There is a difference between saying "this is what works for me", "I think this is generally a good idea, because to do otherwise leads to the following issues ....", and "this is the one true way to do things, if you don't you're doing it wrong, and I'm a better ______ than you for doing it that way!".
Let's at least try and keep it to the former two.
Once you hit the third, you just sound arrogant, and people stop listening to you - even when you have really good points to make.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
That response seemed needlessly judgmental. Limiting statements like, "Only if your players..." and hand-waving alternative storytelling styles as "bad DMs who are too new or who simply just want to be gods" comes off to me as a bit myopic in an open conversation about the merits and risks of DMs with a character as part of the adventure. You want to present a rich character as part of a broad and open world and it seems like it works at your table. I want to present a small DM character in my stories who functions simply as a plot device and who steals none of the story's spotlight from the players and I'm sure that works at my table. To say I cannot do so without limiting my players' agency in the greater story would be uninformed since you're not at my table and you don't know me or my players. Furthermore, it threatens to limit the overall thread discussion with absolutes.
I suppose it's like saying there's a right and a wrong way to write a novel. There may be narrative styles that someone likes or does not like, but if the reader (or the player in our discussion) leaves satisfied, the story did its job, as did the DM character within the story.
i'm only saying, if "his" players likes linear stories and are there for that, then fine by me, "Mine" aren't ! but i am against those who say "generally" as if the majority dislikes it, while it is quite false. i too like high rollers, critical role and the likes, but let's be honest... all of their plays are one dimensionnal. the DM has a story and the players interact with it, by still following the said story. in the end, the players let the DM guides... not all players likes that. it works for shows like that, but its not what works for everyone, and saying "in generals it is" doesn't help anyone at all.
and just for the record... if you have ever tryed to write novels... there are right and wrong ways to write a story. if there wasn't.... your audience would love it reguardless of what you write. so basically, if your players (audience) didn't like it, you did it wrong ! i make plenty of mistakes in my own plays... but of all 3 groups i currently DM for.. when they compare me to all other DMs, something which im not liking... they all preffer to play with me, because apparently im the most prepared, im the most capable improviser and i'm able to follow them and create stories for their characters. getting them involved. i have to say its truth around my place, because the others are too new. but i hate being compared to them, because experience in DMing is way too great. of course they'll sound bad if you compare my 30 years of DMing to their measily 2. i learned everything by playing, by DMing, and i still love DMing over playing because i love creating worlds. i love creating stories. i learned by looking at others, if you dont like creating stories and worlds... you cannot be a good DM. but this is my opinion. im not enforcing that to anyone. there are tons of good DMs out there that only do pre-made stories from books. but again, if you dont like telling stories, or preparing the said world you're gonna play in... then you just dont like being a DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I'm most in agreement with Vedexent, who mentioned earlier that I think a lot of this is coming down to definitions. I'd consider what some are calling a DMPC as simply an NPC with complex motivations - who may be with the party for a while, but is actually a narrative device first and foremost.
For me, anything more than that – i.e, rolling up a player with the express intention of trying to play a character in the same game I'm DMing – isn't about whether it's possible, it's whether it'd be enjoyable, for either me or my players.
Sure, I could play a character that's ignorant of everything that I as the DM know. We do that anytime we inject an NPC into the world anyway. The village blacksmith doesn't know anything about the ancient ruins beneath the mountain - however many times the players ask. I just know I wouldn't have a good time doing it.
Personally, the entire essence of playing, rather than DMing, is to be part of a world I don't know everything about. I don't know the big bad from session 1. I don't know all of the information. I don't know about the magic items I'll find, or the creatures I'll encounter. I don't know all the history and lore, or where the story will go. Reacting to that information as it's presented, and then seeing the results of my actions, is what makes playing fun for me. Conversely, creating that narrative, and seeing what my players do with it, and providing an engaging experience for them is what makes DMing fun. For me, the two simply don't mix – it's not satisfying to provide my own outcomes.
When I create a complex NPC, they're an extension of my narrative. They will always serve to drive the plot, add to the drama, or create tension, but they will never take a slice of the pie of the story that the players are weaving. As a DM, I can use the that NPC however I see fit, and change them on the fly. For example, I've had an NPC hireling from the local temple turn out to be a minion of the necromancer the players were hunting, because I thought it'd be a great twist.
Perhaps, as DnDPaladin suggests above, not all players enjoy having a world created for them, and then making decisions within the framework of an existing narrative and plot. I've never played with anyone that would prefer that entirely procedurally generated world, and I don't think I'd enjoy it myself. Each to their own, I suppose.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I still fail to see the distinction. Isn't a DM with a character the definition of a non-player character?
Thats what most of us are saying. Yes it is. By definition a character is a character reguardless of who is playing it. But many people think that because a dm knows everything it is obvious that all of his characters knows whats happening. And thus makes a distinction between players and dm characters. As in a dm character knows everything.
The reality is that a character is a character reguardless of who plays it. The only thing that matters is how he plays it. Thats is true for both players and the dm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
My personal take - and only my personal take - is that all NPCs are absolutely DM characters, but not all NPCs are DMPCs for what is usually being discussed in threads like these - and thus not all NPCs are DMPCs.
I believe that DMPCs happen when the DM is personally invested in the successes and prestige of the NPC, rather than using them as part of the world, or part of the adventure story. When the DM could probably say, "well my character does ... ", as opposed to "well Gondor the Barbarian says ...".
When the DM has a personal vested interest in the success and prestige of an NPC, there is a danger ( although not always a realization of that danger ) for the DM to play favorites with the NPC over the Party.
That's why I said that if the DM plays the NPC according to their own internal motivations, and not the DM's personal internal sense of fun and personal accomplishment, you can sidestep that issue.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
so basically... you dont like villains made by the DM cause the DM is investd in that villain to successes and motives ? the only thing i dislike in your belief, is that it seems like you are saying a DM should never invest himself in any of his NPCs or even his villains.
the last part also irks me abit... im confused... are you saying a DM shouldn't have fun and should always work for the players and never for himself ?
if so i disagree on both points. and i believe this is where our conflict stands. i believe a DM has as much right to have fun then any of the players on the table. and i also firmly believe that a DM should play his villains and NPC as if it was truly him. heck i even learned how to process my own voice in order to make better voices, i gesture, i become the charcater im portraying, may he be villain or NPC. and i never use the third person either, i become the character and thus i speak in first person. thats what my players like.
i firmly believe true immersion in the game and the making of the said story, is much better if your DM is invested in his characters ! the same way players are invested in theirs. but i guess it depends on if you want immersion or not.
maybe im just not understanding your point right though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
When you are DM you have knowledge of everything that can happen in every situation. So if there is a locked door, your the one that knows whats behind it. This means that you know too much about whats going to happen and therefore will not be able to play fairly. Also the other players will rely to heavily on your "DM" character to find the solution or solve their problems. In the end having the DM play as a character causes more problems with story and play the what its worth. I hope this helps and wish you luck.
I wasn't aware we had a "conflict"; I thought we had a difference of opinion, style, or boundaries.
I believe that the DM has the right to have as much fun at the table as any other Player. I also believe that the DM is allowed to enjoy playing their NPCs, and can present them better when they do so.
However, I believe that there is a difference between having well developed NPCs, which are played well, and even from which the DM can derive enjoyment - and the DM having a viewpoint character in whose success/failure in the party is a matter of ego for the DM.
This is what I refer to as a DMPC, and I've seen numerous cases over the years, where such have been grafted onto a Party, where - unsurprisingly - they enjoy unprecedented success, and are amazing at everything they do, to the point of overshadowing the Party. Such DMPCs often don't have much in the way of well defined internal personal goals and motives - they're really just there to show how amazing the DM's personal character is. They are the RPG equivalent of the Mary Sue Character in fiction.
In jurisprudence, being both a party to a dispute, and the judge, is called conflict of interest. While It's possible to have a conflict of interest, and not actually be biased - I've seldom, if ever, seen a DM pull that off ( and I've seen a lot of DMs, and been one - off and on - since the days of the red/blue boxed sets ).
I believe that a good DM can have interest, personal enjoyment, immersion, and great presentation of interesting NPCs without being ego-invested in them.
NPCs - and villains - which have a good backstory, personal goals, and internal motives can be great when they are played well by the DM according to their internal motives, and not as a means of stoking the DM's ego. If the DM is really enjoying playing that NPC, even better.
