|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like, and use DMPCs, but as a GM, you must ensure that they do not overshadow the PCs. A good DMPC, augments the PCs, but never outdoes or outshines them...
It can be a fine line, and it takes practice to get the right balance, but like LazaeX said above, I think you should remove the character from the campaign and consider this a learning experience. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of DMPC's and will not play in a game with a full time DMPC. Let the players be the stars.
|
|
The reason why I don't want to do this is because there's only really two of us who could possibly GM, and I apparently do it better. If I take the character out like you suggest, I likely won't get to roleplay for a while, if I get to at all.
You should not think of DMPC's as personal characters... They should be nothing more than important NPCs (to whom you, the GM, should be impartial to) used to augment the party (usually by filling character roles that are missing within the party itself)
That aside, just because you remove THIS NPC from the campaign does not mean you should not place another, less powerful one in the campaign as circumstances permits.
This was kind of an issue before I became a GM, and that was kind of what I was trying to avoid. Thanks for the honest answer though... The reason why I don't want to do this is because there's only really two of us who could possibly GM, and I apparently do it better. If I take the character out like you suggest, I likely won't get to roleplay for a while, if I get to at all.
And this is precisely why you should not be playing your character when you GM. You get to roleplay every other character in the game. Give the players some limelight!
Seriously, the solution is to stop playing that character at the same time as you DM. No ifs, no buts. Over time the problem will get worse and you may very well eventually destroy your campaign if you continue to DMPC. I'm serious. They can create a great deal of resentment.
Using a DMPC is one of those cardinal sins that should not be performed by new DMs and handled very carefully by even the most experienced DMs. These sins include GMPCs, autofail on 1 for skill checks, fiat fumbles, rape themes and killing NPCs/family from the PC's backstory to 'show how evil the BBEG is'.
Well, what you could do is to have ANOTHER player, play the DMPC as a hireling, henchmen, or hangabout...or some such. As such, they would control the character, but you'd still be able to keep that character if/when someone else GM's.
That way you let the party decide how to use the character and if the character will overshadow the group or not.
It sounds like they might need the firepower.
You could make him a few levels weaker than the PCs. Then he'd be a trusty companion who needed their protection rather than a superhero in a group of heroes.
One of the advantages of a DMPC is that you can pick on them or cripple them relative to the others without the player getting upset.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blakmane makes a good point that if you're the GM you should be able to roleplay as much as anyone, sometimes more, because you play as all the supporting characters and such. If you want to keep this character around and have a long term character to build on I do have a suggestion. Keep the character in the campaign but separate him from combat. If he's dominating the combat but otherwise a good element to the campaign, try to give some explanation why he can stay around but not fight as much, maybe he gets shellshock and can't stand up in a fight, maybe he's relegated to managing supplies, anything that keeps him from taking part. This keeps him from taking all the glory away from the players it also allows you to keep a very strong character around as a deus ex machina in case your otherwise unoptimized party gets in over their heads.
hmm... Thank you for the advice. Part of the reason I wanted to keep him around was because as an aspiring author, I wanted to use him and gain more material, but I see now that he's simply too powerful a PC for this group. Even if I hadn't taken over as GM, this character would be stealing the limelight in most encounters, as a fairly well optimized PC in a new pathfinder group. I may reactivate him at a later date, as his backstory is simply too rich for me to simply discard. Thanks for the advice.
While your main character is on the backburner, why not gain inspiration from your player's characters? A lot of famous fantasy books are written about RPG campaigns played with the author's friends!
In the meantime you get to create a fantastic network of supporting characters, places and plot hooks, as well as gaining the opportunity to see where your storylines don't mesh with reality (real people are fantastic for poking holes in threads you thought airtight, and this is fantastic for building a realistic setting/adventure/story!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't be a player in a game you're GMing.
This doesn't mean you can't have NPCs, or even fleshed-out NPCs who are allied to the party that you think are cool.
What it means is: you can never have the player experience in a game you are GMing, and this should fundamentally alter the way you look at playing these characters.
It's a subtle distinction, but a hugely important one.
And it seems, in this case, the PC you've got has crossed the line. You're exhibiting a level of personal attachment that has compromised your impartiality. The fact that you can't change your NPC's build without rewriting your campaign is a dead giveaway; that should perhaps be true of your players' PCs, but NEVER yours.
