![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinThis is more of a general roleplaying/GMing post than specifically a D&D or 4E one. It's about my players getting me to do something I never thought I'd do. :P
I've never been a big fan of gamemasters rolling up their own characters and joining in the game. Well, that's not true. In my first campaign ever, I did just that. But I was self-aware enough in retrospect to recognize just how obnoxious it could be, and some subsequent experiences with gamemasters who turned the game into The Gamemaster Show, Starring The Gamemaster As The Gamemaster's Player Character really put me off of it.
I've used them in past gaming groups just because the "group" consisted of me plus two other people. But it's far too easy for them to drift into (or start out deeply entrenched in) Mary Sue territory, there's so much temptation for the DM to start fudging things, etc. And also, I'm a bit of a spotlight stealer when I roleplay. I'd rather not interject that into a game where I'm trying to encourage other people to grab the spotlight themselves.
Now, one of the PCs in my Port Haven campaign (sidenote: I've got two parallel campaigns running with this group, Port Haven and New Port Haven, set X decades apart) likes to gamble. There was a fairly comical scene where he tried to teach a camp of orcs with whom he lacked a fully articulated common language how to play cards before settling in to a game of liar's dice ("Hunter's Boast") with them. The most they understood was that cards were like dice, but on paper.
When the party made it to a human town, he wanted to play cards. It wouldn't have been really fair to the group to play out whole card games, but I wanted to give him someone interesting to interact with instead of just having him roll dice. (Sidenote: We as a group have yet to fully embrace the Skill Challenge mechanic. I think next time we play, that will be a good place to test the waters: use a combination of Bluff and Insight to play fair, Thievery to cheat.)
So I created a few NPCs for him to play against. Each of them had their own story which was intersecting with the PCs.
The first one was a canvas merchant whose story ended badly... he'd been gouging the very Empire whose virtues he'd been praising, and was pilloried. The PC who'd been playing cards against him the night before killed him by using his Warlock's Curse and joining in the crowd that was pelting him. Before anyone cries foul about using the Curse damage while throwing mud and rotten vegetables... is it really going to imbalance the game if a Warlock decides to throw an apple core for 0+1d6 damage instead of using Eldritch Blast for 1d10+Cha+1d6 damage?
The next one was a half-elf rogue who was on the run from the leader of an up-and-coming thieves' guild, as she'd stolen something of great value from him: his wife, an "elven" bard (actually eladrin, but in the games we run, few people are conversant with the differences among the pointy eared folk... there are regular elves and then there are the fancy kind.) Shortly after meeting the pair, our card-playing PC started trying to convince the others that they needed to ask them to join the group.
I very nearly vetoed it due to my dislike of DM PCs, but then I decided to go with it, for a few reasons.
One, these characters had their own story. They didn't know (and still don't fully know) the PCs' mission, so I don't have to choose between playing dumb and short-circuiting the story. They really don't know what's going on.
Two, even before they decided to recruit the pair, the rogue was fairly tight-lipped and the bard, being a former trophy wife, had kind of a "minimalist" personality, so there was less of a risk that I'd steal the spotlight with them in roleplaying situations. In combat, they both sort of do their own thing if one of the PCs doesn't direct them, which means they will never actually dominate things. Cassela, the bard*, was trained in fighting for reasons of self-protection, but she's not used to wearing armor all the time... she spends most of her time in combat chasing after foes who are faster than her. It does help a little, insofar as it means there's one foe who's busy running away from her.
Three, when designing encounters, I'd kept writing up the ones I wanted to do and then realizing I needed to split them in two or pare them down for them to be balanced. Adding two people to a four person party... and one of them filling the previously vacant leader (as in inspiring healer and buffer, not commander of the party) slot... let me create larger and more complex combat situations.
Four, because they have their own story, taking them on as allies means the PCs took on new enemies... intelligent and savvy enemies, with more opportunities for drama. The party had mostly been fighting kobolds, with interesting builds of orcish mercenaries providing some variation.
