Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bubba333 02-15-05, 09:33 AM	I was just reading a post about how much damage such-and-such can do and there was a remark about how the DM can beat (i.e.-"kill") this PC. This got me thinking about a few things I was hoping to get comments on. 1) Why is there such a strong "DM vs PC" mentality? Is it just me? 2) Why should a DM have to kill a PC? What's the point? 3) If there WAS a point to #2, why does a DM need to justify/sweat over it? 4) Am I the only DM that vetos certain classes, weapons and the like? There seems to be a trend (and I could be wrong) toward allowing the players whatever they want. Yea, this is a rather silly "poll", but the topic just struck me as prevalent.
Kid SixXx 02-15-05, 09:53 AM	Yea, this is a rather silly "poll", but the topic just struck me as prevalent. Nope, it's not a silly poll. It's one of the perennial issues that really should be addressed in gaming basics. IMO, there will always be somewhat of an adversarial relationship between the PC's and the DM. After all, the DM controls the bad guys (and the rest of the world for that matter) and the PC's control the good guys. It is the DM's job to challenge the players, tell a story, and enforce the rules. Nothing more. The DM should always be one part entertainer and one part referee. DM's should always deal in the grey area. They shouldn't be too brutal (aka the Killer DM) or too lenient (aka the Monty Haul DM). Above all, everyone (PC's and DM's alike) should remember that it's all a game and that no one should take anything that happens in-game to heart on a personal level. I always encourage my players to draft up a PC that is nothing like them. When folks put too much of their own personality into a character, it may sometimes lead to disaster, especially if that character dies. As far as classes or other changes go, DM's should always be willing to allow them as long as he feels that they make sense within the setting, and the PC's should respect the DM's wishes to veto a class (or a race, or anything else) if the DM feels it doesn't have a place, irregardless of how fanciful a backstory a PC might come up with to justify the class / race could be. EDIT: In case there be some old school game terms that come up in discussion which no one is familiar with, I will include a link to the RPG glossary for easy translation http://www.rpg.net/larp/papers/glossary.html
fizzbang 02-15-05, 09:58 AM	1) Why is there such a strong "DM vs PC" mentality? Is it just me? Ideally, DMs and PCs work together to make a story. But there are always a few people (on both sides) who see an RPG as another game that they need to "win". 2) Why should a DM have to kill a PC? What's the point? 3) If there WAS a point to #2, why does a DM need to justify/sweat over it? To me, a DM never has to kill a PC. Player death (or at least final death) should always be a big matter, as the end of a character's story is every bit as important as the character's beginning. A death that's "required" should be planned between the player and DM so that it's most satisfying for the entire story experience. Of course, I'm much more inclined towards the storytelling aspect of RPGs than the statsgame of it all. 4) Am I the only DM that vetos certain classes, weapons and the like? There seems to be a trend (and I could be wrong) toward allowing the players whatever they want. A lot of DMs have yet to master the fine art of saying "No", either in not saying it when they aren't comfortable with the item in their game, or in saying it all the time without any particular justification. Recognizing problems with game balance is one skill, and being able to stand up to even the most insistant player is another...
Bluebrush 02-15-05, 10:14 AM	One problem I often encounter is the feeling that I'm being too easy on my players. In part, this is because I don't get to play that often and so don't have much experience in tactics open to players. The final showdown of my first game came down to the six PCs (Nightmare for a newbie DM, especially when one of them acts like a ten year old) and the villains. The whole encounter nearly fell apart because I didn't account for the (Highly experienced) cleric casting Silence. Fortunately I knew of the spell "Joyful noise" and ruled the monk/bard halfling knew it. So I basically want to give my PCs a challenge, rather than mowing through villains like a... like a lawnmower I guess. If there's a new PrC/weapon which improves mowing capabilities then I'll be pretty wary of it.
Wyrin 02-15-05, 10:17 AM	1) Why is there such a strong "DM vs PC" mentality? Is it just me? I blame Gygax 2) Why should a DM have to kill a PC? What's the point? 3) If there WAS a point to #2, why does a DM need to justify/sweat over it? Unless the PC is continuously doing something stupid (such as starting fights with all the guards) and this cannot be reasoned out of the player and the player cannot be kicked out because he/she/it is your friend/relative/significant other, it shouldnt happen. Unless the PC's death is a dramatic, fitting, and in character end to the PC 4) Am I the only DM that vetos certain classes, weapons and the like? There seems to be a trend (and I could be wrong) toward allowing the players whatever they want. It can be hard to make spot decisions on the balance of somethign new to your game, and you can either find yourself giving blanket yes or no answers. Certain PrCs, OTT weapons from supplements, and spells are not allowed IMC.
kisama 02-15-05, 10:35 AM	The problem I used to fall into was this. As DM, the evil bad guys are my characters. I used to spend a ton of time and effort into developing them in my spare time. I had personalities mapped out to a great detail and gave them all the coolest equipement. In my mind I had their entire career mapped out. When the bad guy went up against the PC's in my mind it was like a Chess match. Me vs the PC's. I would try to anticipate their strategy and make sure my bad guy had a counter for it. It was not a very friendly way to run the game. In truth our group was made up of an extremely competetive group of kids so I'm not surprised our D&D sessions were adversarial. That is a bad trap to fall into however. Because in competing against the players I lost sight of the truth: The bad guys are there for the players to defeat. Once I got over my ego and accepted the concept letting my players beat the bad guys I was able to enjoy the game, and more importantly, so too were my players able to enjoy the game. Having the bad guys get killed does not mean the story still has to suck.
