetings!
Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.
I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.
Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.
But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.
In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?
What do you all think, my friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think people are using the term in different ways. NPCs joining the party as friends, spouses, etc isn't that unusual or much of a problem in my experience but also not what I would call a DMPC/GMPC I don't think DMPC is so much about having an NPC in the party who is a regular in the campaign. I think people usually mean by that term, GMs who almost really want to be a player and have an NPC in the party he or she is just as invested in (which leads to problems if the GM isn't good at being fair when they have a dog in the fight). I think the other potential meaning of it, is the NPC who is too awesome to believe. The obvious GM insert, who is often showing off to the party and the players (and maybe has a certain amount of obvious plot immunity: i.e. the players couldn't kill him if they tried). But I also have only ever encountered 1 proper DMPC the entire time I have been playing (always possible I am forgetting a couple, so call it 3 if you want).
In Dungeon Module I6 "Ravenloft", Ireena is the reincarnation of Tatyana, Strahd's lost love
if memory serves me right, the adventurers *should* bring Ireena on as a party member, but the DM is tasked with controlling her as a party NPC.
I am sure there are other examples from the old modules, but that is the one that comes to mind.
the idea that the DM should never control NPCs within the party is not canonical
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on December 11, 2024, 07:01:03 PMQuote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 06:28:40 PMGreetings!
Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.
I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.
Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.
But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.
In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?
What do you all think, my friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I think people are using the term in different ways. NPCs joining the party as friends, spouses, etc isn't that unusual or much of a problem in my experience but also not what I would call a DMPC/GMPC I don't think DMPC is so much about having an NPC in the party who is a regular in the campaign. I think people usually mean by that term, GMs who almost really want to be a player and have an NPC in the party he or she is just as invested in (which leads to problems if the GM isn't good at being fair when they have a dog in the fight). I think the other potential meaning of it, is the NPC who is too awesome to believe. The obvious GM insert, who is often showing off to the party and the players (and maybe has a certain amount of obvious plot immunity: i.e. the players couldn't kill him if they tried). But I also have only ever encountered 1 proper DMPC the entire time I have been playing (always possible I am forgetting a couple, so call it 3 if you want).
Greetings!
Yeah, I usually get to play all kinds of characters, from spouses, relatives, younger squires, and the assortment of guards, scouts, the wagon driver, the cook, and whoever else the party drags along or picks up on their adventures!
I usually have each NPC drawn up with their profiles, equipment, personal possessions, and then four Character Traits--one positive trait, two neutral traits, and one negative trait. These are custom traits, and can be hilarious in many ways. A few are really cool, while many can dial up the "Stupid Factor" to 11. A good number obviously are somewhere in the middle, and safe.
Strangely, the Player Characters often quite like the gimped, weird characters that join their band. *Laughing*
The survival rate of all of these various NPC's can be somewhat modest, to be sure. Especially for the characters that are Super-Heroic, or have the Martyr's Syndrome, Tenacious Guardian, or Noble Fatalism.
The "GMPC" insert. Wow. I have never really embraced that idea, of self-insertion of some uber, super hero character that towers over the Player Characters. I'm content to simply realistically--or comically--portray the cast of needed characters that are along for the ride.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on December 12, 2024, 03:45:18 AMThe "GMPC" insert. Wow. I have never really embraced that idea, of self-insertion of some uber, super hero character that towers over the Player Characters. I'm content to simply realistically--or comically--portray the cast of needed characters that are along for the ride.
I've only experienced a GMPC twice, both in the 1990s - once in a GURPS game and once in an Amber Diceless game. The GMPCs were technically made according to the same PC creation rules, so they weren't uber in power level at least by raw numbers. What made them insufferable is that they were mouthpieces for the GM to tell us when we were wrong.
Ireena from I6 Ravenloft is definitely not a GMPC. She is lower level than the PCs, with no magic items and no unique information.
This is where I really disagree with Chris24601. He might be handling his GMPCs better than the ones I saw, but I still think it is a bad idea.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 11:37:25 AMI have basically two conditions where I'll include a GMPC;
A) there are three players and a needed party role isn't being covered.
...
In that case I just include a GMPC that's as basic as possible to cover a missing role (a healer or tank most typically is what's missing) and is involved for the most basic of reasons (three players means there's never a need for a tie-breaker; they just follow the majority).