Therefore, the DMPC must go. Sacrifice it upon the altar of your superior GMing skills.
And resist the urge to kill it off melodramatically, please, that's an extension of the problem.
Is there any solution that you can tell me that doesn't involve either completely demolishing my char or rebuilding the party?Nope. It's time for your PC to find a higher calling, thanks to an ogres greataxe.
Or just fade into the background.
Eh, I've been in similar though not identical circumstances -- the first campaign I was ever main GM for was originally someone else's game, and then 8 sessions in the GM handed the campaign over to me because I had much better ideas about where to take it than he did.
I was playing the party's healer (positive energy-channeling cleric), and getting rid of my PC never even occurred to me, or to anyone else in the group, as an option.
Your situation is a bit different from mine, though - instead of being the party's primary support character, you're running the party's primary offensive character. You built him to be a bad-ass, and now it's kind of awkward because you're now GM and no one else built a bad-ass.
I'd check with the rest of the group - ask if anyone else is interested in running the character in fights. Bring up to them that you have concerns about trying to run a character on top of all the enemies you're running. Heck, ask them point blank if they actually want the character around. For all you know, part of your party might be counting on your sorcerer picking up the slack for them.
If no one volunteers to run the character, but the party still wants the character around, then another way to go about it is ask the party if they have any requests for what your character does on his turn. Let them call targets/buff requests/whatever for the character while you handle the actual mechanics of the character. Not optimal by a long shot, but it still works.
Some other GMPC etiquette rules:
1) Let everyone else go first. Seriously. When the party needs to make skill checks or whatever, you let everyone else take a crack at it before your GMPC does anything. You only make a roll if it's necessary, and even then only after the rest of the group was done what they want to with the situation. (In my campaign above, my cleric was the party's only diplomat on top of being the healer. So yeah, I had them "borrow" my cleric's skill check roll as the back-up to however they actually did diplomacy.)
2) #1 absolutely applies to treasure. Even if an item is obviously better for your character, if someone else wants it, they get it. Your GMPC is functionally a cohort for the entire party, except willing to put up with more crap =P
3) Hold back. Even if your character is the best suited for the situation or could otherwise easily resolve it, let others give it the first shot and take a less optimal action. Unless someone actually calls out what would work and asks you do it. (On the rare occasions where someone else is GMing and you get to cut loose, it'll be all the more satisfying.)
The easiest solution is to not have a GMPC at all, but, well, sometimes that ship has sailed.
I assume your bit about having the rewrite your campaign has to deal with having to significantly tone down the threat the party has to deal with.
The easiest solution is to not have a GMPC at all, but, well, sometimes that ship has sailed.Only in as far as what mistakes you've done will always be a part of the past. There is no such thing as an NPC who can't be made to depart.
While technically correct, removing that now-NPC is significantly messier if the rest of the party built their characters taking said NPC's presence for granted, and that NPC covers roles the party otherwise can't handle well.
Though Lazar's post brings up something else I needed to list..
4) The plot should never be about your GMPC. If you wrote a plot that was about your character, either rewrite it to be about the rest of the party or ditch it altogether. Your GMPC should be solidly in the background, except when the party needs his services for something they can't otherwise do. (Like, in the case of the OP's group, actually win fights =P)
Running a chunk of a campaign and having it all be about you is poor form at best.
I agree with others, Gandalf need to Fall from a bridge, and not come back more powerfull. A DM is better of enjoying playing all the NPCs and not having a DMPC running along. No matter what he run the risk of being a killstealer and a spotlight hugger.
Edit: and scorching Ray is not a bloodline power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was kind of an issue before I became a GM, and that was kind of what I was trying to avoid. Thanks for the honest answer though... The reason why I don't want to do this is because there's only really two of us who could possibly GM, and I apparently do it better. If I take the character out like you suggest, I likely won't get to roleplay for a while, if I get to at all.
You get to roleplay everybody in the world except the PCs. That's a pretty sweet deal.
Many years ago in 1st edition game we had a bad GM who used to do GMPC and we (the players) all used to go out of our way to let his pet character die. GMPC was always the last to get heals. We made strategic moves that ensured GMPC had a harder time in combat.