Kid SixXx 02-15-05, 10:38 AM	I blame Gygax *peeks at his first ed. copy of Tomb of Horrors still in a plastic bag* Yup. I can agree with that.
Edymnion 02-15-05, 11:45 AM	I blame GygaxYup, Gary Gygax, creator of the game (well, co-creater), was an avid Killer DM. His soap box articles in Dragon were almost always him talking about ways to kill the PCs. And yes, ideally, the game is about the DM and the Players working together to have a fun game, and tell the story. However, too many people out there think D&D is a video game where it all boils down to kill things. If you kill the badguy, you win. If you don't, you lose. I have known DMs that don't think it was a good encounter unless at least 1 PC went unconcious. Thats a bad thing. An encounter should, IMO, be about 60-40 in favor of the PCs all surviving. The encounter should pose a serious threat to their continued survival, but it should be one the party stands a fair chance at winning. For a balanced encounter. There's always room for encounters that are way below or way above the party level, simply to help show them that the game doesn't entirely revolve around them, that there are things out there that are both stronger, and weaker then them, at all times. However, players are far more likely to do this than DMs. DMs are, usually, much more experienced at the game than Players are, so they understand the importance of keeping it fun. The players, however, are more likely to see it as a video game where the only point is to kill things as fast as they can (there was that thread a while back about the player that was upset that his DM didn't let his 9th level artificer do some 300 points of damage to Vol in one round and kill her). When you get a pure hack and slash player, and you can't kick them out of the game for whatever reason and replace them, then the DM's job becomes more of keeping the idiot in line than it is trying to make it enjoyable for him. Of course, this sort of thing doesn't really happen when the DM has enough backbone to flat out tell their players "No, you can't do that. I don't care what book says you can, I'm not allowing it in my game." Heavy handed DMing is an important skill, but its more important to know how to use it in moderation. The art of being a flexible DM that is willing to work with your players, and being a DM that isn't afraid of sticking to his guns is a fine line to walk, and few if any DMs can really walk it all the time. But, try to stay as close to the line as you can. This is one time where fence sitting is a good thing.
Bubba333 02-15-05, 11:49 AM	Wow! Thanks all. Excellent points. <<I always encourage my players to draft up a PC that is nothing like them. When folks put too much of their own personality into a character, it may sometimes lead to disaster, especially if that character dies.>> This one is by no means the only of that I agree with, but it raises a serious question: Who actually prefers the ROLEplaying aspect of D&D? I for one can have nothing but a night of dialogue and improve, loving every minute of every nuance.
Thorgrip 02-15-05, 12:58 PM	I've found alot of role players CLAIM that they support role playing over roll playing in words, but that it doesn't coome out in action. It's like saying that you enjoy the combat in D&D is a serious social blunder or something. I personally need a pleasant mix of the two. Pure hack and slash is repetitive, and no combat or anything exciting like that for more than 3 hours of gaming makes me want to stab myself in the face.
rune makei 02-15-05, 01:14 PM	Who actually prefers the ROLEplaying aspect of D&D? I for one can have nothing but a night of dialogue and improve, loving every minute of every nuance. Im the type of DM whole loves to Role Play with just a little combat here and there to keep things interesting. I try to make every encounter happen for a reason, I never just throw a group of orcs at the PC's just for a little combat action. I love to create epic, long campaigns that interweave several plots and include the characters in some aspects of the story. unfortunatly I am having a problem with this at the moment. I have a couple of players that care more about the numbers on the paper than what is going on in the game. You would think an ability score of 12 is the end of the world to them. Also, I cant get three words out in description without a comment being made by one of them, which interrupts me constantly. I have made the decision to bring in different people to play in my game. Im hoping that the other two guys get the hint and change their behavior at the gaming table. If not, then oh well. I have already discussed my intentions with the other players so hopefully all goes well.