However, ultimately, how you run you table, or how you draw your boundary lines, or the level of your impartiality, matters not one whit to me and my Players - and how I run mine shouldn't matter to you.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Well, by conflict i meant just that. but anyway...
call it streak of badluck if you will... but i doubt that, i think your conception of what a DMpc is exactly why you have had such bad experiences. because of all the DMs i've played with... only about 1 out of 20 had an EGO problem with said characters. that of course is also a problem with the old adage which led many a table astray. "my table, my rules" which literally told any players that what the DMs wants is what you should go by. the other adage was "better to have a game then none" which also provoke many a table astray because people preffered to have bad DMs instead of having no games at all. i have to say that i think its yourself and your belief that led you to believe those DMs had ego problems. or that your "expectations" were simply too high for those tables. i could understand 2 or even 3 bad DMs with ego problems, but all of them... i dont get that one. more if its numerous games with bad DMs. that said, i dont doubt your capabilities as a player or even as a DM. but i wonder about your choice of DMs.
i can assure you... just here in trois-rivieres, canada.... we have like only 4 or 5 DMs at the local shop and all of them ae quite capable of making DMPCs that will not hog all the spotlight. in my own experience, i have seen tons of DMs doing it, until they realised what they were doing and changed their ways about it. me included ! when i was young and a starting DM, i used to take on the spotlight, there was no other DMs then me because nobody anted it. and for the first time i could do it my way, not theirs, my way because my table my rules right. took me about 2 years to understand why i couldn't keep my players for long periods of time. and people usually didn't tell back in the 90ies why they had left. they still dont today. some friends talked to me and told me my stories were great, just that their characters weren't involved enough. back then i was using everything to make a story. the XMen, the avengers, castlevania characters. nothing was truly mine. here we are 28 years or so later, and i am not even recognising the person i was as a DM back then. having played over 20 groups int eh periods of time i played much, having had about 15+ DMs over the times, and believe me not all games were for me. including one in secondary 5 schools... who let me get in his game, and then when i finished my character, goten killed by the players who looted my wears and then the DM telling me, get off my game kiddo. thanks for the free loot the others said. talk about maniacs...
i had my fair share of problems DMs, but of them all... only that one DM had an EGO problem. you could call me lucky compared to you... but again.... 2 or 3 DMs in a row, i can understand... 20+ there is no coicidence and something might be because of your own perception.
food for thoughts there... Advice for all the aspiring DMs and players out there... do some introspection before putting the blame on your players or on the DM... more often then not, if something hapenned, it is mostly because of yourself of something you did, something you said, something you hinted at. small anecdote... i had a game i was DMing, my players never wanted to do anything from what i was throwing their ways. i thought my players just wanted to screw my world and me by the same extent. i ended up quitting that game. for 5 days i thought, my players were a bunch of *****. going right when they should of gone left. ditching the road and going int he complete opposite direction of where the adventure was... then i had this bright idea of asking them why ? and thus i asked one of them... the answer i got was much much much different then what i had even imagined... he said "you're the one who discouraged us from going there, we wanted to go there !" i said, "nonesense, tell me how i supposedly did that ?" he answered... "well, we were on our way when that NPC came about and told us that creature destroyed the whole village. just that, could of already dissuade us from going, after all it wrecked the whole place with ease... but you added, the milicia there was wrecked. we love our characters we want them to g on longer then this, so we ran the other direction instead." thats where i had my first clue that i was the one making my players act this way. that players actually learn from our games and will be playing accordingly. so i started checking with other players and started seeing trends that i was saying one or two simple words that players took for cash or something completely different then what i had in mind.
my cousin did the same mistake... he had a group, he lost them all, i talked to them, while my cousin was telling me they were the problem that they wanted a video game, not him. what i got from his players was very very different. he just didn't have the same idea of fun as them. they loved his stories, but they hated every NPCs they met. they had a hard time grasping the concepts of the theme they were playing, and they had no real way of liking a character to do the story. yet, he never understood that, all he saw was their ineptitude at the table and refused to think that maybe it was him, that was causing the problem.
more often then not, your problem players are problems, more often then not, you are ! and that is true even for players, not just for DMs. if a group do not like your character, maybe its because you did or said something they dont like. so yeah, communicate with your DM, if there is something you dislike, most of the time he might not even have noticed it. talk to them, it might make both of you better in the end. and please please... if you are to leave a table, communicate with that DM to say why... hes not a psychic. if you leave his table, tell him why you do.
anyway... im satisfied and my curiosity is quenched. thanks for that exchange Vedexent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
When you are DM you have knowledge of everything that can happen in every situation. So if there is a locked door, your the one that knows whats behind it. This means that you know too much about whats going to happen and therefore will not be able to play fairly. Also the other players will rely to heavily on your "DM" character to find the solution or solve their problems. In the end having the DM play as a character causes more problems with story and play the what its worth. I hope this helps and wish you luck.
situation... you know that NPC is lying, yet your insight roll isn't high enough for your character to know. what do you do ? ignore the insight roll and act as if your character knew it was a lie, or are you gonna act as if your character didn't know ? this is the basic of metagaming, a bad habit most of the player shave and that DMs mostly, learn not to do. if you act as if the roll had no importance, you are effectively metagaming, which means you are using knowledge that you "the player" knows, but that your character do not. that means you and your character aren't two different entities, you are a character and you know it. thus you are metagaming. if you act as if you didn't know and play it as such, then you are playing your character in character. and thus you are gonna ignore a fact you already know.
DMs knows this by heart, it is why we do DMing. we know when to use our knowledge and when not to. thats basic DMing 101. Sure, i know whats behind door number 4... but my hireling that never got to go to that temple never even set a foot there before... he has strickly no idea whats behind that door. thts why i will act with him as such. he will put an arrow on his crossbow, place himself aside the door and far back in order to let loose if anything bad happens. because he has no idea that behind this dor there is a statue and a trap. he has no idea that hidden well in this room there is a hidden treasure pile. and even if i, the DM, knows this information... i'd be a very bad DM if i was metagaming my way.
the argument i hear the most is exactly yours... but its literally DMing 101, its called Metagaming, and if you can't, as a DM, not metagame, then your game is gonna suck big time. after all, your villain knows every single characters thats coming their way right ? your villain knows every single thread of their story right ? wouldn't your own villain knowing too much for you, as a DM, to be able to just wreck your party with ease ? dont you know your own story too well for that villain to fail ? this is why that argument do not pass for one... because the inverse is also possible... if you know everything, then doesn't that mean your villain knows every players actions by heart as well ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
When you are DM you have knowledge of everything that can happen in every situation. So if there is a locked door, your the one that knows whats behind it. This means that you know too much about whats going to happen and therefore will not be able to play fairly. Also the other players will rely to heavily on your "DM" character to find the solution or solve their problems. In the end having the DM play as a character causes more problems with story and play the what its worth. I hope this helps and wish you luck.
the argument i hear the most is exactly yours...
but its literally DMing 101, its called Metagaming, and if you can't, as a DM, not metagame, then your game is gonna suck big time. after all, your villain knows every single characters thats coming their way right ? your villain knows every single thread of their story right ? wouldn't your own villain knowing too much for you, as a DM, to be able to just wreck your party with ease ? dont you know your own story too well for that villain to fail ? this is why that argument do not pass for one... because the inverse is also possible... if you know everything, then doesn't that mean your villain knows every players actions by heart as well ?
My issue isn't with being able to not meta-game in a DMPC scenario, it's more about why, as a DM, I'd want to be in that scenario in the first place. As a player, there's a significant difference between say, knowing the stat-block of an enemy, and not using that information to decide whether to enter combat, to stepping into a dungeon and already knowing everything about it.
Of course, I could not let that information cause a conflict of interest, and play a character oblivious to those details - I do it all the time with NPCs that accompany the party. But for me, the enjoyment of taking the role of 'player' at the table is that air of mystery. Not knowing what lies ahead, or what me and my companions might discover - being a singular entity in a much larger world, and seeing how the decisions I make impact events I don't know everything about.
Whatever way I slice it, the omnipotence of the DM isn't compatible with also being a player, that (as Vedexent suggested) is ego-invested in them. As a DM, I can inject NPCs into the campaign to accompany the party, that for a while, may portray the illusion of a PC. They can have their own motivations, back-story, objectives and agenda. But they'll always be an extension of me as a DM, serving the narrative in some way, and a part of the world that I've created. They're ultimately another tool in my arsenal, as much as a creature, villain, location or dungeon.
Similarly, the role of 'player' is ego-centric. They have their own motivations, back-story, objectives and agenda - but they're only concerned with fulfilling them. As a player, I don't want to know more than I should. It's not about meta-gaming. It's about whether it's as enjoyable to watch a movie, or read a book, if you already know the ending. Sure, rolling dice and roleplaying is heaps of fun... and I can do that as an NPC... but for me, the true enjoyment of being a player, is navigating someone else's world, and roleplaying my character within that.
The age-old question of the GMPC rears its ugly head again.
Most of the times I’ve seen this come up are the standard issues where the GM is trying to tell a specific story, about the legend of their favored character. The PCs are just there to bear witness to the glory of their awesomeness. Nothing the party can come up with is as good as what the GMPC comes up with (even if it’s better) and none of it will work, because the GMPC is always right.
