“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.“
This is a strawman of what I said. Part of metagaming is making a character that will get along with the group, and not taking things so seriously that it gets in the way of the game. Additionally, a huge part of metagaming is the social contract and the agreement that you’re going to make a group of characters that will work together. Getting everyone together for that first meeting, unless you’ve all been given invitation is metagaming.
DnDPaladin said:
“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.”
Wow, that’s just . . . incoherent. First off, you’re, again, strawmanning because you’re saying this is how metagaming works. Sure, in your very narrow example, metagaming is bad. But, it should have never gotten that far. It’s a violation of the social contract for the group. I don’t have to expect my players to play their characters in character, that’s why there here. But, they also are part of the social contract, and work together to entertain and amuse their fellow players.
DnDPaladin said:
“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.”
Another strawman which can be answered with the simple: “WHY ARE YOU PLAYING WITH THIS PERSON!?” That’s not an “example” that’s “I’m going to strawman the perfect reason why my idea of metagaming is bad.”
These aren’t metagame examples, they’re examples of a player who needs a serious talking to. It sounds more like they want to be playing an entirely different game. They wouldn’t be welcome in my games, and probably wouldn’t last long in the group as they’re playing antithetical to the social contract.
DnDPaladin said:
“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.”
These aren’t metagaming examples, they’re bad GM/Player relationship examples. This is a breakdown in communications. It sounds less like anyone is metagaming, and more that the GM needs to sit down with the player and find out what their expectations for the game are, and lay their own expectations out. I mean, did the GM vet any of these characters?
DnDPaladin said:
“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...”
That is your opinion, and I happen to consider it wrong.
Metagaming as the player is one of the best ways to help the GM. If you know the characters shouldn’t read aloud from the book, go ahead, help the GM kickstart the plot. If you know NPC X is the villain, have your characters schmoose with them and genuinely like them. That way, when the betrayal comes about, it’s more compelling for your character. Use your player knowledge to enhance the game. Make it more fun. When I’m sitting at the table as a player, my job is to entertain the other players as well as the GM. But, in my group, we don’t protect our characters. We expose them, so drama can happen and be interesting.
DnDPaladin said:
“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. “
Agan, this isn’t metagaming, this is the player creating a character that doesn’t fit within the existing group dynamic. This seems to be an issue where the characters are created in a vacuum and no one tries to work within the group, or they have their own definition of fun and don’t care about the other players. These aren’t metagame issues, they’re communication/social contract issues.
DnDPaladin said:
“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.”
Again, your opinion. Again, my experience has shown that your opinion is wrong.
Your examples are less about metagaming and more about the importance of communications between all members of the gaming group. Those examples are glorious examples of why the GM should set the expectations for the game with all of the players, while they’re together so any questions can be heard by everyone and discussed. Also, so the players can discuss what they want to run and how their group dynamic will work. Session Zero is very useful and important.
DnDPaladin said:
“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.”
Actually, your examples are showing that. You’re showing that your game allows people to play whatever they want.
And, if your point actually was that they need to have some reason to stick together, you did a horrible job showing it. I agree. The characters need a reason to stay together. That’s, usually, defined during the expectations stage of campaign design.
DndPaladin said:
“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.”
Again, strawman. No one is saying that. A psychotic character wouldn’t make it past the “my idea is X” phase of character generation. All your examples are strawmen because they’re all the worst possible example, and you’re trying to pass them off like their normal. None of them are. At least not in any game I’ve ever played in or run outside of a convention.
If someone comes to me and says “I want to run a completely disruptive character in your game” I tell them “no.” I’ll explain why their character doesn’t work and why I don’t allow those characters in my game.
Metagaming is not making excuses for bad player/character behavior. It isn’t when we have a quartet of military police fighting the Aeon War, and someone decides to bring in The Joker, and wants to help the cultists along (because, hey, the Rapine Storm has the right idea!). But, that seems to be what you think it is.
Metagaming is when Catholic Inquisitor Yvette LeClaire works with Soul-Collecting demon Betty Contessa Garcia. The two characters are opposed, but can be united under circumstances, and the two can grow as they learn about their opposition and realize they’re not so different. The players have to metagame to get the characters to be willing to work together, then the magic can happen.
“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 ?”
Before and during all of my games, I ask my players, regularly, what they want out of the game. I want to know what they want to happen and what they want to happen to their characters.