B) The group has been particularly indecisive and/or just really sucks at considering the ramifications of their actions and having someone there to give literal voice to my frustrations at it/point out what is supposed to be obvious can usually get things back on track.
Having a TPK with a group due to poor choices in the first couple sessions is only funny the first few times.
Past that, having someone to point out things like "we've been here 40 minutes trying to decide whether to go left or right and there's no clear right answer, how about we just flip a coin?" is worth any potential grumbling from the players over having a DMPC present.
As a GM, I've often had kids and/or newbies as players. I didn't need to have a GMPC present in order to just talk to the players
as the GM and tell them to get on with it.
The players shouldn't learn that an NPC is the voice of the GM. NPCs should have their own motivations and flaws. I often have to push players to understand that just because an NPC says something, that doesn't mean that it is true or that it is a good idea. NPCs should regularly lie and/or be wrong.
If the players are having trouble with an adventure, then I can give them resources like more information or magic items that help them - or just make the opposition a little easier. For example, if they don't have a healer, I might let them have access to potions and/or a wand of curing.
Not a fan, but don't begrudge other DMs from using them. I suspect this is more prevalent with games that a low number of players. Generally, I've got my hands plenty full with the monsters and NPCs. But I also don't like saddling my players with a hand-puppet, either. If I have a party with few players, I typically respond with salting the adventures with extra magic items that address the party's shortcomings.
Also, my parties have disturbing habit of using NPC hirelings as meat shields and trap detectors.
There's a difference between an NPC that goes with the party and a DMPC. The difference is in how the DM handles them. Does the DM handle them as NPCs like any other NPCs or does them DM play them as if they are a player and that is their PC? The first one is normal. The second one can easily become a problem. If the character is always coming along whether the players want it or not, that's probably a DMPC. If the DM is coming up with ways why their NPCs survives or wins even if it bends or breaks the rules, that's probably a DMPC. If the character is as important to them game as the PCs or more so, that's probably a DMPC. DMPCs are one of those things that can be done well in theory but are seldom done well in practice. Often, they devolve into the main character with the PCs as supporting cast.
Even with an NPC, the DM needs to be a bit careful. I recall one adventure where the mission was to get a diplomat, who happened to be a high level wizard, to a city through hostile territory. Hostile as in literal armies of orcs roaming the countryside. The NPC fought alongside the PCs and was by no means the center of attention. However he did upstage the party's lead magic-user with his artillery spells, and I could tell the player wasn't happy about it. Live and learn, I suppose.
There is nothing wrong with NPC party members. As long as they are supportive characters. That no not take away from the PC's role as protagonists.
The problem with GMPCs is that they inevitably get put in the protagonist role and outshine the player's characters. That's when it goes from a roleplaying game, to the GM masturbating, while the PCs are reduced to tagalongs.
In my AD&D 2nd Edition days. I had NPCS that supported the group but never outshined them. Because they were not the stars of the show. The PCs are. And I like to think I was a pretty good DM.
Also, it was a houserule of mine that the XP was only shared between the PCs. As I could adjust the NPC's levels however I wanted. There was no need to short-change the PCs of their XP.
GM protagonists are where I draw the line. I never use them. I don't think it is ever appropriate. The DM's role is supposed to be: Make a fun game for the players. Make entertaining NPCs that keep the players engaged. But do not outshine them.
If the Middle Earth stories were RPG adventures, I think Gandalf would be a GMPC--both the good and the bad versions of it. He's wildly powerful compared to most of the other characters, but he does largely hold back (with some notable exceptions) and allow the protagonists to shine. Still, for the most part, I wouldn't want to have a Gandalf in my games.
Quote from: HappyDaze on December 10, 2024, 07:14:35 PMIt's not an inherently bad practice, it's just something that bad DMs can really shit the bed with.
almost made a DMPC for my first ever game.
I believe in a breathing fictive world with PCs being the focus of my GM attention. That said I don't limit my players' freedom of association with their PCs beyond the fiction's context and their efforts to act within it. So if players' PCs befriend (or bemuse/amuse) a king or Gold Dragon, then yes there will be times they get to travel with said ally -- and no, the players will not be controlling such an NPC.