To me, that’s the hallmark of a poor GM, who is more invested in their story than in their players. They shouldn’t be running a game, they should be writing a novel.
And, to be blunt, pretty much, that’s why the term GMPC (DMPC) exists. It’s a pejorative—we don’t like GMPCs. The moment someone mentions GMPC/DMPC most long-term players have an internal cringe or worse and expect to hear some horror story that they’ve heard countless times before. It’s even worse when the GM of the game is bragging about how awesome their GMPC is and all the things they did when the party couldn’t understand the quality of their brilliance.
However, the best GMPCs are indistinguishable from NPCs. Because, when used correctly, that’s all they are.
As a GM, I’m a Storyteller. I teach by stories.
In my Infinite Weirdos game, my character (from a different campaign) James/Charlemagne and Hand of Bobb’s character Heaven/Shimmer made cameos because they were needed to help the party. James/Charlemagne was, functionally, the antagonist of the session as he was the one who offered to let the party accompany him, Shimmer and Midnight back to Mars in an effort to blow it up. They knew the situation was serious, because I warned that, if they went along, I would invoke Dire Peril*. They went along anyway.
Which was the villains plan all along.
Sure, in one of the fights, the party understood that Charlemagne and Shimmer were on a whole different level, but, it wasn’t about the fight. It was about being overconfident and not thinking the situation through. The enemies drew Charlemagne and Shimmer away from their target. They captured Saeko and teleported her away. The overlord plugged her into their own bomb and sacrificed her to trigger it.
The party escaped, down one of their own. But, their plan had succeeded: Mars was destroyed. The Villain’s base had been destroyed and their forces had fled the solar system. They also learned a lot about the Villain’s plans, and how much larger the situation they were in was.
In every session, I play several characters. Did I have a personal investment in James? Sure. But, I knew what was going to happen. Could the players have stopped what was going to happen? No. Why? Because they really weren’t operating under Dire Peril. Saeko’s player had wanted her to die, and asked me to have her taken out in a way that would preclude her being brought back. He didn’t know how he wanted it to happen and trusted me to come up with her end. So I gave her a spectacular out. I used Dire Peril to warn them that something horrible could happen, so the players were ready to give it their all.
And they discovered that their all wasn’t enough.
Because they were following, not leading. They’re the heroes of this story. Charlemagne and Shimmer aren’t. They’re just NPCs here. They’re supposed to be bearing witness to the party’s awesome.
Why were Charlemagne and Shimmer needed? Well, because the party needed a catalyst to enact the plan. They wouldn’t have been confident enough to try it on their own. Charlemagne was supremely confident, and with Shimmer’s direct access to Asmodeus, he knew they had an escape plan, should it come down to it. He knew he was right. And he wasn’t. The Party should have been wary of someone that confident. But, instead (and as I predicted) they stopped hearing anything after “we’re going to blow up Mars.”
There was even some foreshadowing when Shimmer contacted Asmodeus for Contessa (to get some demonic paperwork processed), and he warned her that things were not as they expected. But, still, no one questioned the plan.
Just two sessions previously, they had three werewolf NPCs who came up with the plan for the distraction: “First, we take the safeties off these RPGs. Then we wire the RPGs to the grill of this truck. Then, we pick up the truck and throw it into that building!” The NPC with the suggestion (which was enacted) was declared to have the alignment “Chaotic Hillbilly.”
I guess Explosions do make everything better.
------
[*]-Dire Peril is a gaming convention from John Wick (the designer, not the movie). In a nutshell, part of the social contract for my games is that I won’t kill your characters, unless you want me to. You do something stupid, I’ll do something to make you remember it, but your character won’t die. Dire Peril is the warning that those protections are not just lifted but I’ll be actively trying to kill you.
the argument i hear the most is exactly yours... but its literally DMing 101, its called Metagaming, and if you can't, as a DM, not metagame, then your game is gonna suck big time. after all, your villain knows every single characters thats coming their way right ? your villain knows every single thread of their story right ? wouldn't your own villain knowing too much for you, as a DM, to be able to just wreck your party with ease ? dont you know your own story too well for that villain to fail ? this is why that argument do not pass for one... because the inverse is also possible... if you know everything, then doesn't that mean your villain knows every players actions by heart as well ?
This always strikes me as strange.
Everyone thinks metagaming is bad. But, we constantly metagame. When the party first gathers at a table at the tavern, that's metagaming. When they agree to go on their first adventure together, that's also metagaming. When the mutually-exclusive character types don't immediately part ways, that's metagaming. We need metagaming in for most, especially, D&D games to work. My Paladin, Lysette, really has no reason to hang around with these . . . hooligans. But, for the sake of the game, she continues to. That's constant metagaming.
In Call of Cthulhu, you know that the books will drive your character insane. And, really, so does the character. But, they read the books anyway. Why? Because they need to so the adventure can continue. In Star Wars, you know about the Dark Side (and, some of us know the hidden secret in Star Wars).
I metagame constantly, to push and exploit my players' weaknesses, as well as their characters' weaknesses. As a player, I'll metagame to help the GM tell a more interesting story. I'm not doing it to protect my character. You should never protect your character. An exposed character is a character that can experience drama. Metagaming is a tool in the GM and Player's toolbox. And, like any tool, you should be proficient with it, and use it with precision and expertise.
Which is why I'm not allowed to use hammers anymore. Or screwdrivers. And I'm not allowed in the same room as any power tool.
the argument i hear the most is exactly yours... but its literally DMing 101, its called Metagaming, and if you can't, as a DM, not metagame, then your game is gonna suck big time. after all, your villain knows every single characters thats coming their way right ? your villain knows every single thread of their story right ? wouldn't your own villain knowing too much for you, as a DM, to be able to just wreck your party with ease ? dont you know your own story too well for that villain to fail ? this is why that argument do not pass for one... because the inverse is also possible... if you know everything, then doesn't that mean your villain knows every players actions by heart as well ?
This always strikes me as strange.
Everyone thinks metagaming is bad. But, we constantly metagame. When the party first gathers at a table at the tavern, that's metagaming. When they agree to go on their first adventure together, that's also metagaming. When the mutually-exclusive character types don't immediately part ways, that's metagaming. We need metagaming in for most, especially, D&D games to work. My Paladin, Lysette, really has no reason to hang around with these . . . hooligans. But, for the sake of the game, she continues to. That's constant metagaming.
In Call of Cthulhu, you know that the books will drive your character insane. And, really, so does the character. But, they read the books anyway. Why? Because they need to so the adventure can continue. In Star Wars, you know about the Dark Side (and, some of us know the hidden secret in Star Wars).
I metagame constantly, to push and exploit my players' weaknesses, as well as their characters' weaknesses. As a player, I'll metagame to help the GM tell a more interesting story. I'm not doing it to protect my character. You should never protect your character. An exposed character is a character that can experience drama. Metagaming is a tool in the GM and Player's toolbox. And, like any tool, you should be proficient with it, and use it with precision and expertise.
Which is why I'm not allowed to use hammers anymore. Or screwdrivers. And I'm not allowed in the same room as any power tool.
If you have a need to metagame in order to do stuff, then you are doing something wrong... none of my characters ever go with a group they shouldn't be going. some of my players have played 3 to 4 characters in a few sessions, because of that very reason. if a group acts like total jerks and total shit shows, your characters is free to go and not follow them up. it happens. but you have to understand that change is also part of evolution. thats not metagaming... metagaming is you know its a game and knowing your character is in a game. and then making that character act in a game not as a conscious person. doing that breaks immersion.
in your case.. i'll give you an exemple... a group of adventurer goes against a dragon, one of the players decides its better to be on the side of the dragon... are you gonna kill his character because he sided with the dragon, or are you gonna let him live because he's a player ? i've seen people and literally groups going down because they metagame and leave the player alive because its a player and they dont want him to die. it breaks immersion and at my table i ask that charcaters acts as they would. and thus that player might die if he doesn'T change his mind. that's why we have themes in a game. to make sure everyone is on the same page. to avoid metagaming like what you said. a DM metagaming is fine, he has a right to do so to make the story go forward. i'll agree to that much... but players should never do it. its not because some of us allow us in some extent in the game that we should allow it at all times.
another exemple for you... the group is in a city, they go to rest for the night. one of the players, a rogue trickster, goes in a house and kills a whole familly, because why not, he lkes blood and likes to make the perfect crime. perfect use of silence, perfect use of prestidigitation. the group wakes up the next day and walks in the city, when they see some guards near a house, like any people, they wonder and they were searching for a job... guards says the there was a murder. the gang knowing it was their friend because we role played it. jumped on it. not because it was their friend but because the character were searching for a job, that was one mystery to solve. they acted like their characters would. it was good that hapenned, because they all had enough of that players behavior. when they found out he was a murder hobo, they killed him. his fault for staying with the group, he should of left as soon as they found out about his murderous instincts.