skywyze 02-15-05, 01:16 PM	I think it's really sad when the DM becomes the adversary in a campaign. He's as much of a human and player as the others, and entitled to just as much fun. In my opinion, it's the duty of any good player to keep the DM entertained, just as much as it is the reverse. After all, the DM put a lot more work into making a campaign than the players did. He deserves something in return for his hard work. My DM is very experienced, and he still allows us to play anything and everything we want, from any splat book ever released, not because he doesn't know better, but because he trusts the players to limit themselves and not use infinite-free-wishes loopholes or other things that reek of gorgonzola. Unfortunately, we have some impressively immature players too, and if they ever learned how to really break the splat books in their favor, it'd open a can of worms. I guess that's what it all boils down to: the degree of maturity and selflessness displayed by the individual players determines how much fun everyone has, including said player. Now if only there was a way to make them see this... :(
Brastan 02-15-05, 01:44 PM	*Stress relief by blowing hot air into a bag, i.e this thread* That is true, especially when you have almost ten years of roll-playing experience. Some behaviors are hard to change. It takes a slow transition to get to role-playing from roll-playing. I had two 'must win by any means players' back in 2nd Ed Skills and powers. It become harder to control such behavior in a home-brew setting as most of them are not solid and are constantly changing. However there is no excuse for bad behavior in a published setting like Eberron. The base of what is allowed is clearly defined and only the DM, with player input, can allow additional material. It makes it easer for the DM to say No, this does not fit in Eberron. Player VS DM The ultimate in misconceptions. In this age of computers I often think of D&D in quasi-computer terms, such as "The DM is Rendering" when drawing a new section on the dry erase map. This tells the players they need to hold off asking me questions about the room until its drawn. I'd like to pick-up on the Video game view. The DM is the Map/Scenario file, primary game engine, and AI script handler. When playing a video game you don't fight the Game, you rail against the AIs. Since AI are just one aspect of what the DM is supposed to do you shouldn't go about fighting the whole engine just because one flaw appears, like the cut scene removal of Vole after 300 damage from a player hack file. The problem I had for a bit was that I put to much of my ego into the games I ran, particularly the pre-planned outcomes and villain combats. The game stopped being fun for me as all of my designs were destroyed by my players. My final realization was that fatalism is built into DMing. The player WILL kill the favored villain, they WILL disrupt the secrete ritual, and the WILL do everything possible to live. The soon a new DMs recognizes that they should be setting things up to be knocked down the happier they will be. Its like the visual effects guys in Hollywood. They do seem to enjoy build elaborate sets/models/and what-not just to have even more joy in seeing it explode in a fanatic display of violence and CG elements. Most of my villains are now MADE to die, that is there purpose. They will make it the hardest thing posable, as I enjoy placing detail in their history and character. As characters/AI scripts they don't want to die. They want to live just as much as the players PCs, but their doom was cast as soon as I wrote down their name. My new task to learn how create constant, long lasting final BBEG fights without overwhelming my players(their just so fast on the draw :pbbbtt: , abnormally fast). It must have explosions! Enough flash and bang to stop time; or make your system display lag, then freeze, then crash your machine/DM. Has any one had a DM 404 file/response not found moment?
Edymnion 02-15-05, 01:58 PM	I've found alot of role players CLAIM that they support role playing over roll playing in words, but that it doesn't coome out in action. It's like saying that you enjoy the combat in D&D is a serious social blunder or something. I personally need a pleasant mix of the two. Pure hack and slash is repetitive, and no combat or anything exciting like that for more than 3 hours of gaming makes me want to stab myself in the face.Its sad, but its true. There are people on these very boards that think that a roleplayer must hate combat, and that a power gamer never roleplays. When taken to either extreme, the game breaks down. Pure combat means you're playing nothing more than a complicated dice game, essentially nothing more than a game of craps with a few extras. Pure roleplaying, and you might as well be writing a book instead of playing a game. Again, the answer lies in a happy medium. To play D&D, the dice have got to roll from time to time. To play D&D, you have to actually talk to the NPCs. And just because you like combat does not mean you are not a good roleplayer. And just because you're a good roleplayer doesn't mean you have to shun building good characters. They're two sides of the same whole, and you need to keep them both balanced in order to have a truely enjoyable character.
JWSIII 02-15-05, 05:21 PM	I have been DMing for 18+ years now, and have so far managed to maintain a mostly "harsh but fair" reputation. I have three methods I use for doing so. One: I have only one standard house rule: Any uber-sick twisted rules-twink technique you employ may in turn be employed against you: Hence, if you turn your flying carpet, large bag if holding, and well-shaped iron block into a kinetic carpet bombing of count repugsive's castle, expect your own expensive and carefully designed summer castle to undergo a similarly induced metamorphosis into a metal-rich crater unless you have a great defensive sytem ready. After one or two demostrations, my players have turned into model individuals with a great deal of enlightened self-interest. Hence, my first rule: Be careful what you do unto others, for others adapt, and will eventually do unto you P.S.: Yes, I know that the max object damage is now 20d6; but if that were really true, the King-Priest of Istar and most of his city would have survived the cataclysm. :rolleyes: Two: I reserve the right to nerf disbalancing things, but i compensate in two manners - one, by rewarding(or maybe bribing...) the player with a small amount of xp for his/her brilliant idea, so s/he isn't irritated and feels that they are not being "screwed", and two, by allowing for "redo's" on feat choices ect. that directly led to the disbalancing power/ability/combo. This way they get a reward for their smarts and aren't penalized by having built a "nerfed" character. Three: No idea if this will work for other people, but I have a "final judge of appeals". If my players and I reach a major impasse in which it is whole group vs. DM, I allow them to appeal to our other DM (Who is currently serving in Iraq; appeals can takea while). He is my brother, and we think alike, but having a disinterested third party, even one who rules in my favor (and he does it inthe other direction when he DM's) most of the time, gives them the sense that it is a "real" descision, not just a personal power thing. It lends legitamacy to the decisions, basically. Ironically, having all this in place makes me almost never have to use it, my players jokingly grumble over some of my decisions, but haven't even appealed one or created a twink power i've needed to reward/nerf sine at least before christmas, and we play 1-2 times a week. I think the legitimacy of a system is what makes it work; your players can't feel that your out to get them or just being capricious. Theres my overly longwinded twoo cents, hope some of these ideas work for you as well ;)