But the caveat is to keep it to walk-ons, to cameos, because (as above): the PCs are the focus of my attention. They create their own adventures which becomes their own stories in the re-telling. I am their fans even as I must also play their foes. My promise in trust to the PCs' players is I will be as fair as possible arbiter.
So yeah, there will be times when PCs will swear allegiance or tag along with big allies, and or vice versa. And yes, for such efforts they will get a benefit for a time. But eventually the king and kingdom or gold dragon will have other things to attend to and walk away from the PCs' spotlight. It is up to the players to fill their PCs' time with adventure.
The political power level the PCs play in is a function of the players' meaningful choices. I may sprinkle hooks and opportunities about, and I may assail the world around them with threats and loss. But it in their choice what we fictively see in 1st person, and as GM I facilitate.
Some cannot believe in such an attempt of remove and fairness. But that's their issue in leap of faith. Mechanics cannot reassure such a fundamental lack of trust. And such nitpicking, distrusting attitudes (as per OP received reddit knowledge) -- without corresponding discussion how-to best practices -- will neither get there.
At some point analysis must end and synthesis begin. At some point break down must end and build up begin. At some point distrust must end and trust begin. What you allow yourself to believe helps you stand again, rebuild, and fly. :)
Quote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 06:28:40 PMGreetings!
Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.
I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.
Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.
But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.
In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?
What do you all think, my friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You know how the second or third time you GM'd, you know, when you were 12, and you had that NPC that was better than the party and your adventure was kind of about that NPC and the players didn't have fun so you NEVER DID IT AGAIN?
Yeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago. He's in his 30s.
Quote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AMQuote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago. He's in his 30s.
Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."
One tried to rope me into one literally last week.
There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.
Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.
Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMQuote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 06:28:40 PMGreetings!
Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.
I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.
Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.
But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.
In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?
What do you all think, my friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You know how the second or third time you GM'd, you know, when you were 12, and you had that NPC that was better than the party and your adventure was kind of about that NPC and the players didn't have fun so you NEVER DID IT AGAIN?
Yeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
Greetings!
*LAUGHING* Oh, Geesus! So hilarious, CrKrueger! Damn, so true, huh? Damn right I remember that kind of thing! It's been a long time, as you mentioned.
People crying about it *now* like it happened to them last week, YEAH! I suppose it has been so long, you know, anyone DMing for any stretch of time--especially if they made that same mistake when they were a kid--well, I just didn't think that was a thing now, you know? So these people crying about it everywhere kind of boggled me.
As this thread shows, evidently I'm not alone in noticing this crybaby attitude. Everyone seems to be familiar with these people.
One of the fun things about when I run my NPC's in the party, they usually start out or are introduced as being somewhat sub-optimal. They have character flaws, emotional problems, some are disciplinary Martinets and can be a real pain to be around, and so on. Low and behold, after some experience, if they survive, many of these NPC's of mine become pretty solid characters, and well-respected by the rest of the party.
Oftentimes, the other party members respect and enjoy their NPC friends, but as noted, not without some challenges and social difficulties involved. It is often very funny watching their interactions with each other. You know, some characters can be vexxing that way. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 10:16:31 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AMQuote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago. He's in his 30s.
Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."
One tried to rope me into one literally last week.
There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.
Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Those players of your acquaintance sound like a barrel of monkeys!
"Mary Sue" characters and frustrated, wanna-be novelists! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on December 12, 2024, 11:55:53 AMI've only experienced a GMPC twice, both in the 1990s - once in a GURPS game and once in an Amber Diceless game. The GMPCs were technically made according to the same PC creation rules, so they weren't uber in power level at least by raw numbers. What made them insufferable is that they were mouthpieces for the GM to tell us when we were wrong.
Ireena from I6 Ravenloft is definitely not a GMPC. She is lower level than the PCs, with no magic items and no unique information.
This is where I really disagree with Chris24601. He might be handling his GMPCs better than the ones I saw, but I still think it is a bad idea.
Jesus Christ this is another Reddit idiocy where they think ANY classed NPC is a DMPC. In or out of the party.
r/dnd is full of "modern" players who believe things like this for no sane reason.
Quote from: SHARK on December 22, 2024, 03:39:30 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 10:16:31 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AMQuote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago. He's in his 30s.
Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."