next character he created... a small girl, daughter of a powerfull deity. some starnge powers manifesting due to a totem she had on her. cool character, again too murderous for the group... after the first 3 nights with her, the group just talked together, and when she goes to sleep, they leave her there... boom second character change in like 4 sessions. as a player you are not forced to play with characters you dont want to, or characters you know your character wouldn't stay with. its your decisions if you do. but as a player, it is your utmost duty to make sure your character fits with those around him. otherwise you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
there is no metagaming to have in a players arsenal... for a player, metagaming is truly bad. it breaks immersion and it breaks many aspects of the game. you changing your characters behaviors to fit the group is a possibility because characters evolves, it can happen. after all we as people are also changing based on our environment and our friends... but if you force your character to stay with a group you know he would never. you should ask yourself why you created a character who do not fit the theme or why you created a character without talking to the others first.
again, its up to you as a player to find a way to fit with the group. not up to a metagaming call because players... last anecdotes... a friends character died, he needs to create another character, he tries a rogue mastermind because the group desperately need a leader, because none wants to lead and no good happens. as a DM i love them going around doing shits. they really try to save the world but since none of them take decisions, most of all their stuff breaks apart and things go south fast. literally i have players in that group who just follows a guy who follows the other guy who follows the other guy. so that friend decides, ill be their leader... yeah 3 sessions later, he ditch that group and create another charcter. because he realise, while his character is intelligent and could lead them, after seeing how they are and why they do that... he was like "why would i keep with these they are lunatics" and his character left ! as simple as that. no metagaming to stick with them. nothing, he just left and created another character. the same is true for all NPC, as a DM none of my NPC are helping this group anymore, they literally lost all rights with any of them. because everyone thinks they are lunatics. and now because of their actions and what hapenned to them... the whole region fears them coming. they were supposed to be saviors of the region not their demise... but because of their innability to do shit correctly, the whole region fears them. they know they aren't bad or evil, just that they aren't too great at what they do, and thus now when they arrive ina village people fear them and do not want to do anything with them.
metagaming is bad because when it happens it breaks immersion. DM doing it, is less important ebcause its the DM the players wont notice anyway. players doing it, its stupidly obvious at all times. and 99% of the time, it could of been avoided by a simple decision from the player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
If you want to make a character as a DM, you can make them a NPC. They will still have the stats of a PC, but you will control them. The only thing that would be a problem would be roleplaying your NPC's limited knowledge, instead of using your out-of-game knowledge.
the argument i hear the most is exactly yours... but its literally DMing 101, its called Metagaming, and if you can't, as a DM, not metagame, then your game is gonna suck big time. after all, your villain knows every single characters thats coming their way right ? your villain knows every single thread of their story right ? wouldn't your own villain knowing too much for you, as a DM, to be able to just wreck your party with ease ? dont you know your own story too well for that villain to fail ? this is why that argument do not pass for one... because the inverse is also possible... if you know everything, then doesn't that mean your villain knows every players actions by heart as well ?
This always strikes me as strange.
Everyone thinks metagaming is bad. But, we constantly metagame. When the party first gathers at a table at the tavern, that's metagaming. When they agree to go on their first adventure together, that's also metagaming. When the mutually-exclusive character types don't immediately part ways, that's metagaming. We need metagaming in for most, especially, D&D games to work. My Paladin, Lysette, really has no reason to hang around with these . . . hooligans. But, for the sake of the game, she continues to. That's constant metagaming.
In Call of Cthulhu, you know that the books will drive your character insane. And, really, so does the character. But, they read the books anyway. Why? Because they need to so the adventure can continue. In Star Wars, you know about the Dark Side (and, some of us know the hidden secret in Star Wars).
I metagame constantly, to push and exploit my players' weaknesses, as well as their characters' weaknesses. As a player, I'll metagame to help the GM tell a more interesting story. I'm not doing it to protect my character. You should never protect your character. An exposed character is a character that can experience drama. Metagaming is a tool in the GM and Player's toolbox. And, like any tool, you should be proficient with it, and use it with precision and expertise.
Which is why I'm not allowed to use hammers anymore. Or screwdrivers. And I'm not allowed in the same room as any power tool.
If you have a need to metagame in order to do stuff, then you are doing something wrong... none of my characters ever go with a group they shouldn't be going. some of my players have played 3 to 4 characters in a few sessions, because of that very reason. if a group acts like total jerks and total shit shows, your characters is free to go and not follow them up. it happens. but you have to understand that change is also part of evolution. thats not metagaming... metagaming is you know its a game and knowing your character is in a game. and then making that character act in a game not as a conscious person. doing that breaks immersion.
in your case.. i'll give you an exemple... a group of adventurer goes against a dragon, one of the players decides its better to be on the side of the dragon... are you gonna kill his character because he sided with the dragon, or are you gonna let him live because he's a player ? i've seen people and literally groups going down because they metagame and leave the player alive because its a player and they dont want him to die. it breaks immersion and at my table i ask that charcaters acts as they would. and thus that player might die if he doesn'T change his mind. that's why we have themes in a game. to make sure everyone is on the same page. to avoid metagaming like what you said. a DM metagaming is fine, he has a right to do so to make the story go forward. i'll agree to that much... but players should never do it. its not because some of us allow us in some extent in the game that we should allow it at all times.
another exemple for you... the group is in a city, they go to rest for the night. one of the players, a rogue trickster, goes in a house and kills a whole familly, because why not, he lkes blood and likes to make the perfect crime. perfect use of silence, perfect use of prestidigitation. the group wakes up the next day and walks in the city, when they see some guards near a house, like any people, they wonder and they were searching for a job... guards says the there was a murder. the gang knowing it was their friend because we role played it. jumped on it. not because it was their friend but because the character were searching for a job, that was one mystery to solve. they acted like their characters would. it was good that hapenned, because they all had enough of that players behavior. when they found out he was a murder hobo, they killed him. his fault for staying with the group, he should of left as soon as they found out about his murderous instincts.
next character he created... a small girl, daughter of a powerfull deity. some starnge powers manifesting due to a totem she had on her. cool character, again too murderous for the group... after the first 3 nights with her, the group just talked together, and when she goes to sleep, they leave her there... boom second character change in like 4 sessions. as a player you are not forced to play with characters you dont want to, or characters you know your character wouldn't stay with. its your decisions if you do. but as a player, it is your utmost duty to make sure your character fits with those around him. otherwise you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
there is no metagaming to have in a players arsenal... for a player, metagaming is truly bad. it breaks immersion and it breaks many aspects of the game. you changing your characters behaviors to fit the group is a possibility because characters evolves, it can happen. after all we as people are also changing based on our environment and our friends... but if you force your character to stay with a group you know he would never. you should ask yourself why you created a character who do not fit the theme or why you created a character without talking to the others first.
again, its up to you as a player to find a way to fit with the group. not up to a metagaming call because players... last anecdotes... a friends character died, he needs to create another character, he tries a rogue mastermind because the group desperately need a leader, because none wants to lead and no good happens. as a DM i love them going around doing shits. they really try to save the world but since none of them take decisions, most of all their stuff breaks apart and things go south fast. literally i have players in that group who just follows a guy who follows the other guy who follows the other guy. so that friend decides, ill be their leader... yeah 3 sessions later, he ditch that group and create another charcter. because he realise, while his character is intelligent and could lead them, after seeing how they are and why they do that... he was like "why would i keep with these they are lunatics" and his character left ! as simple as that. no metagaming to stick with them. nothing, he just left and created another character. the same is true for all NPC, as a DM none of my NPC are helping this group anymore, they literally lost all rights with any of them. because everyone thinks they are lunatics. and now because of their actions and what hapenned to them... the whole region fears them coming. they were supposed to be saviors of the region not their demise... but because of their innability to do shit correctly, the whole region fears them. they know they aren't bad or evil, just that they aren't too great at what they do, and thus now when they arrive ina village people fear them and do not want to do anything with them.
metagaming is bad because when it happens it breaks immersion. DM doing it, is less important ebcause its the DM the players wont notice anyway. players doing it, its stupidly obvious at all times. and 99% of the time, it could of been avoided by a simple decision from the player.
This is very narrow thinking and again, a kind of attitude of "I know best so everyone listen to me."
Metagaming, in the example he gave, of everyone coming together to play. Some people want to play D&D and play whatever character they want, regardless of what everyone else is doing. I don't think because the other characters at your table are all acting a certain way that your character doesn't like, doesn't mean you, as a player, messed up and are in the wrong, or that you should make a new character. That's just ridiculous.