Chiba_Monkey 02-15-05, 06:39 PM	1) Why is there such a strong "DM vs PC" mentality? Is it just me? I personally think most of the "Player vs. DM" hubbub on the boards is a lot of us blowing hot air. Yes, there are DMs who enjoy killing players maliciously. Most DMs I've ever played with, and my own style involves creating stories and games that are fun all-around. Yes, sometimes PCs will die, and for a DM, there is a kind of secret triumph in that. The NPCs we devise usually do not have the same kind of care and effort that a PC has (and how can they, when a PC has only one character, and the DM has EVERYONE else?). If/when a PC falls to an NPC, there is a sort of "ha, I won!" mentality. However, it's also true that a lot of new DMs see themselves as sort of "opposed to the players". Someone here mentioned that the bad guys are there for players to defeat. This can be true to an extent (although I'm always fond of plot twists that involve the PCs having to eventually aid the bad guys somehow), but I shall now impart some of the best advice I've ever heard as a DM. "It is both a game and a story, if the two conflict, err on the side of cool." Take it to heart whenever you, as a DM find that the players are disrupting your carefully planned out plot. 2) Why should a DM have to kill a PC? What's the point? 3) If there WAS a point to #2, why does a DM need to justify/sweat over it? While I have never personally had it out for a PC, the one PC in my game whose concept I did not care for too much died on his first session. He got surrounded by a hobgoblin and 2 goblins, everyone was trying to retreat and regroup, and a crit got landed. I was rolling the dice openly, and the dice decided he needed to die, which reinforced my belief that it was karma (btw, he was a 1/2 drow ranger w/ 2 scimitars, just so you all know where I'm coming from). He accepted the fate of his character in good humor and made a new one. Me? I drew a little skull on my DM screen :D 4) Am I the only DM that vetos certain classes, weapons and the like? There seems to be a trend (and I could be wrong) toward allowing the players whatever they want. You are absolutely not the only DM who does this. I agree with everyone who has said that too many DMs let players walk all over them. I automatically yellow-flag ANY product that comes from a third party source. I have been known to allow feats, weapons and Pretige Classes from 3rd party sources, like Mongoose Publishing, but mostly I find the supplemental rules to be unbalanced and disruptive. There are a plethora of things wrong with other supplements, too. The Warmage? Absolutely not allowed in my game. (most things from the Miniatures Handbook are too, btw) Most weapons from anything but the PHB? Not likely to happen unless it has the EXACT same stats or comperable to a PHB weapon, and differences are mostly flavor. Also some other ones that I feel fit into my game. I had a monk who wanted a 3 section staff. As he was from a region that this made sense, I found stats for it that I liked. I have house rules that resrict which races can be which classes. As compensation, I remove favored class rules (but humans and 1/2 elves don't lose their advantage, b/c they can be almost any class). However, I am always willing to make an excpetion if it helps the story. example: I usually maintain that only humans, 1/2 elves, and dwarves can be paladins. Elves are too chaottic, and the shorter races dislike being on the front lines. 1/2 orcs are almost always savage and from barbarian tribes in my world. HOWEVER, if a PC can come to me and say, "I have a really good idea for a 1/2 orc paladin, and here's the backstory..." I would allow it. I always encourage my players to draft up a PC that is nothing like them. When folks put too much of their own personality into a character, it may sometimes lead to disaster, especially if that character dies. I respectfully disagree. I've found that the best roleplaying comes when a player can really relate to their character. Now for me, I tend to relate with the PCs I make, but they're not exact representations of me, nor would I make all of the same choices they do, but I usually see some aspect of myself in them. And other players I've seen incorporate this usually come out great, too. Ed, I heartily agree with your points on role playing and combat in DnD. I myself have players who think along those same, polarized lines. Truth is, the 2 sessions we had where NOT A SINGLE DIE WAS ROLLED were a lot of fun for me as a DM. And you know what? Even the power player who likes combat remembers those sessions better than some of the combat stuff. He can more acurately re-tell what happened then as opposed to the blow-by-blow of his favorite combat, And he tries to tell me it wasn't as fun for him. bah. Edymnion, let me just say right now that every time I read one of your posts I am impressed. You have an excellent grasp not only of the systems and rules, but most of all, the spirit of how the game was meant to be played. Good show, old boy. (That is, to say, that you and I share a lot of similar opinions. Ever notice how our estimate of other people's intelligence is based strongly on how closely their opinions match our own?) ;)
Bubba333 02-15-05, 06:53 PM	Seems like I'm not the only one who feels like this, eh? I'm honestly of the opinion that the DM is a player and as such is allowed to have fun, not just babysit and roll dice for the faceless goons in the MM. I also agree that a balance between ACTION (not just combat) and dialogue needs to be kept. Yes, I've run games where there's been strictly roleplaying and no dice-rolling, but they came out they way on their own and everyone liked it. I've also run the opposite and had a few hours of little dialogue with intense action and combat. Both are cool, but again, there needs to be a balance. One thing that does irk me to NO end is when players don't bite. For example, the PCs were invited to dinner by Merrix d'Cannith. The reason for this is the warforged War-Sage of Dol Dorn (i.e.-Fighter/Monk). Merrix wanted to meet such an example of "his children" and felt, since they'd performed so admirably for his House in the past, that it was the "least he could do". Well, two of the players got bored in under 20 minutes with some EXCELLENT dialogue about the nature of the warforged, the responsibility of the other races to help them, etc. They "didn't see the point". I dunno, but it really bugged me. Rant over. :D
Edymnion 02-15-05, 07:10 PM	Yes, sometimes PCs will die, and for a DM, there is a kind of secret triumph in that.Eh, not for me. I always feel lousy when a character dies. Well, let me rephrase that, I hate it when a good player's character dies. If its a stupid player that thinks they can charge a dragon and not die, I enjoy making them see the error of their ways with a gruesom death. But when its a good character, thats been well played, and the dice just decide that the character MUST die (even after I allow for some safety net rerolls), I always feel bad. I like to play more than I like to DM, and I know that when I get a serious character going, I really get into them. And really, nothing sucks more than when your favorite character bites the big one. Especially when you've built the game up around the current party. I mean, can anything suck more than to have the party going on a side quest for a certain member, only to have them die half way in? It doesn't just ruin the player's day, it ruins the DM's day too since they suddenly have to pull a 180 and figure out what the heck to do.
