PDA

View Full Version : Pc Dmpc?



INoKnowNames
2014-02-16, 03:57 AM
DMPCS are a good 80% of the time recommended against. Having a character on hand to help steer the party where the DM wants them to go, or be plot critical for whatever story he has in mind, is usually seen as a no-go, even if said character isn't optimized to succeed in every single challenge with knowledge that the actual players didn't have access to, thus acting as wish-fullfilment.

However (except for everything past that last even), what if a PC filled this role? If a player's character was fascinating enough that the Dm used them for the impetus of more than a handful of the adventures that the party faces, is that the same kind of thing that might strike ire into a group?

TuggyNE
2014-02-16, 04:19 AM
If one particular PC is always the plot hook and always directing things because the DM says so? That's favoritism, and is pretty nearly as bad.

If all the PCs can have plot hooks and can either direct the party or agree to let someone else lead? Nothing wrong with that.

INoKnowNames
2014-02-16, 04:56 AM
If one particular PC is always the plot hook and always directing things because the DM says so? That's favoritism, and is pretty nearly as bad.

If all the PCs can have plot hooks and can either direct the party or agree to let someone else lead? Nothing wrong with that.

I was figuring something a bit closer to the Order of the Stick. All of the party have had sections of the plot revolve around them, with various players being responsible for or leading certain actions in various ways, but in the end, the overall plot is Roy's team stoping Xykon and the forces of evil from abusing the mystic gates containing the snarl (though recent events might suggest that synopsis isn't enough anymore).

Though avoiding favoritism is a good hint of advice. Love need be spread.

Waar
2014-02-16, 05:45 AM
I find that the real role of the GMPc is to increase party size (and number of players), rather than provide guidance, (there are many ways to provide guidance but only three ways to increase party size).

Driderman
2014-02-16, 05:55 AM
You can play great stories and campaigns that revolve around one specific PC's story mostly, but you definitely have to make sure everyone is on board with the idea of playing a support cast rather than main characters, as such.

hemming
2014-02-16, 06:14 AM
I'm a big believer in making adventures/subplots that hook on one PCs particular interests/factions/back story - as long as no one player gets more attention than the others in the long term

Players that don't usually get to shine that much (often bc they are just more quiet at the gaming table) get an opportunity to come out of their shell

For players that are heavy on RP this kind of adventure is character development gold. It gives an opportunity to tie additional pieces of the characters past to the present party/campaign.

Also great for helping the player develop a sense of connection to the campaign (bc key pieces of the story center on them personally).

Red Fel
2014-02-16, 10:11 AM
I've had a DM hook an entire plot onto a single character. In my mind, it can work, depending on several factors.

1. How big is the hook? Is this simply a case of rescuing a family member or going on a journey of personal discovery? Or is this one character going to be singlehandedly responsible for saving the world? Little character-specific hooks can be great fun, as everyone gets to know the character and see them in action; big character hooks can make the rest of the party feel worthless.

2. How long are we going to dangle? Is this a one-session thing where the party helps this one PC with an adventure? Or will it become an entire story arc? I'm a big proponent of giving each PC a chance to shine, even if it's for a whole session - but no more than that at a shot. Drag it out too long, and you run into the same problem as above; the rest of the party feels like the supporting cast.

3. Is there room on the hook for a few more? Just because a plot hook centers around one character doesn't - and mustn't - exclude the other characters from taking an active role. Say your plot hook involves the Drow PC finding a sacred relic of Eilistraee and returning it to a hidden CG Drow enclave. Who's to say your Dragonborn Fighter doesn't have the chance to shine by engaging in a daring airborne duel against the relic's guardian, or that your Xeph Rogue won't be allowed to ham it up by charming the Drow ladies? It's one thing to center a plot-hook around one character, that's fine; but when you effectively exclude the others, you've gone too far.

In the example I mentioned earlier, the DM committed all of these errors. He intended to design an entire story arc around one character, a journey of discovery and rescue lasting quite a few sessions, and in which the PCs unrelated to the plot would be mostly extraneous - but we had to go along for the ride anyway. As expected, the campaign disintegrated shortly thereafter.

