[PF] First time DMing

[DaOldeWolf]

OK. So, I will be DM of a campaign with three friends (two of which have never roleplayed before) for the first time ever. I need some advice on three things I am concerned about:

The first concern is the campaign plot is:
centered around a group known as the "8 corners of change" whose objective is make civilization evolve to their next level. Each member believes that their way is the next step in evolution. The members are:

{table]Member|Class|Objective|Alignment
Catfolk king|Synthesist Summoner|Turn every single being into a celestial-blessed creature of the LG alignment|LG
World-reknown human hero|Alchemist|According to his belief, the machines and robotics are the next step in evolution.|CG LN
A solitary dragon|Druid|Return to nature. The next step of evolution involves all humanoid races gaining dragon blood or becoming a dragon|NG
Werewolf HB class|Cleric|Made every single being into lycanthrope|LN CG
An ancient dwarf ghost|Barbarian|The next step in evolution will come from a never ending war|CN
An influential Pit Fiend|-?|The next step in evolution will come from devil-bounded contracts|LE
A power hungry Lich|Sorcerer|Everything must wither and die. Undead are the next phase for the world|NE
A handsome vampire elf|Bard|The beautiful and the handsome will be become vampires, the rest will be used as food source|CE[/table]

None of the members involve much with the other but even if they differ in their approach and the level of altruism behind their ideal, they share a common goal (the evolution of the planet) and there is some level of trust on one another, even giving assistance to one another to fulfill their agendas. EDITED: The members of the organization became crazy and fixated due to an ancient artifact. The campaign will partially involve returning them to members to their true self.


So, I would ask if it is a good plot. Is it believable? Any criticism is welcomed. :smallsmile:

The second concern has to do with my character. Yes, you heard right, my character. I will be playing a DMPC. To make a long story short: I was going to be a player, the other players and I worked together on combining our backstories and before the campaign began, the DM had to back down due to school. So, I decided to step up and try doing it myself) So, I am asking for advice on how to play one as carefully as possible.

The third has to do with DMing itself. I would like some advice on how to DM.

Thanks in advance for any help and advice given.

[Zubrowka74]

This is really nice! Two things though :

1- The CG Alchemist should rather be LN, it's usually seen as the most typical "technocrate" alignment. Think Mechanus.

2- The lycanthrope, LN ? I don't really see it. Turning everyone into cursed were-beasts is not something neutral, to say the least. And bloodthirsty werewolves are more of the chaotic sort, although you might play around the wolfpack loyalties.

[JusticeZero]

The best way to do a DMPC is to never ever do it. Failing that, make sure the DMPC never ever ever does anything that another player present could do. Ever. That includes spot checks, saving throws in many cases. Being an effective combatant is right out.

[Keneth]

Why the hate toward DMPCs? I agree that they shouldn't shine, but that doesn't mean they should be useless. :smallconfused:

[Deaxsa]

1. awesome list, i have only one bone to pick (which i fully understand is completely my opinion): why is there NOT ONE (even mildly) SANE OPTION ON THAT LIST? literally all of them will spawn mass genocides... and with 8 people trying to commit genocide, genocide will happen. to make things clearer, maybe someone thinks that the next step of evolution is to wipe disease from the planet, yet the dragon is all like "oh hell no"

my point being, come up with options that are still extreme and world-changing in their scope, but not quite as physically violent. also, if all of these crazies go off their rockers at the same moment, the world will probably be reduced to 5% population(especially because of the dragon, the lich, and the vampire EDIT: oh and the dwarf too).

here's an idea: maybe something made these people go off their rockers, some great event which spread a magical disease? then the party might be able to, say, "cure" each of the eight characters, who then can be used as allies?

here's another idea: an organization based around balance is trying to fight these crazies with sabotage and stealth (they have not the numbers to battle them on the field), and your party meets them (or even starts them)?

2. give no credit to your character. i'm serious. nothing can be because he did it, unless it's like, your character went to the toilet or something. i know this seems rigid, but trust me, any more and things can turn sour in a hurry. basically, he has to become an intelligent object. able to speak, suggest courses of action(but NOT game-winning courses of action), make snide comments, but be almost entirely helpless without a hand to hold him (literally), and have the incapability of enacting anything of his own accord. that's how i'd play your character.