Bib_Fortuna88 02-15-05, 07:26 PM	If you deal with a relatively small group then creat a NPC thats just like a PC (you control him, gains lvls, goes into dungeons with PCs). Doing this breaks the barrier of DM vs PCs because your "on their side". Now, its still a NPC, so you can't argue over a magic item if you want it for your character, the PCs should do that with themselves, since they're the real PCs. ps I do this myself with small groups
Raede 02-15-05, 07:39 PM	Personally, I think the worst games are DM vs player...and ive played in those. In my early days I ran some DM vs. PC, but that was before i really knew what I was doing. Now my goal in any given game is to have a good time. When my players have a good time...I have a good time. So I like to make things dramatic and challenging but with plenty of good feeling going around, working with my PCs to make a memorable story. So pretty much all my encounters are designed to be able to be overcome by a smart or lucky player and to kill players who take stupid risks or things that they know they can't do. But winning is never impossible even if you do try to take on all 150 hobgoblins as a level 3. But I had a player take on 30 and win as a lvl 3 because he was smart about it. He was one hit from death twice but he killed 15 and got away. Its all in Raede's eberron campaign log (thread) I try to be true to the world and maintain a sense that the world is real and follows certain rules. It isn't something that can be abused but if you play it right you can come out on top. On the matter of hooks and biting though I again try to keep the world real. If you don't bite a plot hook it tends to bite you. The hook will continue to develop without your help and may reappear later or some disaster you were supposed to avert will happen...and it may happen to you, bringing you into the hook whether you want it to or not. In the case of the dinner invite I'd just ahve house cannith get ****** at them and withdraw services or raise prices (hit the PCs where it hurts...not HP but GP)
Jarlaxle_The_Rogue 02-15-05, 10:37 PM	Why worry about what to allow and what not to allow? The DM is the best minmaxer there is.
rune makei 02-15-05, 10:47 PM	I have been DMing off and on for about 11 years. I can honestly say that I have never had a game where true roleplaying was at the center. Of course I have been playing with the same people throughout the years so that explains a lot of it. In my earlier years I had the mentality of DM vs PC. Actually my enjoyment came from the sport of killing the pc's. I have since grown up and matured in my style but the stories and impressions live on. One of my players once told me that D&D is nothing more than a series of combat encounters. That all adventures start out in one of a few ways: Find a dead body, hired for services, hanging out in the local tevern at the wrong (or right) time. This tells me that he cant see outside of the box. Me, I see D&D as an opportunity to develop a rich and detailed story that is written by a group of people. I see a way for me to express my creative and artistic talents and have others enjoy it as well. I like the depth of a story, the detail of the surroundings, and the reasons behind it all. To that player, a dead body means an adventure where he will have to fight monsters and get gold. To me, I see intrigue; why is this person dead, who did it, what other plots could be going on, am I seeing the whole picture or just what someone wants me to see? There is a big difference. OK, I seem to be ranting on without any point really. I'll stop now.
Kid SixXx 02-15-05, 10:49 PM	I respectfully disagree. I've found that the best roleplaying comes when a player can really relate to their character. I suppose that's true, but from personal experience, I've always noticed that when someone puts too much of their own personality into a character, they almost cease roleplaying, and are pretty much being themselves in some form or fashion. There's no real right or wrong way to handle it, and we as DM's should encourage our players to flesh out their characters as they see fit. It just worries me a bit when players treat a few sheets of paper as if they were a relative or a sibling.
Edymnion 02-15-05, 10:54 PM	If you deal with a relatively small group then creat a NPC thats just like a PC (you control him, gains lvls, goes into dungeons with PCs). Doing this breaks the barrier of DM vs PCs because your "on their side". Now, its still a NPC, so you can't argue over a magic item if you want it for your character, the PCs should do that with themselves, since they're the real PCs. ps I do this myself with small groupsNo, DMPCs are a bad idea. One of two things almost always happens. Either the DMPC overshadows everybody else or gives away unintentional clues, or they become bland and impotent background characters because you don't want them giving things away or taking the limelight away from the real players. No, when the party is a man down (personally, I intentionally run a game with 3 players, thats plenty of people to play with without needing NPC help), it is better to just remove the level restriction on Leadership and let one take a cohort.
rune makei 02-15-05, 11:18 PM	No, DMPCs are a bad idea. I agree. I have done DMPC's before becuase I felt the party needed some aid to get them started. Actually, I created a cleric to aid the first level characters so that they didnt die right off the bat. I know I probably could have balanced the encounters a little bit better but I ended up working her into the story a little bit. However, that quickly faded and soon we started to even forget she was there. We would be in the middle of a dungeon crawl and people would ask where the cleric was. Well, she's been right there the whole time but we all forgot about her during the battle. Its better to do without. I personally like the idea of lowering or removing the leadership restriction and allowing a pc to have a cohort or follower.