It was fun to watch the GM squirm and try to keep his little pet alive.
He always found a way to bring him back to life. It was obnoxious but tormenting his PC was about the only joy to be had in his miserable campaign.
GMPC's suck
Why can't the DMPC turn into a BBEG?
The success of this kind of maneuver depends entirely on what the other players actually think about the DMPC.
This is notoriously difficult to stay in touch with. As a courtesy, most people will at least pretend to like other PCs.
But, the OP has styled themselves as an author. We know the first commandment of fiction: know thy audience. If you think this kind of thing would go over well, and wouldn't just make it an excuse to continue telling a story about your beloved protagonist, then it is workable.
What's important is that you get the story to center on the PLAYERS, as soon as possible, and keep it that way.
Making the DMPC a villain could give them a revenge focus, or it could backfire and continue to emphasize the DMPC.
Have your character be a regular NPC who retires from the adventuring party, or perhaps he has own adventuring group. He can be a resource when they meet in town or whatnot, but don't make him a peer of the adventuring party unless he's a villian they will someday have to defeat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many years ago in 1st edition game we had a bad GM who used to do GMPC and we (the players) all used to go out of our way to let his pet character die. GMPC was always the last to get heals. We made strategic moves that ensured GMPC had a harder time in combat.
It was fun to watch the GM squirm and try to keep his little pet alive.
He always found a way to bring him back to life. It was obnoxious but tormenting his PC was about the only joy to be had in his miserable campaign.
GMPC's suck
Sounds more like your GM sucked. The GMPC was just a symptom. (Alternately, maybe the players were jerks, but I'll assume the best of you. : D )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like your GM sucked. The GMPC was just a symptom. (Alternately, maybe the players were jerks, but I'll assume the best of you. : D )Many years ago in 1st edition game we had a bad GM who used to do GMPC and we (the players) all used to go out of our way to let his pet character die. GMPC was always the last to get heals. We made strategic moves that ensured GMPC had a harder time in combat.
It was fun to watch the GM squirm and try to keep his little pet alive.
He always found a way to bring him back to life. It was obnoxious but tormenting his PC was about the only joy to be had in his miserable campaign.
GMPC's suck
Our GM absolutely sucked. He was the worst GM I've ever played with and GMPC was exactly as you described as just one of the many symptoms.
It is very nice of you to assume the best about me Blahpers but truth is I was a complete and total jerk back then. If I could time travel I'd go back 20 years and punch my teenage self in the face.
I've already got a plan for this. I'm removing Daijhunna from the game until further notice. I am also replacing him with a cleric NPC, because nobody is playing one and we're likely going to need that in the future
Thanks for all your help!
(PS, this thread can be closed now.)
Don't replace him. Just give them some free cure potions or a CLW wand.
Seriously. Don't replace with any NPCs. Just make the encounters slightly easier. There's no need for NPCs in their group unless they go out of their way to get them.
I've already got a plan for this. I'm removing Daijhunna from the game until further notice. I am also replacing him with a cleric NPC, because nobody is playing one and we're likely going to need that in the future
Thanks for all your help!
(PS, this thread can be closed now.)
Just before you close the thread. I suggest not putting in a new one(DMPC that is not thread)
I would suggest killing your character to advance the story. The big bad or their second, confronts the party, and your fire spells are extremely ineffective, and you are slain. Large falchions or great picks are good for this.
Make it a dramatic moment, and the villain laughs and exists while his henchmen flood in. The players take them but the nasty player killing big bad is gone.
They must set out for vengeance. Tie it to the rest of your story. If they try to raise the fellow, he refuses to come back. Why? Because he can see how his death has galvanized them to surge against evil. A celestial tear of pride falls from an eye.
I would suggest killing your character to advance the story. The big bad or their second, confronts the party, and your fire spells are extremely ineffective, and you are slain. Large falchions or great picks are good for this.
Make it a dramatic moment, and the villain laughs and exists while his henchmen flood in. The players take them but the nasty player killing big bad is gone.
They must set out for vengeance. Tie it to the rest of your story. If they try to raise the fellow, he refuses to come back. Why? Because he can see how his death has galvanized them to surge against evil. A celestial tear of pride falls from an eye.
Great stuff! This can also serve to maintain a feeling of danger without actually haveing to kill off any PCs.