3. be more specific? also, i would suggest simply playing one session, starting off by saying, "this is my first time Dming, take it easy on me, things might go slowly" and see how it goes, THEN identify problems you want to deal with.

[Deaxsa]

Why the hate toward DMPCs? I agree that they shouldn't shine, but that doesn't mean they should be useless. :smallconfused:

because it becomes imagination masturbation. every time. not because the dm WANTS it to be, or anything, it just ends up being that way. let me give you a simple example: DMs are not supposed to tell players what their characters do. so when someone scores a crit, you are not 'supposed' to tell the player that his character slashes the monster across the neck, and it goes down in a bloody spray. however, because A) the dm IS allowed to do that with DMPCs, (seeing as he can tell his character what it does) and B) he has the best mental visualization of the DMPC than any other PC, it ends up being very, very hard to not have even the slightest bias.

as a note: i'm giving extreme examples, and i don't belive that this will happen literally every time, but it;s such a fine line that i really, really don't suggest it.

another note: one way to make DMPCs A) kosher and B) awesome is to say "yea that guy i made, he's like, a party member, except the opposite, and a friend, except the opposite". this is called a villain. then, the more awesome the "DMPC" is, the more daunting the challenge... and the more awesome the feeling when said "DMPC" finally goes down.

[Keneth]

Actually, as a DM you are indeed supposed to describe what happens when your players hit a creature, it says so right in the book. You don't have to, but it's your job to do so. I frequently describe the situations when someone scores a massive hit or makes a particularly luck shot, it's part of the fun to make a situation more vivid in everyone's mind. DMPCs can be played with no bias whatsoever by a good DM. In fact, I frequently employ them when the story needs to move along or when the PCs don't have the resources or manpower to deal with a problem at hand. They usually don't take the spotlight though, except when they fumble gloriously for some comic relief and players' satisfaction.

[DaOldeWolf]

1- The CG Alchemist should rather be LN, it's usually seen as the most typical "technocrate" alignment. Think Mechanus.

2- The lycanthrope, LN ? I don't really see it. Turning everyone into cursed were-beasts is not something neutral, to say the least. And bloodthirsty werewolves are more of the chaotic sort, although you might play around the wolfpack loyalties.

Maybe I could make it switch places with the wolf but I am not sure if a chaotic good werewolf sounds better. My reasoning behind the werwolf was mostly about the neutral part. I imagine it as a survivalist first and last.

Mostly, I want to make the "evil team" based on the theme of one of each alignment (except for true neutral). What would you reccomend to retool it while keeping the theme?


The best way to do a DMPC is to never ever do it. Failing that, make sure the DMPC never ever ever does anything that another player present could do. Ever. That includes spot checks, saving throws in many cases. Being an effective combatant is right out.

Yeah, I am hoping to do a cleric to work as a buffer/healbot. Would that be any good? I have never been much of a spotlight hugger. I love playing supporting characters in campaigns.


1. awesome list, i have only one bone to pick (which i fully understand is completely my opinion): why is there NOT ONE (even mildly) SANE OPTION ON THAT LIST? literally all of them will spawn mass genocides... and with 8 people trying to commit genocide, genocide will happen. to make things clearer, maybe someone thinks that the next step of evolution is to wipe disease from the planet, yet the dragon is all like "oh hell no"

my point being, come up with options that are still extreme and world-changing in their scope, but not quite as physically violent. also, if all of these crazies go off their rockers at the same moment, the world will probably be reduced to 5% population(especially because of the dragon, the lich, and the vampire).

here's an idea: maybe something made these people go off their rockers, some great event which spread a magical disease? then the party might be able to, say, "cure" each of the eight characters, who then can be used as allies?

here's another idea: an organization based around balance is trying to fight these crazies with sabotage and stealth (they have not the numbers to battle them on the field), and your party meets them (or even starts them)?