Alac Luin 02-16-05, 05:03 PM	I will speak up and have to agree with Bib_Fortuna88. The DMPC even if they do take a back seat is a great idea to help a DM break the "me vs them" mentality. So, you have a character that eventually falls between the cracks. Then it should be scrapped, as it has likely done its job. The idea here is "training" the DM. When I first started DMing, even though I tried to avoid it, I kept falling into thinking "I must get them". And if the players came up with something that I never would have imagined, and ended up not doing what I wanted them to do, I'd get vindictive. I know, not good DMing. Well, with the DMPC, part of me benefited from these unforeseen ideas, so I know longer felt completely wronged. In time, I learned to control the original urges, I still use a DMPC from time to time but that is another discussion. I’m not dismissing what Edymnion and rune makei said, they are valid points and things to consider. For me, it was easer to control my DMPC from overshadowing the other characters then it was to control a base emotional reaction of vindictiveness.
Lara Flynn 02-16-05, 06:14 PM	Eh, not for me. I always feel lousy when a character dies. Well, let me rephrase that, I hate it when a good player's character dies. If its a stupid player that thinks they can charge a dragon and not die, I enjoy making them see the error of their ways with a gruesom death. Indeed... What I hate most if there's a player playing a character I love so much and this player sends his character to certain death because his character would do exactly what the player makes him do. Example: The character is a bit dumb (8-9 INT), but not stupid all the way and easy to be angered. (Typical half-orc, isn't it. ;)) Anyway - the character gets furious and messes with an ogre. Well it was the last time this poor orc messed with anyone.... sad event. :( But perfectly right. And regarding the DMPC - No. The DMPC destroys groups. Whatever benefit there might be - the disadvantages make it worthless.
JabBond 02-16-05, 07:09 PM	This thread should be stickied. Or maybe March's theme! Just my opinion. It doesn't have to be adversarial. I've seen it both ways, adversarial and cooperative. I was in a party that actually wooed an NPC assassin over to good! Quite a victory, there. It took a lot of work between a (basically) DMPC and the party, to not have that character overshadow us, and yet still matter after the conversion. A DM has to be heavy-handed sometimes, yes, but that doesn't mean it's not fun for the players. I view low point-buys and no-starting-equipment games as a challenge. Low treasure yield? Oh yeah, the challenges last long into higher levels. Only one source book (outside the big three)? It's nice to be so focused, on occasion. I'd talk longer, but so much good stuff has already been said... where's my printer paper? :)
pinky_si 02-16-05, 07:36 PM	What I hate most if there's a player playing a character I love so much and this player sends his character to certain death because his character would do exactly what the player makes him do. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree on this one. Some of my best roleplaying experiences (as both a player and DM) have been where someone's character has met their doom because they were being played fully in-character. The most recent example that springs to mind is the death of a DL Minotaur I played in a friend's game. The backstory went along the lines that Korvath, the minotaur, owed a life-debt to Shadowstar, a Plainsman warrior. Korvath met his end holding off a Red Dragon and a Dragon High Lord (briefly)in order that the rest of the party could escape, taking the sorely wounded plainsman with them. I felt good about this character's death (head-butted to death by the dragon in case you're wondering) and our group still remember Korvath fondly (and with a chuckle for his "Moo" of intimidation). I'd go as far to say that character death should happen at least occasionally, both by design (between player and DM) and randomly (letting the dice speak once the safety net margin has passed). Otherwise, players face the danger of falling into a "it's safe unless we're totally dumb or ask for our characters to die" mentality and the game risks becoming a monty-haullite affair. I would agree with the bulk of the other posters that it's wrong to play against the players (unless you're playing cthulhu, in which case you can indulge your PC squishing desires to the full when the characters don't run away from stuff they should :D )
Edymnion 02-16-05, 08:44 PM	I've found that a great roleplaying tool is to sit down with a character and ask yourself "How do I want them to die?", and to answer it honestly. Do you want them to sacrifice themselves so the team can escape? "Run, I'll hold them off for as long as I can!" Or a suicidal plunge? "I may not survive, but I'm taking as many of you bastards down with me as I can!" Quietly in their sleep of old age after retiring? "Snnnzzzz..." Even if you're going for immortality (you're a warforged, for example), they're not really going to live forever, so figuring out how you want them to die is a good way to bring the character into focus.
Docrailgun 02-17-05, 10:41 AM	It's been my experience that when we see "How do I kill [such and such PC]?!?!" it's because the game has gotten out of control, usually because the DM allowed a "clever" (I'm being nice, here) player to abuse the already abusive classes, feats, PrCs, and spells from non-core or non-Eberron books (such as Warlocks, Hulking Hurlers, Ninja, and so on). When the whole party is full of new gimmick-based characters, that party tends to blow through encounters like tissue paper, unless the DM starts to utilize NPCs or monsters with class levels to counter the too-powerful characters. At that point, the campaign has devolved into an arms race between players and DM rather than one trying to tell a story. So, the DM in question is just trying to salvage his campaign rather than do what he ought to do. which is scrap the game and start over fresh. The DM is likely to be agonizing over it because players who always min-max their characters get a thrill from what their characters can do... so they get mad when they lose their characters or someone tries to control how much they're abusing the system. I'm with you here on not allowing certain PrCs, feats, and so on. The only things non-core (or non-Eberron) that I allow are the Radiant Master, and the Warmace... but I could be open to certain other classes like the Healer. I personally think that PrCs are a bad idea anyway... but then I thought that "kits" were a bad idea in 2nd edition. :) I was just reading a post about how much damage such-and-such can do and there was a remark about how the DM can beat (i.e.-"kill") this PC. This got me thinking about a few things I was hoping to get comments on. 1) Why is there such a strong "DM vs PC" mentality? Is it just me? 2) Why should a DM have to kill a PC? What's the point? 3) If there WAS a point to #2, why does a DM need to justify/sweat over it? 4) Am I the only DM that vetos certain classes, weapons and the like? There seems to be a trend (and I could be wrong) toward allowing the players whatever they want. Yea, this is a rather silly "poll", but the topic just struck me as prevalent.