And i believe your view is also very narrow considering you are implying that a group can and should always play whatever the hell they want even if one of the players at your table is there to do some PVP. or play the bad guy while the others want to play the good ones, or vice versa. which is to me ludicrous cause those games never go far and always ends up dismantling themselves. the point i am making, which you completely skipped over, is that in order for a group to work the right way and be a long running game... is for everyone to have some kind of reason to stay together. when that doesn't happen, then there is no reason for any characters to stick together.
TL;DR because i know some of you dont read texts... its better to all make characters that already can work together then making assumptions and judgements or act as if your character didn't care for sake of the player. im not saying my way is better then yours cause i dont know yours since i never played under you. all im saying is... if you metagame for the sake of other players... then i wouldn't be playing in that game of yours, because "I" preffer immersion and being true to a character, not in some random reasons to stick to a psychomaniac who just wanna kill everything he sees because he likes to satisfy some weird phatasm he has in his life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Meta-gaming - to borrow from Wikipedia is defined thus:
In role-playing games, metagaming is a term often used to describe players' use of assumed characteristics of the game. In particular, metagaming often refers to having an in-game character act on knowledge that the player has access to but the character should not.
you said
there is no metagaming to have in a players arsenal... for a player, metagaming is truly bad.
metagaming is bad because when it happens it breaks immersion. DM doing it, is less important ebcause its the DM the players wont notice anyway. players doing it, its stupidly obvious at all times. and 99% of the time, it could of been avoided by a simple decision from the player.
but then you go on to say:
but as a player, it is your utmost duty to make sure your character fits with those around him. otherwise you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
its better to all make characters that already can work together then making assumptions and judgements or act as if your character didn't care for sake of the player.
So ... where is the Player getting the knowledge whether or not their Character will fit in with the Party? Tea leaves? You are advocating that the Player makes a Character which fits in with the Party, based on Player knowledge of what the other Players have as Characters. This is a generally accepted type of Player meta-gaming.
Meta-gaming is not a type of motivation which has a single kind of application. You cannot say meta-gaming is universally good, and you cannot say that its universally bad. It depends on the application, the purpose of it, and the social conventions of the gaming group it affects.
Some applications are generally frowned upon ( but conversion does not make for absolute morality ) such as using Player knowledge of Monster weaknesses, and some applications are very common - such as making Characters who have a built in motive for being a member of the Party. Some are borderline, and vary from table to table and Group style. Did your Cleric just pull back from melee combat to cast Cure Wounds on the Rogue because they are down to 12HP? That's a kind of meta-gaming as the Rogue probably doesn't have a big red HP gauge on their back, and the Cleric is pretty busy at the moment - and whether that's OK is usually determined by the style of the game ( but I believe it's pretty common ).
I know where my preferences are, and how I talk to my Players about it - but I don't go around telling everyone else that they should run their games the way me and my Players do so; that's a matter of table preference.
And that's just Player meta-gaming. DM meta-gaming happens all the time. If you've ever built parts of Player's backstory into an adventure arc - that's meta-gaming. Do the Characters have an unusual, or exalted position in the world - you know, like they're Heroes - that's meta-gaming, and ( I believe ) pretty common DM meta-gaming at that. But - like all things - there is also bad meta-gaming on the DM. Did your BBEG obviously pull his punches on the Party, because the DM doesn't want to kill a PC? Most groups I've seen probably would feel cheated by that, so don't get caught.
Like most topics ( regardless of the topic ) things are never as cut-and-dried as universally bad or universally good - and "this works for me and my group" is never equivalent to "I'm universally right, and you should all emulate me!".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Ok, let me ask you a simple question... did you ever talk to the other players before starting a game with them, you know to actually know whats going to happen with their charcaters ? or heck even asked the DM to tell you which kind of characters he has in order to not make a character that will just wreck them when you first play that game ?
because to me, i always ask around the other players, or the DM in what im getting into. exactly for this reason, not to metagame or make a character that will just outright not fit with the party. its called communication man. and its not metagaming, because im not playing my character at all, and no, my character wont know the information i got. the only goal of that first hand discussion is to know what im getting into in order not to just disrupt the DM and his players.
but hey if your the type that does whatever he wants and create powerfull bastards who just think its right to be evil in a good group... its your call and if your dm is fine with it, then ok... but to me, i make sure i am the same alignment as the rest of the group, or at least have an alignment that fits the party im going in.
and again you talk as if im trying to say i am right you are wrong... im not even saying that, i never said it and wont say it, cause apparently the group you are in works fine the way you play it. and thats fine with me, the only thing i will ever not be right with, is if someone tells me he plays a game he dislikes and is forcing himself to play it. thats just plain wrong to me and i beleive it should be for him as well.
no the only thing i have been saying, and you have been too in many occasions, is that DM PC are nothing more then NPC, there is strickly no differences between them both. because a DM is already playing multiple characters in his own story. but what i hate on the only thing you said.. is that the word DMPC is meaning bad DM EGO... and that infuriates me, cause thats strickly not true. there are tons of exemples of good DMPC out there and you ust outright ignores them for the sake of keeping your saying that DMPC is bad !
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a difference between saying "this is what works for me", "I think this is generally a good idea, because to do otherwise leads to the following issues ....", and "this is the one true way to do things, if you don't you're doing it wrong, and I'm a better ______ than you for doing it that way!".
Let's at least try and keep it to the former two.
Once you hit the third, you just sound arrogant, and people stop listening to you - even when you have really good points to make.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
i'm only saying, if "his" players likes linear stories and are there for that, then fine by me, "Mine" aren't !
but i am against those who say "generally" as if the majority dislikes it, while it is quite false.
i too like high rollers, critical role and the likes, but let's be honest... all of their plays are one dimensionnal. the DM has a story and the players interact with it, by still following the said story. in the end, the players let the DM guides... not all players likes that. it works for shows like that, but its not what works for everyone, and saying "in generals it is" doesn't help anyone at all.
and just for the record... if you have ever tryed to write novels... there are right and wrong ways to write a story. if there wasn't.... your audience would love it reguardless of what you write. so basically, if your players (audience) didn't like it, you did it wrong ! i make plenty of mistakes in my own plays... but of all 3 groups i currently DM for.. when they compare me to all other DMs, something which im not liking... they all preffer to play with me, because apparently im the most prepared, im the most capable improviser and i'm able to follow them and create stories for their characters. getting them involved. i have to say its truth around my place, because the others are too new. but i hate being compared to them, because experience in DMing is way too great. of course they'll sound bad if you compare my 30 years of DMing to their measily 2. i learned everything by playing, by DMing, and i still love DMing over playing because i love creating worlds. i love creating stories. i learned by looking at others, if you dont like creating stories and worlds... you cannot be a good DM. but this is my opinion. im not enforcing that to anyone. there are tons of good DMs out there that only do pre-made stories from books. but again, if you dont like telling stories, or preparing the said world you're gonna play in... then you just dont like being a DM.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I'm most in agreement with Vedexent, who mentioned earlier that I think a lot of this is coming down to definitions. I'd consider what some are calling a DMPC as simply an NPC with complex motivations - who may be with the party for a while, but is actually a narrative device first and foremost.
For me, anything more than that – i.e, rolling up a player with the express intention of trying to play a character in the same game I'm DMing – isn't about whether it's possible, it's whether it'd be enjoyable, for either me or my players.
Sure, I could play a character that's ignorant of everything that I as the DM know. We do that anytime we inject an NPC into the world anyway. The village blacksmith doesn't know anything about the ancient ruins beneath the mountain - however many times the players ask. I just know I wouldn't have a good time doing it.
Personally, the entire essence of playing, rather than DMing, is to be part of a world I don't know everything about. I don't know the big bad from session 1. I don't know all of the information. I don't know about the magic items I'll find, or the creatures I'll encounter. I don't know all the history and lore, or where the story will go. Reacting to that information as it's presented, and then seeing the results of my actions, is what makes playing fun for me. Conversely, creating that narrative, and seeing what my players do with it, and providing an engaging experience for them is what makes DMing fun. For me, the two simply don't mix – it's not satisfying to provide my own outcomes.
When I create a complex NPC, they're an extension of my narrative. They will always serve to drive the plot, add to the drama, or create tension, but they will never take a slice of the pie of the story that the players are weaving. As a DM, I can use the that NPC however I see fit, and change them on the fly. For example, I've had an NPC hireling from the local temple turn out to be a minion of the necromancer the players were hunting, because I thought it'd be a great twist.
Perhaps, as DnDPaladin suggests above, not all players enjoy having a world created for them, and then making decisions within the framework of an existing narrative and plot. I've never played with anyone that would prefer that entirely procedurally generated world, and I don't think I'd enjoy it myself. Each to their own, I suppose.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I still fail to see the distinction. Isn't a DM with a character the definition of a non-player character?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Thats what most of us are saying. Yes it is. By definition a character is a character reguardless of who is playing it. But many people think that because a dm knows everything it is obvious that all of his characters knows whats happening. And thus makes a distinction between players and dm characters. As in a dm character knows everything.
