| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1tofpher85Jun 24, 2014 23:12:45 | our current gaming group has 6 players in it not including the dm. but our dm insists on playing a character. when i dm i dont feel like i should have a toon because im already pretty busy rolling for all the npcs. it feels like nepitism though because he will tell players what classes they can take and what feats we have access to but no one can tell him that he cant take a feat. for example i was playing a half celestial/half human bard and i wanted to get a cloak of charisma, he told me i couldnt because it would make me too powerful. i was also informed that i would not get my bonus feat for being a human for the same reason. soo i looked at his character sheet and he is a monk with a vow of poverty and all the extra exalted feats he was granted he used on feats from other books. i brought it up that he shouldnt be allowed to do that and he replied "i didnt like those feats, so i changed it" it just bothers me and im wondering if im just being an uptight jerk or if this is actually considered bad form for dms. |
| #2cougonJun 25, 2014 2:20:32 | Your post seems to have at least 2 different questions/issues in it. I'll try to answer both.
In regards to the DM having a character, which is often referred to as a DMPC, there are mixed views. Some like it in order to shore up what they see as weak points in the party or to have a chance to be a player while still running. Personally, I never have a DMPC, but this may have something to do with the way I look at running a game. From the way I see it, I have hundreds of characters throughout a campaign. Every NPC, from insignificant enemies to fully fleshed out personas to interact with, is a character that I run when they are in the game. Some might get run for only one encounter since they're just for that combat while other might get run many times as the party repeatedly encounters them. By taking on each persona, I never get bored with one character and get to be everything during the campaign. The bottom line is that if you're not comfortable playing a character when you're the DM, then don't.
The second issue is based around control. He likes to control his players to the point where I wouldn't play in his game. I can understand not allowing certain feats or classes that come from splat books that you think are too powerful, but when he denies basic abilities (such as the bonus feat for humans) or telling players what they're going to choose for their character, then it goes too far. Likewise, changing around how a particular ability works is not a good idea. Abilities in published books have generally been playtested to some degree and attempts have been made to prevent an ability from being too powerful, though these attempts can sometimes be incomplete. The Vow of Poverty is designed to allow the player to select certain feats, and only those feats. If he had cleared it with you in advance, then maybe you would have allowed it. However, a player can't just change around abilities just because they didn't like how it works. I would not have allowed him to make the changes and insisted that he either follows the restrictions of the Vow of Poverty if he wants to have it. If you stick to the abilities as written (barring errata) then he can complain and try to browbeat you, but you will have solid ground to stand on when resisting his influence. |
| #3thespaceinvaderJun 25, 2014 4:06:26 | Generally, no, the DM should not play a PC. He gets to play EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD, except the PCs.
I'd say 'talk to your DM' but it's unlikely to help.
|
| #4iserithJun 25, 2014 7:12:26 |
|
| #5ChainsawhandJun 25, 2014 14:13:15 | I don't get it, he wants to limit the players and then overshadow them? It isn't fun watching the DM roll dice against himself and he fails to realize that. Everything I read sounds awful, listen to thespaceinvader and run for the hills. |
| #6KruskJun 25, 2014 15:15:03 | You've got a lot of points to make. Most people agree that a DMPC generally is a bad thing. Its very hard to do well, and if not it can be very detrimental to the game.
|
| #7baldhermitJun 25, 2014 20:07:59 | Cougon: I'll second tsi in this one, walk away.
Your DM has some issues (likely personality related), and it would seem he wants the players to be footnotes in his story. You're better off going home and watching daytime TV.
(curious what nepitism is, though) |
| #8MicaEsenbulJun 25, 2014 20:32:21 | My DM and I agree with what everyone else here has said but would like to put in that it's sometimes good for a DM to get a PC because of times when other players aren't available. Can still run a good/active time with less people if the DM is participating with them.
My DM suggests that it's more fun to use an NPC your party chose not to slay. ;D |
| #9baldhermitJun 25, 2014 21:25:18 | If we're talking DMPCs, I have used em before. As a DM you just have to be careful not to shine with that NPC.
So a character that does not speak, offers nothing out of combat, and in combat does some healing and enabling (4e), and nothing else. The spotlight in the story should be the actual player characters. |
| #10tofpher85Jun 25, 2014 23:11:02 | i have arrived safely at the hills away from the previous gaming group. ive found a new gaming group. they do not do dungeons and dragons they play vampire the masquerade. while im bummed we wont be playing dnd im really stoked cause the new story teller(that games version of dungeon master) has already set up a day for him and i to meet so he can see the character im making and how it will fit into the story.. im pretty excited and it is true that a bad gaming group is worse than not having a group at all. |
| #11thespaceinvaderJun 26, 2014 7:04:01 |
|
| #12KruskJun 27, 2014 15:33:44 |
|
| (Reply to #12)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #14KruskJun 28, 2014 11:21:52 |
|
| (Reply to #14)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #16TiarnJun 28, 2014 23:54:11 |
|
| #17KruskJun 29, 2014 6:59:37 |
|
| #18AaronOfBarbariaJun 29, 2014 7:02:22 | Krusk, I don't think you and I read the same Vampire: the Masquerade book. |
| #19KruskJun 30, 2014 16:07:57 | Well no, I imagine they printed a few copies. |
| #20NoonJul 02, 2014 18:04:46 |
|
| #21NoonJul 02, 2014 18:05:58 |
|
| #22SamVDWOct 15, 2014 10:43:45 | I ran a game with my brother AND played a character in it... when I was twelve and we didn't have anyone else to play with...
I feel pretty strongly that a game master is there to run the game. You've got enough going on and you're really already playing characters. Having to insert your own player chracter into your own game is overkill and will have negative consequences.
