/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>417828

The dmpc is usually not a good idea,

Npc companions or whatever it is, are usually best used if there is a low number of player characters or the party is lacking something they might need for your particular game like a cleric or thief.

Companions can have their moments but shouldn't steal the show.

If you do a dmpc (and you usually shouldn't) it should be made to fit in with the world and better serve the party/campaign instead of stealing the show. Players are already concerned with just themselves if the DM is also concerned with themselves then everything is going to fall apart.

Sounding to me like I should definitely stick to my instincts and make sure my npcs are made to be disposable.

>If you're going to give the players a NPC that fights alongside them, then they either need to fill a badly needed role that the party lacks (like a healer) or they need to be incapable of winning the battle for the players. Yet again with the idea of the GM narrating to himself about how this one character just kills all the dudes and does all the cool shit while they players are stuck tripping over each other.

Yeah, thats why I was thinking I would simply let the players control the npc's actions in combat, that way it isnt so much an issue of me wrenching agency from my party. The system I use suggests doing this, though obviously I would say 'no' if they try to make them do something blatantly suicidal or hugely 'out of character' (I.E. a good character committing something heinous, etc.)

>For the most part: No. Unless your party is just so weak and imbalanced from lack of players, it's not advised to create your own character to play alongside everyone else. If you've only got 2 players and 1 GM, it's more understandable, but it's still something that needs a really gentle touch, because as the GM, you have the power to fudge things and cheat as much as you want, and when it's your precious character who's at risk, things tend to get unfair. If you're going to do it, make sure that the DMPC doesn't get anything that the players themselves can't get.

Sounding about right. Thankfully, though theres only 3 PCs, theyre pretty well-rounded so I dont feel theyre missing anything they cant throw a few points at to cover.

So would a 'DMPC' be acceptable if theyre simply support role and more passive? I had the thought of having a loremaster of some sort travel with the party, though theyd be kind of milquetoast in terms of taking initiative and not really a fighter. That way agency is left to the players and all they really do is share worldbuilding tidbits now and then.

Everyone else has the right idea. However, I'll posit something that hasn't been said: the more NPCs accompanying the party, the more dangerous you can ramp up the encounters and take out a redshirt every now and again. But that depends on the kind of game you run, I suppose.

A DMPC isn't really ever appropriate. If you want to play with the party, just have an NPC come along for a mission or two. If you're really good at making NPCs, you could do it more often and have a rotating stable of characters to use to interact with the party... or you could just let them die. The idea is that they aren't really the focus in any way, but they can be good sources of roleplaying. Even escort missions can be tolerable if you play the NPC right and they actually listen to the party and stay out of the goddamn way,

I made a DMPC for my group. It was two players, a ranger and a cleric playing Pathfinder.

>Whats the best balance between npcs and players?

Obviously the spotlight is usually on the PCs. However, good npcs will allow them to shine. Killing BBEG #3 isn't a big deal. Killing "Gnash, Scourge of the Plains" who has tangled with our adventurers before, escaped, talked mad shit, framed them for murder, etc... The attention Gnash gets makes the adventurers quest worthy of doing, and rewarding to complete EMOTIONALLY, and not just to get shiny baubles or a +1 sword.

Roleplay wise, my DMPC was a handy source for spreading in-game lore, so they didn't have to make relentless Knowledge checks about local cities, stories, people of note, etc.

The female cleric tried to flirt with my DMPC but I shut that down pretty quickly. It wasn't about him, it was about the two adventurers.

Generally, the DMPC stayed on the ship or in the local tavern. He wasn't in combat (unless battle happened at sea) and generally was the taxi driver and our party's fan and buddy.

>Do you allow your players to control their companions during combat?

I allow animal companions to follow orders without question.

Hirelings and other humanoid companions will follow direct orders, but I make behind-the-screen rolls for fear and other things that might cause them to disobey orders.

>How attached should a gm allow themselves to get?

I got nothing for you here.

>Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

So my Swashbuckler DMPC was done for this reason: My adventurers needed to travel the world for their quest and have a base of operations. I allowed them to clear out a slaver's ship and keep it for themselves. However, nobody knew how to sail. Rather than make them look for a ship captain for hire, I allowed them to obtain my DMPC as their sailor. For such a small group, it fit well. For a larger group, I would probably be less helpful.

Also, it allowed me to have an "emergency quest" on backup: If for some reason we weren't doing a quest on the main storyline (say, someone joined in for a one-shot) I could have them find the missing DMPC who never showed back up after partying hard at the tavern last night a la Hangover.

>>417855

>l campaign, or not. If they are in unison about not, can start to tailor some outs for their vampire thrall nature.

>As to the OP. There's two types of companions.

>>417855

>I thought I was being clever and had the perfect excuse for having a powerful pseudo DMPC that would become a cool villain. Instead I have an evil party that only occasionally puts up token resistance to doing whatever this coven of vampires wants.

I'd say the first thing you need to do is remove the training wheels and have the coven wiped out. Maybe the witch hunter they betrayed has allies who come in force to avenge him. Maybe it's chaos shenanigans. Presumably you had heavily vampiric shenanigans planned before the players took it off the rails, in which case the easiest solution is to have the rival vampire whose necromancer they killed either do the deed or take advantage of it after someone else (witch hunters) kills their new support network.