zerpentor 02-17-05, 11:32 AM	although i love PrCs i tend to be very restrictive when it comes to player races and templates.. this policy has kept most of my and the other DMs games in balance. Besides, if you let your players play every imaginable race and all the available templates then nothing will seem wondrous anymore to them. Ever since Savage Species came out our group has used it ONCE for a PC... it's not that we don't like the book, in fact we love it, but most of the contents is just better suited for adversaries and NPCs.
kisama 02-18-05, 02:15 PM	I've found that a great roleplaying tool is to sit down with a character and ask yourself "How do I want them to die?", and to answer it honestly. Do you want them to sacrifice themselves so the team can escape? "Run, I'll hold them off for as long as I can!" Or a suicidal plunge? "I may not survive, but I'm taking as many of you bastards down with me as I can!" Quietly in their sleep of old age after retiring? "Snnnzzzz..." Even if you're going for immortality (you're a warforged, for example), they're not really going to live forever, so figuring out how you want them to die is a good way to bring the character into focus. Wow that's a pretty interesting idea. I'll have to try that sometime.
Bubba333 02-18-05, 02:29 PM	What REALLY sucks is when a crappy player has an awesome PC (at least in concept). Killing the PC then becomes a sad choice. Of course, I'm more than a tad harsh and will just tell a player. "Dude! You're being an ass. Stop, please." :D
talion09 02-18-05, 03:00 PM	...<snip> Who actually prefers the ROLEplaying aspect of D&D? I for one can have nothing but a night of dialogue and improve, loving every minute of every nuance. We actually had a problem with this recently in my group. We had just switched DM's and made up new characters, and the new player-turned-DM wanted to go with a heavy emphasis on roleplaying and downplay combat. We ended up playing his campaign for a 6 weeks before half of the players revolted, and the next person up in the DM rotation (me) was promoted to DM. (We have 6-8 regular players in our group, and there are 4 of us who can/will DM, so we usually switch off once in a while to give the current DM a break) I had numerous problems with the way the campaign was going, but it basically boiled down to this: 1) With the focus on ROLEplaying vs ROLLplaying (I hate those characterizations, but thats what was said at the table) The party spent whole nights during nothing but mundane stuff & minutiae that did little if anything to advance the storyline. We were "encouraged" by heavy handed use of the roleplaying/story EXP awards (75% of total EXP came from non-combat encounters) to roleplay everything out in detail, totally in character. My problem with this was that a simple ordering dinner and booking a room at the inn took up 15-20 minutes of real time, when it had absolutely no impact on the storyline. When, IMHO, it should of been a simple 2 minute conversation between the player and DM and the subtracting off GP from your character sheet. We spent 2 game sessions literally trapped on a ship in transit between ports, and had to roleplay every little encounter and conversation in character, or be subject to hefty (-30% on average) exp penalties. So a 14 day voyage with 2 memorable events (a big storm and a passing encounter with mermen who traded with us) took up 6 hours of real time to roleplay through. The ironic thing about this scenario? I like to roleplay. I like to make up detailed character descriptions and backgrounds, and give them motivations and goals. I was consistently getting either the first or second most exp per night... but I was absolutely frustrated and bored. The point of this example? Roleplaying is good, but you should gloss over the minutiae and mundane stuff and focus on roleplaying when it really matters, when something is on the line or there is a risk or consequence involved. I've had lots of fun in sessions when nothing happened except for dialogue... but that was when we were actually accomplishing something, ie. trying to talk our way past the guards, in a courtroom, begging a cleric to raise dead our comrade, etc ••• Also, and this depends on how your DM handles things, if you roleplay out every little thing in character (as some have said on this thread that they like to do) then how do you handle skills like diplomacy, bluff, etc? That was the other problem I had with the last campaign. We had to say everything in character and roleplay in detail each encounter and conversation. But it didn't seem like charisma or social skills had any bearing on the outcome of the conversation. Ie. The cleric with maxed diplomacy and a 15 charisma had around the same influence as the gnome wizard with a 9 charisma and ZERO ranks in social skills... b/c the DM was going by the player's persuasive abilities at the table, and ignoring the stats completely. Which leads into the issue about how important are stats, and do they define how you interact with the game, but that is another debate...
HippoRider 02-18-05, 03:15 PM	Regarding the last posters comments i beleive we should all take heed of the indiana jones series and the all-powerful dotted line of transportation. For the DM's and players out there think of it like a book at least a little, we can skip the time indy spends behind a tree and go directly to scene of dramatic importance. Ordering dinner is a fine thing for PC's to roleplay if something interestig is going to happen during dinner. Otherwise let the PC's get thier munchies off camera.
talion09 02-18-05, 03:49 PM	Regarding the last posters comments i beleive we should all take heed of the indiana jones series and the all-powerful dotted line of transportation. For the DM's and players out there think of it like a book at least a little, we can skip the time indy spends behind a tree and go directly to scene of dramatic importance. Ordering dinner is a fine thing for PC's to roleplay if something interestig is going to happen during dinner. Otherwise let the PC's get thier munchies off camera. Thanks, I used the same indiana jones map analogy when talking to the DM myself. With the stated emphasis on roleplaying and not combat, i thought it odd that he would make us spend so much time "on camera" on the boat while he rolled random encounters every day... My last post was kinda rambling, since I was on my way to class... basically, I like roleplaying, but it has to be roleplaying with a purpose, not just for the sake of roleplaying.