I am flattered. Thanks for the compliment. Now, for you answering your questions. Well, they dont really know the details how the other members plan to make the world "evolve" just that they want to do it and possess some influence to do it. They are too blind about ther ideal that they really havent though about it carefully (pretty much the reason for the devil being there).

Well, I wasnt sure how subtle I should be about the whole thing but I suppose I could tone them down a little. I though a "obviously wrong" view would be better for first time players just to avoid them from joining their crazy side.

Those are good ideas.I especially like the first. It could give me a reason to introduce an artifact or something of the like.

2. OK.

3. Well, I already told the players that its my first time being a DM.

Thanks for all the comments.

[Vastly]

DMs are not supposed to tell players what their characters do. so when someone scores a crit, you are not 'supposed' to tell the player that his character slashes the monster across the neck, and it goes down in a bloody spray.

I disagree with this statement, as I've found that players tend to appreciate the extra visual narrative. That said, I would agree with the notion that a DM is not suppose to make a players character do anything (outside of mind effect spells and such).

If over done or done sloppily then you can accidentally fall into the territory of taking control of a character from its player, which is bad, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to add that extra narrative.

For instance, I had a player with a bite attack get the felling blow on a goblin, and described it as such "You bite it's neck and it drops to the floor, a bloody mess." they then decide to bind it, and heal it up. When it became conscious it was very terrified of that player. It was his most memorable moment of the night, and he talked about it enthusiastically later. Carefully done, it can make a player feel like they're doing more then tossing numbers at enemies.

In short, don't take control of PC's but don't be afraid to add some narrative flare!

[Deaxsa]

I disagree with this statement, as I've found that players tend to appreciate the extra visual narrative. That said, I would agree with the notion that a DM is not suppose to make a players character do anything (outside of mind effect spells and such).

If over done or done sloppily then you can accidentally fall into the territory of taking control of a character from its player, which is bad, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to add that extra narrative.

For instance, I had a player with a bite attack get the felling blow on a goblin, and described it as such "You bite it's neck and it drops to the floor, a bloody mess." they then decide to bind it, and heal it up. When it became conscious it was very terrified of that player. It was his most memorable moment of the night, and he talked about it enthusiastically later. Carefully done, it can make a player feel like they're doing more then tossing numbers at enemies.

In short, don't take control of PC's but don't be afraid to add some narrative flare!

point taken, that was probably a poor example. apologies. i still, however, think that DMPCs are a terrible idea, and part of that is because they are often easily the most vivid character to the guy explaining everything.

[Vastly]

point taken, that was probably a poor example. apologies. i still, however, think that DMPCs are a terrible idea, and part of that is because they are often easily the most vivid character to the guy explaining everything.

No worries, everyone has different opinions when it comes to DMing! And I agree with you, DMPC's are usually a bad idea, they're very difficult to pull off without taking away from your players. Plus it's one more thing you have to worry about, something a new DM doesn't need.

[Zubrowka74]

Maybe I could make it switch places with the wolf but I am not sure if a chaotic good werewolf sounds better. My reasoning behind the werwolf was mostly about the neutral part. I imagine it as a survivalist first and last.

Mostly, I want to make the "evil team" based on the theme of one of each alignment (except for true neutral). What would you reccomend to retool it while keeping the theme?

Make the human LN and use another lycanthrope for CG. Since there isn't any straight up CG in PF yet use a werebear (LG) or wereboar (CN, closest) and make it an alignment variant. Also, change his motivation to be less genocidal, as it was pointed out. Maybe he loaths his condition and wants to get rid of all surnatural diseases, or cure all diseases and curses period. Make him a ranger ?

[Verte]

As far as DMPCs go, I think that they can be useful under certain circumstances. For instance, let's say that the DM prepares an adventure that is going to be particularly challenging, with lots of emphasis on combat with creatures that deal ability damage, traps, bad weather conditions, etc. He has a rough idea of what the party will be, but a couple people are undecided. When they finally decide, he discovers that the party will be made up of a Barbarian, a Sorcerer, a Scout, and a Warmage. Since he doesn't want to tell them that they have to change their characters - and since they no longer have the time for that anyway - he decides that they can hire an NPC healer - Ned, Novice of Pelor (adept class) who enjoys hiding behind boxes and collecting interesting buttons - to follow them around and patch up their wounds if they want. He decides that if they don't want to do that, then they should try being more careful or figure out something else themselves.