Don't play a DMPC, for the many reasons exposed above, it doesn't work in the long run. If you feel like you *must* play a DMPC, at the very least make sure that it is less powerful than the PCs, and give the character sheet to one of your more experienced players to control. You as DM shouldn't be making any decisions (tactical or otherwise) for this character during a session that you are DMing.
We occasionally had a DMPC in our last 4-year DD3.5 campaign, for two reasons:
1) we rotated DMing, so it seemed to make sense for the DM's PC to continue fighting for the group.
2) we usually had only 2 or 3 players (besides the DM) so it seemed to make sense to fill out the party roster a bit.
As our characters became more powerful, however, we soon stopped using a DMPC and simply kept the DM's PC back at the inn, or aboard ship oor wherever. Present in theory, but not actively participating in the adventure.
Thank you. In addition to all that, it also shows the lengths you are willing to go to as a dm so as to tell a cool story where the players are the heroes.
Sometimes my players are surprised by the developments, because I am willing to kill even the characters I like (and even be surprised by it) for the sake of the story and game.
I've already got a plan for this. I'm removing Daijhunna from the game until further notice. I am also replacing him with a cleric NPC, because nobody is playing one and we're likely going to need that in the future
Gonna buck the trend. If the players are currently having trouble staying in the field because of lack of healing, definitely make the cleric NPC an option to them. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Just don't optimize him into an encounter controller and things should be fine.
Optimized characters and non-optimized character don't mix well without the optimizer having a deft touch. Bad mixes are the cause of a lot of table friction. But now that you're removing the optimized character making things too easy, you can better tailor the ongoing challenges for the players you've got.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a GM who has very successfully run GMNPCs through several campaigns (CotCT, RotRL, WotR, and now JR), I see two HUGE issues:
#1: Cheese. "My char does 8D6+8 for scorching ray at level 5." Well, congratulations, your GMNPC has now outshone EVERY PC I'VE EVER RUN. I'm not particularly interested in seeing how it's all "rules legal". You created a GMNPC who's so optimized that other experienced GMs such as myself stop and ask, "Wait a minute! How can you possibly justify THAT?!?!"
Get off the optimization high horse and build GMNPCs that the players can comprehend. If the players don't optimize and you do, your GMNPC is an asshat, plain and simple.
#2: PC Love. You're running a GMNPC who was once your character. Therefore, that GMNPC is going to get preferential treatment. Eternally. Kill him or make him bow out. This is unconscionable. The point of a GMNPC is to fill a role that your other 2-3 players can't. In RotRL and CotCT, my GMNPC was a silent-but-stoic frontline fighter. In WotR and JR it was a healbot. Someone who doesn't participate in roleplay, plays only their role in combat and nothing more, and just allows 2-3 players to get through an AP designed for 4 players without forcing them to optimize or compromise.
You're violating every single rule of GMNPCs by playing an optimized former PC. Notice all the posts about people who won't even play with GMs who run GMNPCs any more.
If your GMNPC is doing anything beyond filling a hole in the party and providing a 'sounding board' for the PCs' roleplay, you're doing it wrong.
The longest running SF shared-world series grew out of an RPG.
Are you talking about Doctor Who?
Because i think that the doctor who RPG is quite recent.
I know I'm "piling on", but it's because it's my lunch break.
We have exactly *ONE* GM with whom we will "Never Play Again". (And you always have to put such things in quotes, because you never know...)
What was his sin? The fundamental reason everyone HATED him as a GM? (And the all caps are necessary -- the feelings towards him are really amazing to me in their level of hostility.)
- For every problem the PCs encountered, there was *always* an NPC there who was better-suited than any of the PCs at solving the problem.
So the game devolved into, "Butt-kiss this NPC to solve this problem. Congratulations! The NPC has solved the problem for you! Now you have this new problem! But you learn that there's this new NPC who can solve it for you! Butt-kiss the new NPC to solve the new problem..."
Ad nauseum.
Players don't want/appreciate/like NPCs who "solve" their problems. Period. Forever.
So in my games, there is no NPC in the game with a higher skill roll than a PC. Ever. Unless a player specifically asks, "Isn't there someone in town with a better roll than us?", in which case such an NPC miraculously appears.
But only on request. And only until the PCs improve their rolls.