One tried to rope me into one literally last week.
There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.
Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Those players of your acquaintance sound like a barrel of monkeys!
"Mary Sue" characters and frustrated, wanna-be novelists! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
My friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.
Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock. ;D
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 05:06:45 PMQuote from: SHARK on December 22, 2024, 03:39:30 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 10:16:31 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AMQuote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.
I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago. He's in his 30s.
Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."
One tried to rope me into one literally last week.
There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.
Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Those players of your acquaintance sound like a barrel of monkeys!
"Mary Sue" characters and frustrated, wanna-be novelists! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
My friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.
Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock. ;D
Why I'd love for you to play marbles in an alley with my past players, Chris! :D
;D
Quote from: Darrin Kelley on December 20, 2024, 10:22:56 AMThere is nothing wrong with NPC party members. As long as they are supportive characters. That no not take away from the PC's role as protagonists.
The problem with GMPCs is that they inevitably get put in the protagonist role and outshine the player's characters. That's when it goes from a roleplaying game, to the GM masturbating, while the PCs are reduced to tagalongs.
In my AD&D 2nd Edition days. I had NPCS that supported the group but never outshined them. Because they were not the stars of the show. The PCs are. And I like to think I was a pretty good DM.
Also, it was a houserule of mine that the XP was only shared between the PCs. As I could adjust the NPC's levels however I wanted. There was no need to short-change the PCs of their XP.
GM protagonists are where I draw the line. I never use them. I don't think it is ever appropriate. The DM's role is supposed to be: Make a fun game for the players. Make entertaining NPCs that keep the players engaged. But do not outshine them.
I agree - I believe this is the root of all drama: when DMs use NPC to control and/or chastise player decisions. I tend to have friendly NPCs which will stay in town of at some place down the road and leave the players to their devices. If stuff starts to go way off the rails, I'll add in some sort of clue in the form of a letter/mural/painting/parchmant whatever.
I'd rather the game focus on the characters my friends made. I don't think it's good or bad, that's just my preference when I'm the GM.
In a "Star Trek"sort of setting you almost always have to have 1 or 2 NPCs to fill out the landing party that beams down to a planet.
As the GM its always easy for me because they take orders from the player characters and are usually lower ranking officers or enlisted crewmen.
- Ed C.
I will often pad out the party, especially it it is small or missing crucial skills but never to outshine party members. Henchmen and hirelings have served basically the same purpose since OD&D. One of the reasons I dislike the skill packages in Mongoose Traveller is it robs the GM of the ability to add in some NPC crew members that might come in handy as informants or patrons at a later point. It also undermines the character creation system.
Anyhow, Rolemaster has a reputation for deadliness and healing of serious wounds is high level magic so I'll generally make a higher level healer of some sort available. Sometimes it's the friendly travelling necromancer Doctor Cthulhlinguis but sometimes I'll just inbed Choteth the Sibici in the party. Choteth is a high priest of the death god of Bashan, sometimes a patron or the object of an escort mission or just sizing up potential trouble makers for his own schemes. At any rate, it helps to have someone around who can cast Organ Repair once in a while.
I know I personally would prefer letting players have "hired help" or followers that they have some say in controlling rather than having me have a NPC or two to control, more of an agency for players kinda thing. People might tend to think you're trying to "run the game and play in it too" if you have an NPC that you are controlling who joins the party.
But I also have a wargaming background and have no problem controlling like 6-12 characters all at once, and most RPG players these days don't have that kind of background, but I'm working on that....
I used to use those but IME players leaned one of two ways:
- Players sent the NPC(s) to confront anything dangerous first
- If an NPC succeeded at anything I was a bad GM torturing players with a GMPC
Over the last few years my NPCs are now of two types:
- Questgiver: provides a very brief overview of what's going on then leaves ASAP
- Villains: to help the players reach a satisfying TPK
Don't De-Protagonize the PCs. The GM's job is to enhance Player Agency, duh!
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/SANclY8pucMzQ0YQ9p/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952a41153ojksiadqgfm5nrh7rz3efkzajj5arlvnam&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
[/list]
Quote from: Theory of Games on February 04, 2025, 07:46:03 PMIf an NPC succeeded at anything I was a bad GM torturing players with a GMPC
Ditch these morons and get real players.