The reality is that a character is a character reguardless of who plays it. The only thing that matters is how he plays it. Thats is true for both players and the dm.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
My personal take - and only my personal take - is that all NPCs are absolutely DM characters, but not all NPCs are DMPCs for what is usually being discussed in threads like these - and thus not all NPCs are DMPCs.
I believe that DMPCs happen when the DM is personally invested in the successes and prestige of the NPC, rather than using them as part of the world, or part of the adventure story. When the DM could probably say, "well my character does ... ", as opposed to "well Gondor the Barbarian says ...".
When the DM has a personal vested interest in the success and prestige of an NPC, there is a danger ( although not always a realization of that danger ) for the DM to play favorites with the NPC over the Party.
That's why I said that if the DM plays the NPC according to their own internal motivations, and not the DM's personal internal sense of fun and personal accomplishment, you can sidestep that issue.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
so basically... you dont like villains made by the DM cause the DM is investd in that villain to successes and motives ?
the only thing i dislike in your belief, is that it seems like you are saying a DM should never invest himself in any of his NPCs or even his villains.
the last part also irks me abit... im confused... are you saying a DM shouldn't have fun and should always work for the players and never for himself ?
if so i disagree on both points. and i believe this is where our conflict stands.
i believe a DM has as much right to have fun then any of the players on the table. and i also firmly believe that a DM should play his villains and NPC as if it was truly him.
heck i even learned how to process my own voice in order to make better voices, i gesture, i become the charcater im portraying, may he be villain or NPC. and i never use the third person either, i become the character and thus i speak in first person. thats what my players like.
i firmly believe true immersion in the game and the making of the said story, is much better if your DM is invested in his characters !
the same way players are invested in theirs. but i guess it depends on if you want immersion or not.
maybe im just not understanding your point right though.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
When you are DM you have knowledge of everything that can happen in every situation. So if there is a locked door, your the one that knows whats behind it. This means that you know too much about whats going to happen and therefore will not be able to play fairly. Also the other players will rely to heavily on your "DM" character to find the solution or solve their problems. In the end having the DM play as a character causes more problems with story and play the what its worth. I hope this helps and wish you luck.
I wasn't aware we had a "conflict"; I thought we had a difference of opinion, style, or boundaries.
I believe that the DM has the right to have as much fun at the table as any other Player. I also believe that the DM is allowed to enjoy playing their NPCs, and can present them better when they do so.
However, I believe that there is a difference between having well developed NPCs, which are played well, and even from which the DM can derive enjoyment - and the DM having a viewpoint character in whose success/failure in the party is a matter of ego for the DM.
This is what I refer to as a DMPC, and I've seen numerous cases over the years, where such have been grafted onto a Party, where - unsurprisingly - they enjoy unprecedented success, and are amazing at everything they do, to the point of overshadowing the Party. Such DMPCs often don't have much in the way of well defined internal personal goals and motives - they're really just there to show how amazing the DM's personal character is. They are the RPG equivalent of the Mary Sue Character in fiction.
In jurisprudence, being both a party to a dispute, and the judge, is called conflict of interest. While It's possible to have a conflict of interest, and not actually be biased - I've seldom, if ever, seen a DM pull that off ( and I've seen a lot of DMs, and been one - off and on - since the days of the red/blue boxed sets ).
I believe that a good DM can have interest, personal enjoyment, immersion, and great presentation of interesting NPCs without being ego-invested in them.
NPCs - and villains - which have a good backstory, personal goals, and internal motives can be great when they are played well by the DM according to their internal motives, and not as a means of stoking the DM's ego. If the DM is really enjoying playing that NPC, even better.
However, ultimately, how you run you table, or how you draw your boundary lines, or the level of your impartiality, matters not one whit to me and my Players - and how I run mine shouldn't matter to you.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Well, by conflict i meant just that. but anyway...
call it streak of badluck if you will... but i doubt that, i think your conception of what a DMpc is exactly why you have had such bad experiences.
because of all the DMs i've played with... only about 1 out of 20 had an EGO problem with said characters. that of course is also a problem with the old adage which led many a table astray. "my table, my rules" which literally told any players that what the DMs wants is what you should go by. the other adage was "better to have a game then none" which also provoke many a table astray because people preffered to have bad DMs instead of having no games at all. i have to say that i think its yourself and your belief that led you to believe those DMs had ego problems. or that your "expectations" were simply too high for those tables. i could understand 2 or even 3 bad DMs with ego problems, but all of them... i dont get that one. more if its numerous games with bad DMs. that said, i dont doubt your capabilities as a player or even as a DM. but i wonder about your choice of DMs.
i can assure you... just here in trois-rivieres, canada.... we have like only 4 or 5 DMs at the local shop and all of them ae quite capable of making DMPCs that will not hog all the spotlight.
in my own experience, i have seen tons of DMs doing it, until they realised what they were doing and changed their ways about it. me included ! when i was young and a starting DM, i used to take on the spotlight, there was no other DMs then me because nobody anted it. and for the first time i could do it my way, not theirs, my way because my table my rules right. took me about 2 years to understand why i couldn't keep my players for long periods of time. and people usually didn't tell back in the 90ies why they had left. they still dont today. some friends talked to me and told me my stories were great, just that their characters weren't involved enough. back then i was using everything to make a story. the XMen, the avengers, castlevania characters. nothing was truly mine. here we are 28 years or so later, and i am not even recognising the person i was as a DM back then. having played over 20 groups int eh periods of time i played much, having had about 15+ DMs over the times, and believe me not all games were for me. including one in secondary 5 schools... who let me get in his game, and then when i finished my character, goten killed by the players who looted my wears and then the DM telling me, get off my game kiddo. thanks for the free loot the others said. talk about maniacs...
i had my fair share of problems DMs, but of them all... only that one DM had an EGO problem.
you could call me lucky compared to you... but again.... 2 or 3 DMs in a row, i can understand... 20+ there is no coicidence and something might be because of your own perception.
food for thoughts there...
Advice for all the aspiring DMs and players out there...
do some introspection before putting the blame on your players or on the DM...
more often then not, if something hapenned, it is mostly because of yourself of something you did, something you said, something you hinted at.
small anecdote...
i had a game i was DMing, my players never wanted to do anything from what i was throwing their ways. i thought my players just wanted to screw my world and me by the same extent. i ended up quitting that game. for 5 days i thought, my players were a bunch of *****. going right when they should of gone left. ditching the road and going int he complete opposite direction of where the adventure was... then i had this bright idea of asking them why ? and thus i asked one of them... the answer i got was much much much different then what i had even imagined... he said "you're the one who discouraged us from going there, we wanted to go there !" i said, "nonesense, tell me how i supposedly did that ?" he answered... "well, we were on our way when that NPC came about and told us that creature destroyed the whole village. just that, could of already dissuade us from going, after all it wrecked the whole place with ease... but you added, the milicia there was wrecked. we love our characters we want them to g on longer then this, so we ran the other direction instead." thats where i had my first clue that i was the one making my players act this way. that players actually learn from our games and will be playing accordingly. so i started checking with other players and started seeing trends that i was saying one or two simple words that players took for cash or something completely different then what i had in mind.
my cousin did the same mistake... he had a group, he lost them all, i talked to them, while my cousin was telling me they were the problem that they wanted a video game, not him. what i got from his players was very very different. he just didn't have the same idea of fun as them. they loved his stories, but they hated every NPCs they met. they had a hard time grasping the concepts of the theme they were playing, and they had no real way of liking a character to do the story. yet, he never understood that, all he saw was their ineptitude at the table and refused to think that maybe it was him, that was causing the problem.
more often then not, your problem players are problems, more often then not, you are !
and that is true even for players, not just for DMs. if a group do not like your character, maybe its because you did or said something they dont like.
so yeah, communicate with your DM, if there is something you dislike, most of the time he might not even have noticed it. talk to them, it might make both of you better in the end.
and please please... if you are to leave a table, communicate with that DM to say why... hes not a psychic. if you leave his table, tell him why you do.
anyway...
im satisfied and my curiosity is quenched. thanks for that exchange Vedexent.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
situation... you know that NPC is lying, yet your insight roll isn't high enough for your character to know. what do you do ?
ignore the insight roll and act as if your character knew it was a lie, or are you gonna act as if your character didn't know ?
this is the basic of metagaming, a bad habit most of the player shave and that DMs mostly, learn not to do.
if you act as if the roll had no importance, you are effectively metagaming, which means you are using knowledge that you "the player" knows, but that your character do not. that means you and your character aren't two different entities, you are a character and you know it. thus you are metagaming. if you act as if you didn't know and play it as such, then you are playing your character in character. and thus you are gonna ignore a fact you already know.