Almost anything you had planned to have the Lahmian vampire do could be done by a rival vampire/group of vampires and still look like you're adapting to something they did. Or you could actually adapt and take things a completely new direction. Either way, the immediate problem is the coven they're serving. Let them interact with it a bit and run errands and grow attached, then wipe it out. They wanted to be vampires afterall, now they have to deal with the fact that they're hated outscasts being hunted.

>>417839

>I had the thought of having a loremaster of some sort travel with the party, though theyd be kind of milquetoast in terms of taking initiative and not really a fighter. That way agency is left to the players and all they really do is share worldbuilding tidbits now and then.

This might sound like a good idea from a DM's perspective, but I'd advise against it. Not only does is seem egotistical to put a character in a world you made purely for the purpose of telling your players all the thought you put into the game, you're also denying them any reason to search into the world themselves. If you hand all the interesting shit of the the world to them on a silver platter, expect them to just be intense murder hobos all the more, since they'd start relying on you to essentially be the Elder Scroll "You fucked up, and now you must reset your game or forever wander a broken world" via your NPC.

You didn't mention a system, but most of the ones I've played usually have rules for minions. I'd just ask a player to have a couple for filling in vital roles if a party is missing them, and ask if it's alright if you occasionally have them acting independent of the group. Think of a military group where one person could be scouting ahead for info on a relic item, breaking from the group in town to get an idea of who runs the place, any outstanding issues within the town, or merely to give the party a heads up that "This town already heard that a traveling party killed the baron of the area, and is pretty sure it's us". This would allow you to steer a group of newer players towards plot points if you need help keeping them mildly on point, or if being a newer GM, would allow you to mildly explain away the rails without destroying the flow with the common GM "and now you guys are here, because you can't keep to my storyline without me teleporting you". You could also use the NPC supporting cast to act as plot devices themselves. If there's a path with three different towns, you could have a couple party NPCs break away to search the ones they main party doesn't want to head to, to report back via letter or magical device if there's something worth going to those towns for. A seasoned group will know what you're doing, but it's done unobtrusively enough that most will forgive it.

Why not come up with an “Ai” for the npc? A few mini war games have ai modes so one can solo play. One could copy those.

Ideally you make up a chart for the npc based on their possible actions. Then make a roll. It can be modified based on the npcs morale or current hp.

One could also make a non combat chart. That way no one can meta the npc. Ie have them walk through a trap or drink a poison.

Seems like a good comprisimise between the DMPC and a player companion.

>>417828

>Whats the best balance between npcs and players?

Depends on the group. If the players want to be in charage, put them in charge. If they want to go with whatever plot is put in front of them, give them a patron or something who gives them missions.

>Do you allow your players to control their companions during combat?

If the companions are a feature of the PC mechanics, yes. If it's strictly an NPC they tend to respond to the PCs' leadership or instructions.

>How attached should a gm allow themselves to get?

However attached the players are.

>Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

Rarely. They're best relegated to like a pack mule or something, fulfilling a need but not doing much interesting. They shouldn't be much more compelling or receive much more attention than a literal pack mule as in a livestock animal.

My DMPC is just the background companion who stands around and provides advice when he sees fit.

>>417828

>Whats the best balance between npcs and players?

That usually depends on your players and how invested they are. Sometimes they'll actively want to take NPCs with them because they enjoy the characters. Be flexible.

>Do you allow your players to control their companions during combat?

As many in this thread have stated, NPCs will mostly obey orders by the PCs unless they are suicidal.

>How attached should a gm allow themselves to get?

As much as the players. If they really like a set of NPCs then add to their backstory so the PCs might explore it. But always remember that the payoff should be for the players.

>Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

No and maybe. It all depends on what happens during roleplay. If the players want a companion then you shouldn't gut said character just because you want the PCs to always be the moving force. Players appreciate immersion and the illusion will be broken if a once smart and willful character becomes a drone the moment they tag along as companions.

Of course, this might lead to an issue thay I'm having in my campaign, where my players are split and seem to enjoy playing with the NPCs more than with each other. A group of two is off in a dungeon adventure with two other NPCs while the others remained behind to have training montages and roleplay with more NPCs.

>>417876

>a la Hangover

STORY TIME pLEASE

> Whats the best balance between npcs and players?

Using the highest player Charisma in the party the party may hire the total number of retainers specified by the Charisma Adjustment Table

> Do you allow your players to control their companions during combat?

"the dungeon master will [...] play the role of any retainers you find and (possibly) hire".

> How attached should a gm allow themselves to get?

> Getting attatched to fictional characters in dungeon diving fantasy rpgs

> in 1977+42

> Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

DM's are not Players, the role of the DM and that of the player are fundamentally different and a DM that sends time trying to be a player is doing wrong by his group and the game he's running by dividing his priorities.

But that should all be obvious, unless, you wouldn't happen to play an RPG published after 1989 do you? Oh, oh no....

>>417828

Whats the best balance between npcs and players?