Five, it let me drop some roleplay hooks on the party even in the middle of the wilderness. This campaign started as an experiment to try to get the less experienced roleplayers to get more into the spirit of things... the first session was a huge success, but it'd been losing steam.
Also, because I created these characters as NPCs rather than "oh my God, I just came up with an awesome character I want to play in our next session!", it's much less of a personal thing with me if they live or die. The story can go on without them... and in fact, it might make for a better story if one of them does die. I'm not writing a swan song for them... I'm just saying, I've got no motivation to fudge the rolls or divert damage from them to one of the actual PCs.
And because they have their own stories, there might come a point where they simply diverge and go their own way. I've been calling them the "Special Guest PCs" for that reason.
If there were a larger group of players, I wouldn't do it... but I think in general my feelings on DM controlled PCs have changed from being a Big No to being a Qualified Maybe. I'm going to note the things that work and the reasons why so I can help fill out the party next time, if we have the same smallish group, and not worry about overwhelming things. I think if I started this campaign again, I'd put a fully statted out PC under my control with the party in the position of local guide instead of putting that on one of the actual PCs, to reduce the amount of, "Your character knows..." conversations that are happening and increase the possibilities of interaction outside of civilized settings. That way they'd have their own separate motivation and a quiet personality, so they could help fill in the gaps on what the players need to know but not direct things.
I've never been a big fan of gamemasters rolling up their own characters and joining in the game. Well, that's not true. In my first campaign ever, I did just that. But I was self-aware enough in retrospect to recognize just how obnoxious it could be, and some subsequent experiences with gamemasters who turned the game into The Gamemaster Show, Starring The Gamemaster As The Gamemaster's Player Character really put me off of it.
I've used them in past gaming groups just because the "group" consisted of me plus two other people. But it's far too easy for them to drift into (or start out deeply entrenched in) Mary Sue territory, there's so much temptation for the DM to start fudging things, etc. And also, I'm a bit of a spotlight stealer when I roleplay. I'd rather not interject that into a game where I'm trying to encourage other people to grab the spotlight themselves.
Now, one of the PCs in my Port Haven campaign (sidenote: I've got two parallel campaigns running with this group, Port Haven and New Port Haven, set X decades apart) likes to gamble. There was a fairly comical scene where he tried to teach a camp of orcs with whom he lacked a fully articulated common language how to play cards before settling in to a game of liar's dice ("Hunter's Boast") with them. The most they understood was that cards were like dice, but on paper.
When the party made it to a human town, he wanted to play cards. It wouldn't have been really fair to the group to play out whole card games, but I wanted to give him someone interesting to interact with instead of just having him roll dice. (Sidenote: We as a group have yet to fully embrace the Skill Challenge mechanic. I think next time we play, that will be a good place to test the waters: use a combination of Bluff and Insight to play fair, Thievery to cheat.)
So I created a few NPCs for him to play against. Each of them had their own story which was intersecting with the PCs.
The first one was a canvas merchant whose story ended badly... he'd been gouging the very Empire whose virtues he'd been praising, and was pilloried. The PC who'd been playing cards against him the night before killed him by using his Warlock's Curse and joining in the crowd that was pelting him. Before anyone cries foul about using the Curse damage while throwing mud and rotten vegetables... is it really going to imbalance the game if a Warlock decides to throw an apple core for 0+1d6 damage instead of using Eldritch Blast for 1d10+Cha+1d6 damage?
The next one was a half-elf rogue who was on the run from the leader of an up-and-coming thieves' guild, as she'd stolen something of great value from him: his wife, an "elven" bard (actually eladrin, but in the games we run, few people are conversant with the differences among the pointy eared folk... there are regular elves and then there are the fancy kind.) Shortly after meeting the pair, our card-playing PC started trying to convince the others that they needed to ask them to join the group.