If you insist on playing a character, play a character in a game someone else is running. |
| (Reply to #17)CCS |
|
| #24ZathrisOct 15, 2014 23:23:30 | I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play, and to play games that they enjoy
SamVDW: It's the GM's job to run an enjoyable game, sometimes, like with your brother, additional characters are needed for a functional party, it's not necessarilly bad to play it yourself (particularly if the other people are new) but typically I'd just ask the most veteran player to to play multiple characters. |
| #25SamVDWOct 16, 2014 0:46:24 |
|
| #26BeoricOct 16, 2014 19:38:25 | Are we sure we are discussing the same thing here? I get the sense that Zathris is talking about using an NPC that is statted out as a PC. The only thing that makes it a "DMPC" is the stats; otherwise, it is merely a supporting character like any other NPC. That is not the same as a DM-run central character that is, essentially, a DM avatar or Mar(t)y S(t)u(e). One is ony mechanically a PC, while the other is role-played as a PC. I see a world of difference between the two. |
| #27TsuliaOct 16, 2014 23:07:34 | In the homebrew campaign I'm running, we have a spacejammer, a Heavily modified one at that. Central to the randomised plot (players make up 100% of where they want to go and what they feel like they can do)
On this Spacejammer, we have a Hybrid level 25 Dragonsorc/Psion whom acts as the ships I-win button for the level 4 party. The party knows if stuff gets too bad, I can flip the screw it button and have her step in. We also have a level 6 "First mate" and a level 4 immortal familiar. They add fluff and funny moments to an otherwise empty 4-level ship.
Personally, DM characters have all the rights and powers the DM/GM/ST has themselves. The party can't do crap to them, even if they wanted. But with that in mind, as the GM you need to put personal limitations on them as well.
I played some WoD where the GM had a character in active play; he played them normally... and didn't progress from the starting stats (xp/stats work differently in WoD) but of course he had access to some nicer toys than the party. We made it clear we wasn't happy... that day, we learned two automatic shotguns are super effective vs anything. I learned one thing from it, GM characters can't be better or treated differently than a standard pc character -IF- you plan on having them join the group as your own personal character. You also cannot under any circumstance screw with the parties decisions as it ruins their gaming experience.
At the end of the day - if you honestly don't want to guide a party through a predone or a homebrewed adventure you've designed, but rather play a character... stop GM'ing. |
| #28ZathrisOct 17, 2014 22:46:04 | I think having a super high level "panic button" is very poor gaming, it removes the risk factor from a game designed around Players choices and the consequences. |
| #29KruskOct 25, 2014 7:13:28 |
|
| (Reply to #26)CCS |
|
| #31BeoricNov 01, 2014 9:59:31 | I suspect the phrase took on a different meaning with 4e players because, unlike in other editions, by-the-book NPC creation is fundamentally different from PC creation, and "Companion Characters" are worse than useless (unless you convert a monster) because they increase the XP budget without contributing to combat in a meaningful way. There being no word in 4e for an NPC statted as a PC, "DMPC" took on a broader meaning. |
| #32ZathrisNov 01, 2014 18:26:25 | Eh, not really. It's still, as mentioned by CCS, when the DM is running an actual character as a major part of the story for personal gratification of being "in control". DMPC very much is the Mary Sue of RPGs on the personal level.
DMPC/Mary Sue/Will Wheaton: Bad. NPC/DM-Controlled PC whose only contribution is skill checks and non-combat healing: Good. |
| #33LemurionDec 22, 2014 11:39:36 | The last group I actually played in regularly had a DM who regularly upstaged everyone with his DMPCs. It was fun for a get together at the bookstore, but it really wasn't entirely satisfying because you knew the DMPC would always be the star. (And yes, as a primarily non-4E player I'm using DMPC to reflect a DM's personal character, not simply an NPC that follows PC creation rules.)
Personally, as a DM I avoid them like the plague. In the current campaign (3.5) I control 1 party member, an Aristocrat2/Wizard(Divination)3 who's just there to give the party a little magical backup as nobody really wants to play casters. She's 2-3 levels lower than most of the PCs, and her most common combat contribution is standing watch so that no one senaks up on the party. She wasn't built to be a party focus, either; she's just an NPC they resuced who decided to hang around. |
| #34PanartiasDec 23, 2014 2:15:05 | I agree, that a GM has enough on his plate (with all the monsters and NPC’s ) without having a character of his own.
One exception might be, when you rotate GM duty and the “normal” character of the former player/now GM just fades into the background and just tags along with his buddies. We did this quite often, but it is far from an ideal solution! |
| #35ImaculataDec 23, 2014 10:32:20 | In my opinion, the only thing the DM should be playing, is the npc's.
In my own pirate campaign, I play all of the npc crew members that the players bring along. Occasionally I may hand control of one of these npc's over to some of the players during combat. |
| #36TimpookieDec 29, 2014 7:43:03 |
|
| #37LemurionDec 29, 2014 9:05:40 |
|
| #38TimpookieDec 29, 2014 17:19:41 |
|
| #39baldhermitDec 29, 2014 20:14:34 |
|
| #40TimpookieDec 30, 2014 2:00:36 |
|
| #41TimpookieDec 30, 2014 2:07:00 |
|
| #42ORC_LolthDec 30, 2014 5:34:06 | Content has been removed from this thread for discussing Illegal Activities.
Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun! |
| (Reply to #41)Fardiz |
|
| #44AlrauneDec 30, 2014 13:24:37 | That, and PHB1 Paragon Paths experimented with secondary role addition in a way that was rarely done afterwards. |
| (Reply to #40)Reius |
|
| #46TimpookieJan 01, 2015 4:42:02 |
|