The bad way to do DMPCs is something like this: the DM misses his old character, Xerxes Dragon-Claw, a sorcerer who was searching for his long lost lover, Esmeralda Half-Fey, and seeking vengeance for the destruction of his ancestral homeland on the Azul Islands. Xerxes was of course handsome, powerful, and brooding. The DM decides that since everyone thought Xerxes Dragon-Claw was really entertaining, and since his campaign will mainly deal with the Azul Islands, that Xerxes Dragon-Claw should be introduced as soon as possible so he can lead the party and point out the best parts of the plot.

One concern I have about a DMPC in this situation is that it would add to the workload. What is the party makeup - do they need a healbot?

Ok, back to the main point of the thread. I think it would be better if each member seemed to have a more compelling motivation for why they would think the world would evolve if, say, everyone became draconic. I'm also curious about how they can work together if they all have such different aims. Like, how can the Catfolk King work with the Lich at all?

I agree that the alignments should be switched between the werewolf and the alchemist.

[DaOldeWolf]

Make the human LN and use another lycanthrope for CG. Since there isn't any straight up CG in PF yet use a werebear (LG) or wereboar (CN, closest) and make it an alignment variant. Also, change his motivation to be less genocidal, as it was pointed out. Maybe he loaths his condition and wants to get rid of all surnatural diseases, or cure all diseases and curses period. Make him a ranger ?

OK. That would be good for more battle variety. Thanks.


One concern I have about a DMPC in this situation is that it would add to the workload. What is the party makeup - do they need a healbot?

Ok, back to the main point of the thread. I think it would be better if each member seemed to have a more compelling motivation for why they would think the world would evolve if, say, everyone became draconic. I'm also curious about how they can work together if they all have such different aims. Like, how can the Catfolk King work with the Lich at all?

I agree that the alignments should be switched between the werewolf and the alchemist.
Well, they are a gunslinger (new player), alchemist (new player),and a sorcerer (not new player). The sorcerer player wants to specialize in spells from the necromancy school. The alchemist player wants to blow up stuff and his spell list consist of (ant haul, disguise self, alter self, barkskin, enlarge person, invisibility, fire breath, waters of maddening, protection from arrows). I dont know much about the gunslinger yet.

More compelling.... mmhhh... I suppose you are right. I´ll try to rework on the idea. I think I will retool the idea of them acting so crazy with an artifact messing up their minds (using the suggestion given earlier). It really would help explain the weird mantra of the organization.

Yeah, I believ I will make the change of alignment then.

[JusticeZero]

One role I like to have for my characters is "I'm the Spot guy". So I would make characters whose badassitude is in their ability to notice the various ambushes and clues before anyone else. The goal was that I would be all Sherlock on a scene, and when danger happened, before anyone else did anything I would already be flying into the attack.

So in one game I was saddled with a DMPC apprentice. The apprentice had some abusive tricks with his spells that were more powerful than mine, and he was always noticing things first.

It made me feel completely pointless. Why am I even there? just send the kid on ahead, i'm just some idiot with a puny attack that the real hero has in the back ranks. My "apprentice" that I have no choice in having seemed tougher than I was in every way. He probably wasn't, but he stepped on my toes all the time.

Later game, different system, different GM. My character is a scout. My whole thing is that I know the woods we're traveling through, I notice stuff, I see all the clues.

And we had this DNPC kid in the group. So we're going along and suddenly the kid is "Hey, up ahead I see ___!" I nearly walked out of the game session right then and there. And yes, over the course of the game, my main "thing" as a character was done by the DMPC a lot. Each time, I almost walked out.

It ruined the game for me. I want to be awesome sometimes, and every time the DMPC is awesome in something i'm good at, it has stolen something from me. The DMPC is run by God. They can do anything. I? can get a good roll on a skill i'm good with, and the DM just stole that from me. And the DM is probably going to do it a lot because they want to be awesome too, but they can cheat at will or by accident.