Bluebrush 02-18-05, 04:05 PM	My first D&D DM once had us spend hours and hours working out how many horses we'd need to buy to take our small army of men across the local mountains, taking into account that we'd need horses to carry all the feed. That was probably the worst of it, but a lot of the rest of the game played like "Road Trip: The RPG."
Arcane Guyver 02-18-05, 04:22 PM	I'm still learning the ropes as a DM. I used to think that the little things should be roleplayed out extensively - so downtime would take longer than it already does. Then I tried to do all hack&slash, after being "inspired" by the 'kick in the door' style mentioned in the DMG and Dark Alliance. BORING. The DMPC bit - bad idea, worse than making people play multiple characters. Anything goes - sounds fun and easy, until you have a half-celestial drow spiked-chain master flying around and ruining the game (oh yes, and despite all the physical differences, he might as well be named Drizz't :rolleyes: ). I tried it once again recently, this time with tougher restrictions. I know now that Warlocks are a mite too powerful for a game focused entirely on dungeon delving & tons of encounters. I've killed a good deal of characters in my day. Most of them asked for it, however - I was trying to find something cool for a random encounter, and flipped the MM to Hydra. "Oh, no way," I say out loud. "Oh, come on, throw it at us!" says the 3rd-level PCs. "I don't think you can handle it." "Whatever! Just throw it our way!" Toasty, flame-broiled PCs. Then one player actually got ANGRY, and created an evil character who ended up a wannabe serial killer, and was executed by guards literally 15 minutes after being rolled. So yeah, I'm still learning the ropes, though I think I've gotten a bit better. I don't treat it like a competition at all, though I do try to make things suitably challenging or deadly (the hydra thing was a fluke due to the players' rushing the new DM :P ).
MoogleEmpMog 02-19-05, 12:17 AM	Whether as a player or a GM, I enjoy an invigorating tactical exercise. I make players work for victory against opponents, many of whom are smart, savvy and at least equally powerful, and if the players make poor decisions, waste their resources or tackle more than they can chew, they may lose and they may die. However, I hate to see great tactics and roleplaying foiled by bad luck, so I'm not above fudging a tide-turning, PC-killing crit when the players deserve only accolades. On the other hand, my luck tends to be worse than theirs... fifteen thugs rolling fifteen consecutive 1s, 2s or 3s to hit, for example. :P
Amoz12 02-19-05, 07:11 PM	Never had a DM that wasn't just a little bit confrentational but that was the best part of the game, we had to work for the victory. Of course almost every last one of them also subscribed to the theory that the PCs were nothing above the ordinary, just some schmuck who decided to pick up a sword and kill other things for a living, but regardless we were still the heroes of the game. What set us apart was the class levels and the desire to kill monsters and bad guys for cash. I always hated when the DM played whimpy with us. If I didn't feel like my character was in danger of getting killed because he was making stupid choices then what was the point, there's no thrill in sitting with a group of people and just rolling dice and talking. I never wanted to be handed a victory just because I was a Player Character, and the rest of my buddies felt the same way. I've had some great DMs that felt the the players should always get the girl, save the day and what not, but in the end we all knew that we were so it took all the thrill out of it. Sure stupid players died but if you at least attempted to play you could rest assured that success was garentied. Now as I've moved on the DMing I still share many of the traits my old DMs had. My major NPC's aren't stupid and they won't just roll over for the players. They make plans they want to succeed just as much as the players do, so the make plans and plot the down fall of the players when they enterfere with their schemes. I've had a few players sit in a gaming session and I've gone over my philosophy with them and explained the way the universe works in my little neck of he woods and yes a few didn't believe me when I said it wouldn't be a good idea to lob that flaming arrow at the Lord Mayor's house just because he's evil and stiffed you for a few gold. And yes they were quite surprised when they wer arrested and tried for arson and attempted murder and then sent to the dungeon for 10 years. There has to be a balance between the DM vs PC mentality or the game is all about rolling over for the players. Blow that, I have yet to have a player really compian once they realize that, while the story revolves around them, the world does not. But in the end it all depends on the people you game with and the way you like playing. Me, I love playing the chess-thing with my DM and my players enjoy knowing it's a dangerous world out there, a fella could get killed if thinks he can charge into the middle of a orc tribe with just a sharp metal stick and some fancy metal pants.
Beleriphon 02-19-05, 08:18 PM	A lot of DMs have yet to master the fine art of saying "No", either in not saying it when they aren't comfortable with the item in their game, or in saying it all the time without any particular justification. Recognizing problems with game balance is one skill, and being able to stand up to even the most insistant player is another... Get them to work at a call centre, that will get them saying no. At any rate I'm not a DM that vetoes very much, in fact if it appears in a the PHB, MM, or DMG its fair game. Anything that appears in the setting book we play with (eg the ECS, FRCS, etc.) is fair game, otherwise its up to me to let in or not.