I very nearly vetoed it due to my dislike of DM PCs, but then I decided to go with it, for a few reasons.
One, these characters had their own story. They didn't know (and still don't fully know) the PCs' mission, so I don't have to choose between playing dumb and short-circuiting the story. They really don't know what's going on.
Two, even before they decided to recruit the pair, the rogue was fairly tight-lipped and the bard, being a former trophy wife, had kind of a "minimalist" personality, so there was less of a risk that I'd steal the spotlight with them in roleplaying situations. In combat, they both sort of do their own thing if one of the PCs doesn't direct them, which means they will never actually dominate things. Cassela, the bard*, was trained in fighting for reasons of self-protection, but she's not used to wearing armor all the time... she spends most of her time in combat chasing after foes who are faster than her. It does help a little, insofar as it means there's one foe who's busy running away from her.
Three, when designing encounters, I'd kept writing up the ones I wanted to do and then realizing I needed to split them in two or pare them down for them to be balanced. Adding two people to a four person party... and one of them filling the previously vacant leader (as in inspiring healer and buffer, not commander of the party) slot... let me create larger and more complex combat situations.
Four, because they have their own story, taking them on as allies means the PCs took on new enemies... intelligent and savvy enemies, with more opportunities for drama. The party had mostly been fighting kobolds, with interesting builds of orcish mercenaries providing some variation.
Five, it let me drop some roleplay hooks on the party even in the middle of the wilderness. This campaign started as an experiment to try to get the less experienced roleplayers to get more into the spirit of things... the first session was a huge success, but it'd been losing steam.
Also, because I created these characters as NPCs rather than "oh my God, I just came up with an awesome character I want to play in our next session!", it's much less of a personal thing with me if they live or die. The story can go on without them... and in fact, it might make for a better story if one of them does die. I'm not writing a swan song for them... I'm just saying, I've got no motivation to fudge the rolls or divert damage from them to one of the actual PCs.
And because they have their own stories, there might come a point where they simply diverge and go their own way. I've been calling them the "Special Guest PCs" for that reason.
If there were a larger group of players, I wouldn't do it... but I think in general my feelings on DM controlled PCs have changed from being a Big No to being a Qualified Maybe. I'm going to note the things that work and the reasons why so I can help fill out the party next time, if we have the same smallish group, and not worry about overwhelming things. I think if I started this campaign again, I'd put a fully statted out PC under my control with the party in the position of local guide instead of putting that on one of the actual PCs, to reduce the amount of, "Your character knows..." conversations that are happening and increase the possibilities of interaction outside of civilized settings. That way they'd have their own separate motivation and a quiet personality, so they could help fill in the gaps on what the players need to know but not direct things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2009-07-20 12:07 am (UTC)My best example would be an NPC rogue who first used the PCs as involuntary bodyguards and got them to indirectly take down opponents- mostly by using them as a metaphorical battering ram. If the campaign had continued, she'd have appeared and disappeared with her own goals, with growing respect for the PCs and an interest in making deals with them as opposed to using them as dupes. Which would ultimately lead to a situation of being highly reliant on the PCs, and being eclipsed by their abilities.
I think it's also worth noting that adversarial relationships between NPCs in the party don't generally work out well. Or at least it hasn't happened to my experience. I've seen people get annoyed because they think the plot is revolving around these NPCs rather than themselves.
no subject
on 2009-07-20 12:24 am (UTC)Yeah, that's part of why I ran the guild pursuit subplot the way I did... having Common-speaking people tracking the party through the wilderness allowed me to make the trip more interesting (hopefully), but I also made it clear that they're moving outside the territory. In the end, they got three combat encounters and some roleplaying opportunities out of it.
The climactic battle was also more interesting than "You reach the edge of the kobold infested territory" or a last stand by the kobolds alone would have been.
no subject
on 2009-07-20 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-07-20 02:39 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-07-20 08:11 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-07-20 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-07-20 08:33 am (UTC)