Any is fine, really, so long as you can handle it. An NPC should have some personality and feel like he is a member of the group rather than a faceless stand-in after all. Do make sure the amount fits into your combat system, though - a player won't appreciate you spending half and hour taking NPC turns while he waits.

>Do you allow your players to control their companions during combat?

Depends on how permanent the member is. If it's just an escort mission or something, I take full control so as to not waste time with players inspecting the NPCs stats and skills and shit. If it's meant as a more permanent fixture (for example when your party is 3 players but you want to play with a party of 4 for some reason), I give them full control, as they'd be quite pissed if I made a tactical mistake and cost them the fight. Besides, I shouldn't be doing the fighting for them in the first place - it's their challenge to overcome, not mine.

>How attached should a gm allow themselves to get?

Enough to RP him well, but no more. Always carry in mind the NPC can die at any moment.

>Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

No. It's always a bad idea for a myriad of reasons. Just don't do it.

>>418251

I should probably add to this that the DM okayed all of this, and classed me as a late party companion *(get it? LATE?)* due to the fact that I joined 3/4 sessions in.

>>417828

>Whats the best balance between npcs and players?

ideally NPCs should fill a niche

>Do you allow your players to control their companions during combat?

if they have a plan, sure. Saves me from having to counter my own tactics

if the player gains a follower by means of a feat or the like, give them the NPC

>How attached should a gm allow themselves to get?

not terribly. A companion should have goals or even a story arc (sometimes the case in premade adventures) but it's not the main story. If the character dies horribly, so be it

>Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

if they're the dark lord in disguise, sure. Else, no

The only times the players don't call the shots is if they're answering to a direct authority, be it king, president, baron or employer. In terms of "party roles", if the players dont have a cleric, they should feel that they dont have a cleric. Do not just give them a cleric that slaps them on the ass with cure light wounds. Party composition matters, don't devalue that.

Oddly enough, I don't have players that pick companions. However, how it usually ends up is, they're still an NPC. The player gives them orders, and I execute those orders on behalf of the companion. And in terms of rp, the player generally decides what happens, unless I intervene (such as when the companion is under a status effect, etc.)

The players get attached to npc. The pc's will absolutely notice you bullshitting for an npc you like. I've noticed it before. If you want a guy to live, have him flee combat either just before it starts, or as it is starting and they are still dealing with enemies. Having a man in full plate both engage the pc's, and live to flee either requires the party to run away, or some intervening force, such as the environment changing (either due to a gate shutting just behind him, or him cutting a rope bridge)

I have only ever done two npc.

One of them was essentially, my mouth within the game world and directing the party towards objectives and quests when they were lost. Even then, I felt that this was very on the nose, and the players took his word at face value even when he was telling them that his information was not exact.

The second is the pc I play when someone else wants to GM that night. We have a hot potato system and a very "dungeon of the week" style game, where if a player busts out a dungeon they wanna run, I rock that guy who sits in the castle all day. Otherwise he sits in the castle all day. Not exactly a dmpc in the traditional sense, and only works in the specific style of West Marches.

If you're not using them as fodder/walking healing dispensers, they are a waste. Let your players control them, though. Encourage them to use companions as meat shields.

Don't give them any personality besides their role.

So far, I decided to give my players the option to recruit an npc or two from a caravan theyre guarding. However, theyre hardened mercenaries, so theyre going to charge for their service, and it has to pay better than their current arrangement. Seems like a fair trade to me.

>>420483

This reminds me when I successfully recruited the most freverant minion of my diety (and me by proxy).

Playing a priest, lawful still deciding on the direction to take it when low and behold bandits are there. We butcher a few and the remaining two beg for their lives and being lawful and needing bodies for my church I do the honourable thing and tell them it's time to convert from their wicked ways or perish beneath my cudgel. One guy buys it, who hog, sense motive shows that he has converted 100% the other guy was iffy but really didnt want to die.

Deciding to keep one of them as a pet/minion/gopher I do the wicked deed and condeem the other one lawfully to death for banditry about a dozen times over, but I get their names mixed up and kill the devout one and keep the iffy one.

Gm gloats for a second before I tell my newfound iffy companion that the lord has saved his companion but sent me to guide him to the right path (as I was liberally splattered with his friends brains).

Good minion, bit of a nervous tick. He went on many adventures and eventually died in the mirror realm (with full rites performed by me).

Companions and NPCs are all disposable tools. Treat them as such.

>>417828

>Is the dreaded DMPC ever justifiable?

Always.

Always justifiable.

It depends on how you can remain detached from it, however.

A good DMPC can help with plothooks, can push the adventure forward, can let you explore other things about the campaign that the players didn't explore.

Hell, a DMPC doesn't necessarily need to be one that constantly fights, provide supports with spells or any of that shit, it could even be a squire that tend to the player's gear and it could start a nice mini-quest about finding an high quality armor polish from the exotic lands of fate, which would ensure the player's armor is always in best condition.

Don't be afraid to throw DMPCs to the players, in a way every single NPC in the game is a DMPC.

My suggestion is to subtly steer the plot the way you want, while the players still remain at the helm.

>>420560

You're just talking about NPCs.