My favored method is to make sure that each PC at my table has some overarching goal in his backstory. If he doesn't, encourage him to write it. Then work each goal into the plot of the campaign. The one with a rival? His rival will keep appearing at perfect times to make things difficult for the party. The one questing for knowledge? He will find clues as the party travels. The one looking for a lost love? Unbeknownst to him, the clues the knowledge-seeker finds will lead them to a place that will help him find his lost love, but that place will be guarded by none other than the rival, who has a personal reason to keep the heroes away - for once not motivated by rivalry. Using each of these plot threads, weaving them together like a braid, I can make each player feel in turn like his character is the star; for a brief moment in any given session, a player should be able to feel like his character matters more than anything.

Kimera757
2014-02-16, 02:18 PM
DMPCS are a good 80% of the time recommended against. Having a character on hand to help steer the party where the DM wants them to go, or be plot critical for whatever story he has in mind, is usually seen as a no-go, even if said character isn't optimized to succeed in every single challenge with knowledge that the actual players didn't have access to, thus acting as wish-fullfilment.

However (except for everything past that last even), what if a PC filled this role? If a player's character was fascinating enough that the Dm used them for the impetus of more than a handful of the adventures that the party faces, is that the same kind of thing that might strike ire into a group?

Before you start a game, you need to do session 0. If the DM is constantly having trouble getting the PCs involved in a story, they probably have a session 0 problem. All the players should have gotten involved in a long-term goal, the same one, before the game even started. That makes hooking easy. Part of session 0 is making sure you don't have four or five PC with differing goals, or who dislike each other, or for other reasons cannot work together. (For my games, I usually insist my PCs were all friends before the game starts. That takes care of the dislike/distrust issue.)

Accompanying NPCs should never "steer" or "drive", even if they're weaker. The DM can do that themselves. If the players are arguing over what to do next, the DM can say "remember when..." or remind them about info they should be considering.

The DM should not be afraid to move "plot tokens" either. I've seen this described as "Schrodinger's Plot". Suppose the DM wants players to stumble across Lord Blackwood doing something illegal. But where will this happen? The PCs might avoid high society places where Lord Blackwood hangs out. They might avoid the rough and nasty taverns where Blackwood has secret meetings with thugs he can't be seen in public with. Frankly, the PCs stumble upon Lord Blackwood the next time they go into any tavern. There's a broken-down rich guy's carriage outside, and it turns out Blackwood is in this weird tavern because he didn't want to walk to any of his regular haunts. Play scene, then let PCs react.

(I'm running a fun adventure where the PCs need to learn a piece of info to get forward. In many adventures, if the PCs fail to get that piece of info, the game grinds to a halt. Fortunately there's an NPC who will help them. The thing is he doesn't want them to know this! He fakes a diary with the info they need, and puts it where they might see it. And if they don't find it, he will put it into the next place where they look. In short, he will ensure they learn the info they need, and if I'm skilled enough the players will have no idea I did this! :D And if they figure it out, I'll own up, and say said NPC failed his skill check! At which point, the PCs will probably want to interrogate said NPC...)

squiggit
2014-02-16, 06:32 PM
If one particular PC is always the plot hook and always directing things because the DM says so? That's favoritism, and is pretty nearly as bad.

I sorta disagree. It depends on the situation.

Some games practically require it because certain players don't build their characters with hooks in mind and don't have a lot of initiative for one reason or another. Some games are built around it (Rogue Trader practically demands this for instance).

It's favoritism if you're ignoring PCs ideas out of spite or somesuch. It hardly is though if only one character has anything to build on. I've had plenty of tabletops that have a Wizard who wants to defeat an evil lich or a Fighter that wants to slay an unjust king or... whatever. And then there's a rogue who just wants to come along so he can get rich.

TuggyNE
2014-02-16, 07:11 PM
I sorta disagree. It depends on the situation.

Some games practically require it because certain players don't build their characters with hooks in mind and don't have a lot of initiative for one reason or another. Some games are built around it (Rogue Trader practically demands this for instance).

It's favoritism if you're ignoring PCs ideas out of spite or somesuch. It hardly is though if only one character has anything to build on. I've had plenty of tabletops that have a Wizard who wants to defeat an evil lich or a Fighter that wants to slay an unjust king or... whatever. And then there's a rogue who just wants to come along so he can get rich.

I put in "because the DM says so" for a reason. If there's no other choice, or if the players agree "yeah, we're all following Roy", it's not so problematic. But if it's the DM that chooses one character's plot hooks over the others, consistently, that's the problem.