DMs knows this by heart, it is why we do DMing. we know when to use our knowledge and when not to. thats basic DMing 101.
Sure, i know whats behind door number 4... but my hireling that never got to go to that temple never even set a foot there before... he has strickly no idea whats behind that door. thts why i will act with him as such. he will put an arrow on his crossbow, place himself aside the door and far back in order to let loose if anything bad happens. because he has no idea that behind this dor there is a statue and a trap. he has no idea that hidden well in this room there is a hidden treasure pile. and even if i, the DM, knows this information... i'd be a very bad DM if i was metagaming my way.
the argument i hear the most is exactly yours...
but its literally DMing 101, its called Metagaming, and if you can't, as a DM, not metagame, then your game is gonna suck big time. after all, your villain knows every single characters thats coming their way right ? your villain knows every single thread of their story right ? wouldn't your own villain knowing too much for you, as a DM, to be able to just wreck your party with ease ? dont you know your own story too well for that villain to fail ? this is why that argument do not pass for one... because the inverse is also possible... if you know everything, then doesn't that mean your villain knows every players actions by heart as well ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
My issue isn't with being able to not meta-game in a DMPC scenario, it's more about why, as a DM, I'd want to be in that scenario in the first place. As a player, there's a significant difference between say, knowing the stat-block of an enemy, and not using that information to decide whether to enter combat, to stepping into a dungeon and already knowing everything about it.
Of course, I could not let that information cause a conflict of interest, and play a character oblivious to those details - I do it all the time with NPCs that accompany the party. But for me, the enjoyment of taking the role of 'player' at the table is that air of mystery. Not knowing what lies ahead, or what me and my companions might discover - being a singular entity in a much larger world, and seeing how the decisions I make impact events I don't know everything about.
Whatever way I slice it, the omnipotence of the DM isn't compatible with also being a player, that (as Vedexent suggested) is ego-invested in them. As a DM, I can inject NPCs into the campaign to accompany the party, that for a while, may portray the illusion of a PC. They can have their own motivations, back-story, objectives and agenda. But they'll always be an extension of me as a DM, serving the narrative in some way, and a part of the world that I've created. They're ultimately another tool in my arsenal, as much as a creature, villain, location or dungeon.
Similarly, the role of 'player' is ego-centric. They have their own motivations, back-story, objectives and agenda - but they're only concerned with fulfilling them. As a player, I don't want to know more than I should. It's not about meta-gaming. It's about whether it's as enjoyable to watch a movie, or read a book, if you already know the ending. Sure, rolling dice and roleplaying is heaps of fun... and I can do that as an NPC... but for me, the true enjoyment of being a player, is navigating someone else's world, and roleplaying my character within that.
The age-old question of the GMPC rears its ugly head again.
Most of the times I’ve seen this come up are the standard issues where the GM is trying to tell a specific story, about the legend of their favored character. The PCs are just there to bear witness to the glory of their awesomeness. Nothing the party can come up with is as good as what the GMPC comes up with (even if it’s better) and none of it will work, because the GMPC is always right.
To me, that’s the hallmark of a poor GM, who is more invested in their story than in their players. They shouldn’t be running a game, they should be writing a novel.
And, to be blunt, pretty much, that’s why the term GMPC (DMPC) exists. It’s a pejorative—we don’t like GMPCs. The moment someone mentions GMPC/DMPC most long-term players have an internal cringe or worse and expect to hear some horror story that they’ve heard countless times before. It’s even worse when the GM of the game is bragging about how awesome their GMPC is and all the things they did when the party couldn’t understand the quality of their brilliance.
However, the best GMPCs are indistinguishable from NPCs. Because, when used correctly, that’s all they are.
As a GM, I’m a Storyteller. I teach by stories.
In my Infinite Weirdos game, my character (from a different campaign) James/Charlemagne and Hand of Bobb’s character Heaven/Shimmer made cameos because they were needed to help the party. James/Charlemagne was, functionally, the antagonist of the session as he was the one who offered to let the party accompany him, Shimmer and Midnight back to Mars in an effort to blow it up. They knew the situation was serious, because I warned that, if they went along, I would invoke Dire Peril*. They went along anyway.
Which was the villains plan all along.
Sure, in one of the fights, the party understood that Charlemagne and Shimmer were on a whole different level, but, it wasn’t about the fight. It was about being overconfident and not thinking the situation through. The enemies drew Charlemagne and Shimmer away from their target. They captured Saeko and teleported her away. The overlord plugged her into their own bomb and sacrificed her to trigger it.
The party escaped, down one of their own. But, their plan had succeeded: Mars was destroyed. The Villain’s base had been destroyed and their forces had fled the solar system. They also learned a lot about the Villain’s plans, and how much larger the situation they were in was.
In every session, I play several characters. Did I have a personal investment in James? Sure. But, I knew what was going to happen. Could the players have stopped what was going to happen? No. Why? Because they really weren’t operating under Dire Peril. Saeko’s player had wanted her to die, and asked me to have her taken out in a way that would preclude her being brought back. He didn’t know how he wanted it to happen and trusted me to come up with her end. So I gave her a spectacular out. I used Dire Peril to warn them that something horrible could happen, so the players were ready to give it their all.
And they discovered that their all wasn’t enough.
Because they were following, not leading. They’re the heroes of this story. Charlemagne and Shimmer aren’t. They’re just NPCs here. They’re supposed to be bearing witness to the party’s awesome.
Why were Charlemagne and Shimmer needed? Well, because the party needed a catalyst to enact the plan. They wouldn’t have been confident enough to try it on their own. Charlemagne was supremely confident, and with Shimmer’s direct access to Asmodeus, he knew they had an escape plan, should it come down to it. He knew he was right. And he wasn’t. The Party should have been wary of someone that confident. But, instead (and as I predicted) they stopped hearing anything after “we’re going to blow up Mars.”
There was even some foreshadowing when Shimmer contacted Asmodeus for Contessa (to get some demonic paperwork processed), and he warned her that things were not as they expected. But, still, no one questioned the plan.
Just two sessions previously, they had three werewolf NPCs who came up with the plan for the distraction: “First, we take the safeties off these RPGs. Then we wire the RPGs to the grill of this truck. Then, we pick up the truck and throw it into that building!” The NPC with the suggestion (which was enacted) was declared to have the alignment “Chaotic Hillbilly.”
I guess Explosions do make everything better.
------
[*]-Dire Peril is a gaming convention from John Wick (the designer, not the movie). In a nutshell, part of the social contract for my games is that I won’t kill your characters, unless you want me to. You do something stupid, I’ll do something to make you remember it, but your character won’t die. Dire Peril is the warning that those protections are not just lifted but I’ll be actively trying to kill you.
This always strikes me as strange.
Everyone thinks metagaming is bad. But, we constantly metagame. When the party first gathers at a table at the tavern, that's metagaming. When they agree to go on their first adventure together, that's also metagaming. When the mutually-exclusive character types don't immediately part ways, that's metagaming. We need metagaming in for most, especially, D&D games to work. My Paladin, Lysette, really has no reason to hang around with these . . . hooligans. But, for the sake of the game, she continues to. That's constant metagaming.
In Call of Cthulhu, you know that the books will drive your character insane. And, really, so does the character. But, they read the books anyway. Why? Because they need to so the adventure can continue. In Star Wars, you know about the Dark Side (and, some of us know the hidden secret in Star Wars).
I metagame constantly, to push and exploit my players' weaknesses, as well as their characters' weaknesses. As a player, I'll metagame to help the GM tell a more interesting story. I'm not doing it to protect my character. You should never protect your character. An exposed character is a character that can experience drama. Metagaming is a tool in the GM and Player's toolbox. And, like any tool, you should be proficient with it, and use it with precision and expertise.
Which is why I'm not allowed to use hammers anymore. Or screwdrivers. And I'm not allowed in the same room as any power tool.
If you have a need to metagame in order to do stuff, then you are doing something wrong... none of my characters ever go with a group they shouldn't be going. some of my players have played 3 to 4 characters in a few sessions, because of that very reason. if a group acts like total jerks and total shit shows, your characters is free to go and not follow them up. it happens. but you have to understand that change is also part of evolution. thats not metagaming... metagaming is you know its a game and knowing your character is in a game. and then making that character act in a game not as a conscious person. doing that breaks immersion.
in your case.. i'll give you an exemple...
a group of adventurer goes against a dragon, one of the players decides its better to be on the side of the dragon... are you gonna kill his character because he sided with the dragon, or are you gonna let him live because he's a player ? i've seen people and literally groups going down because they metagame and leave the player alive because its a player and they dont want him to die. it breaks immersion and at my table i ask that charcaters acts as they would. and thus that player might die if he doesn'T change his mind. that's why we have themes in a game. to make sure everyone is on the same page. to avoid metagaming like what you said. a DM metagaming is fine, he has a right to do so to make the story go forward. i'll agree to that much... but players should never do it. its not because some of us allow us in some extent in the game that we should allow it at all times.
another exemple for you...
the group is in a city, they go to rest for the night. one of the players, a rogue trickster, goes in a house and kills a whole familly, because why not, he lkes blood and likes to make the perfect crime. perfect use of silence, perfect use of prestidigitation. the group wakes up the next day and walks in the city, when they see some guards near a house, like any people, they wonder and they were searching for a job... guards says the there was a murder. the gang knowing it was their friend because we role played it. jumped on it. not because it was their friend but because the character were searching for a job, that was one mystery to solve. they acted like their characters would. it was good that hapenned, because they all had enough of that players behavior. when they found out he was a murder hobo, they killed him. his fault for staying with the group, he should of left as soon as they found out about his murderous instincts.
next character he created... a small girl, daughter of a powerfull deity. some starnge powers manifesting due to a totem she had on her.
cool character, again too murderous for the group... after the first 3 nights with her, the group just talked together, and when she goes to sleep, they leave her there...
boom second character change in like 4 sessions. as a player you are not forced to play with characters you dont want to, or characters you know your character wouldn't stay with. its your decisions if you do. but as a player, it is your utmost duty to make sure your character fits with those around him. otherwise you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
there is no metagaming to have in a players arsenal... for a player, metagaming is truly bad. it breaks immersion and it breaks many aspects of the game. you changing your characters behaviors to fit the group is a possibility because characters evolves, it can happen. after all we as people are also changing based on our environment and our friends... but if you force your character to stay with a group you know he would never. you should ask yourself why you created a character who do not fit the theme or why you created a character without talking to the others first.
again, its up to you as a player to find a way to fit with the group. not up to a metagaming call because players...
last anecdotes...
a friends character died, he needs to create another character, he tries a rogue mastermind because the group desperately need a leader, because none wants to lead and no good happens. as a DM i love them going around doing shits. they really try to save the world but since none of them take decisions, most of all their stuff breaks apart and things go south fast. literally i have players in that group who just follows a guy who follows the other guy who follows the other guy. so that friend decides, ill be their leader... yeah 3 sessions later, he ditch that group and create another charcter. because he realise, while his character is intelligent and could lead them, after seeing how they are and why they do that... he was like "why would i keep with these they are lunatics" and his character left ! as simple as that. no metagaming to stick with them. nothing, he just left and created another character. the same is true for all NPC, as a DM none of my NPC are helping this group anymore, they literally lost all rights with any of them. because everyone thinks they are lunatics. and now because of their actions and what hapenned to them... the whole region fears them coming. they were supposed to be saviors of the region not their demise... but because of their innability to do shit correctly, the whole region fears them. they know they aren't bad or evil, just that they aren't too great at what they do, and thus now when they arrive ina village people fear them and do not want to do anything with them.
metagaming is bad because when it happens it breaks immersion.
DM doing it, is less important ebcause its the DM the players wont notice anyway.
players doing it, its stupidly obvious at all times. and 99% of the time, it could of been avoided by a simple decision from the player.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
If you want to make a character as a DM, you can make them a NPC. They will still have the stats of a PC, but you will control them. The only thing that would be a problem would be roleplaying your NPC's limited knowledge, instead of using your out-of-game knowledge.
it's been a long time...
This is very narrow thinking and again, a kind of attitude of "I know best so everyone listen to me."
Metagaming, in the example he gave, of everyone coming together to play. Some people want to play D&D and play whatever character they want, regardless of what everyone else is doing. I don't think because the other characters at your table are all acting a certain way that your character doesn't like, doesn't mean you, as a player, messed up and are in the wrong, or that you should make a new character. That's just ridiculous.
Published Subclasses
And i believe your view is also very narrow considering you are implying that a group can and should always play whatever the hell they want even if one of the players at your table is there to do some PVP. or play the bad guy while the others want to play the good ones, or vice versa. which is to me ludicrous cause those games never go far and always ends up dismantling themselves. the point i am making, which you completely skipped over, is that in order for a group to work the right way and be a long running game... is for everyone to have some kind of reason to stay together. when that doesn't happen, then there is no reason for any characters to stick together.
TL;DR because i know some of you dont read texts...
its better to all make characters that already can work together then making assumptions and judgements or act as if your character didn't care for sake of the player.
im not saying my way is better then yours cause i dont know yours since i never played under you. all im saying is... if you metagame for the sake of other players... then i wouldn't be playing in that game of yours, because "I" preffer immersion and being true to a character, not in some random reasons to stick to a psychomaniac who just wanna kill everything he sees because he likes to satisfy some weird phatasm he has in his life.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Wait a minute.
Meta-gaming - to borrow from Wikipedia is defined thus:
In role-playing games, metagaming is a term often used to describe players' use of assumed characteristics of the game. In particular, metagaming often refers to having an in-game character act on knowledge that the player has access to but the character should not.
you said
there is no metagaming to have in a players arsenal... for a player, metagaming is truly bad.
metagaming is bad because when it happens it breaks immersion.
DM doing it, is less important ebcause its the DM the players wont notice anyway.
players doing it, its stupidly obvious at all times. and 99% of the time, it could of been avoided by a simple decision from the player.
but then you go on to say:
but as a player, it is your utmost duty to make sure your character fits with those around him. otherwise you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
its better to all make characters that already can work together then making assumptions and judgements or act as if your character didn't care for sake of the player.
So ... where is the Player getting the knowledge whether or not their Character will fit in with the Party? Tea leaves? You are advocating that the Player makes a Character which fits in with the Party, based on Player knowledge of what the other Players have as Characters. This is a generally accepted type of Player meta-gaming.
Meta-gaming is not a type of motivation which has a single kind of application. You cannot say meta-gaming is universally good, and you cannot say that its universally bad. It depends on the application, the purpose of it, and the social conventions of the gaming group it affects.
Some applications are generally frowned upon ( but conversion does not make for absolute morality ) such as using Player knowledge of Monster weaknesses, and some applications are very common - such as making Characters who have a built in motive for being a member of the Party. Some are borderline, and vary from table to table and Group style. Did your Cleric just pull back from melee combat to cast Cure Wounds on the Rogue because they are down to 12HP? That's a kind of meta-gaming as the Rogue probably doesn't have a big red HP gauge on their back, and the Cleric is pretty busy at the moment - and whether that's OK is usually determined by the style of the game ( but I believe it's pretty common ).
I know where my preferences are, and how I talk to my Players about it - but I don't go around telling everyone else that they should run their games the way me and my Players do so; that's a matter of table preference.
And that's just Player meta-gaming. DM meta-gaming happens all the time. If you've ever built parts of Player's backstory into an adventure arc - that's meta-gaming. Do the Characters have an unusual, or exalted position in the world - you know, like they're Heroes - that's meta-gaming, and ( I believe ) pretty common DM meta-gaming at that. But - like all things - there is also bad meta-gaming on the DM. Did your BBEG obviously pull his punches on the Party, because the DM doesn't want to kill a PC? Most groups I've seen probably would feel cheated by that, so don't get caught.
Like most topics ( regardless of the topic ) things are never as cut-and-dried as universally bad or universally good - and "this works for me and my group" is never equivalent to "I'm universally right, and you should all emulate me!".
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Ok, let me ask you a simple question...
did you ever talk to the other players before starting a game with them, you know to actually know whats going to happen with their charcaters ? or heck even asked the DM to tell you which kind of characters he has in order to not make a character that will just wreck them when you first play that game ?
because to me, i always ask around the other players, or the DM in what im getting into. exactly for this reason, not to metagame or make a character that will just outright not fit with the party. its called communication man. and its not metagaming, because im not playing my character at all, and no, my character wont know the information i got. the only goal of that first hand discussion is to know what im getting into in order not to just disrupt the DM and his players.
but hey if your the type that does whatever he wants and create powerfull bastards who just think its right to be evil in a good group... its your call and if your dm is fine with it, then ok... but to me, i make sure i am the same alignment as the rest of the group, or at least have an alignment that fits the party im going in.
and again you talk as if im trying to say i am right you are wrong... im not even saying that, i never said it and wont say it, cause apparently the group you are in works fine the way you play it. and thats fine with me, the only thing i will ever not be right with, is if someone tells me he plays a game he dislikes and is forcing himself to play it. thats just plain wrong to me and i beleive it should be for him as well.
no the only thing i have been saying, and you have been too in many occasions, is that DM PC are nothing more then NPC, there is strickly no differences between them both. because a DM is already playing multiple characters in his own story. but what i hate on the only thing you said.. is that the word DMPC is meaning bad DM EGO... and that infuriates me, cause thats strickly not true. there are tons of exemples of good DMPC out there and you ust outright ignores them for the sake of keeping your saying that DMPC is bad !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)