I’ve never worried about making a character that would get “wrecked” in play. That’s not why I’m playing.
DnDPaladin Said:
“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.”
Your previous examples don’t indicate anything like that.
DnDPaladin said:
“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.”
Agan, this is a huge strawman. And, honestly, it’s more indicative of your previously exampled playstyles than anyone elses.
DnDPaladin said:
“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 !”
In general, I agree with you. GMPC/DMPC is a pejorative and generally a bad thing. A well-played GMPC is indistinguishable from an NPC, because that’s all it is.
I don't have a DM - I am my group's DM - and yes, me and my Players do exactly as you are advocating. As I'm a DM with a new campaign starting this month ( same Players, new setting, new Characters, as the last campaign story wrapped up in December ), I'm having an open and ongoing email meta-gaming discussion with my Players to build the Party before session #1.
Which was exactlymy point. Did you even read my post? I don't think so, as you go on to defend aspects of your position that I didn't even disagree with.
Let me give you the TL:DR - since you don't seem to be reading texts...
You have made claims that Player meta-gaming is bad. I even quoted the relevant passages of your posts.
You then go on to advocate for Player meta-gaming in Party build. You even did that in your last post.
This is contradicting yourself ( kind of, see point below ).
Your position might not actually be self-contradictory, but your arguments are.
This is because there are multiple kinds of meta-gaming - some good, some tend to cause problems, and all are a matter of whether or not that type of meta-gaming falls within that group's style, or social contract. Some groups would be fine with Player knowledge of Monster weaknesses. Some would be fine with an evil Character in a good Group. It's not anyone's position to tell them that their fun is wrong.
I have never advocated "[creating] powerfull bastards who just think its right to be evil in a good group" ( Reductio ad absurdum, anyone? ). I did not say that is something that occurs in my group, or should - but you'd have to actually have read what I wrote to know that.
And - you know - if multiple people in the thread are interpreting your position as "I'm right, you're wrong", then maybe you should try for a little more consistency, clarity, or diplomacy ( preferably all three).
As for DMPCs - I gave you the precise definitions of the boundaries, beyond where I believe DMPCs can be a problem ( hint, in the very likely instance that you didn't even read the definition - they're not those instances where "DM PC are nothing more then NPC" - but again, your experience is not a universal one, and I've seen examples of problems caused by the type of DMPCs, as I defined them, in my day - although you attempted to blame that on me, saying "there is no coicidence and something might be because of your own perception" ).
If you and your group never cross those boundaries, then good for you! That's a proper use of NPCs That doesn't make the problem type of DMPC non-existent, or something that need not be watched for, or be guarded against.
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.
Speaking from experience, I did the DMPC thing once and I think it was a mistake. I did it because the party was small and needed another character and I had an idea for a character that solved the problem. I’m not a great DM and trying to run a character as well made me even worse. The biggest problem I have with DMing is communicating the vision in my head to the players. Even if you do a great job of this, your players will often imagine things slightly differently then you are imagining things. To me, one of the things that makes a great DM is the ability to recognize that your players are seeing things slightly differently and being able to adjust things on the fly to keep the narrative going. Even if you avoid the metagaming trap, your DMPC sees things exactly the way you imagine it which gives your DMPC an advantage over other players. Let’s say you are describing a scene by giving out details that you think will lead the party to some clue to solve a mystery. You think it’s obvious, you think your DMPC would think it’s obvious, but the other players somehow focus on something else you said and want to go in a different direction. Do you adjust the narrative and go with what the other players are interested in, or do you have your DMPC find the clue and essentially railroad the group? The clue was never meant to railroad them but by having your DMPC find it, you steer the party back to narrative you envisioned instead of going with the narrative the other players could help you create.
That’s just one example. In general, the effort you put into playing your DMPC is effort you should be putting into making and describing the world that the other players explore. The way they roleplay their characters should be causing your vision of the world to evolve, bringing to life areas of the world that you may not have given much thought.
I remember talking with a DM about a campaign after we finished it. He said that one of the NPCs that we interacted with a lot was just supposed to be the equivalent of a movie extra but we basically turned him into a major NPC. I really admired the way he was able to run with the ideas that were in our heads and developed a whole narrative out of basically nothing.
I have never advocated "[creating] powerfull bastards who just think its right to be evil in a good group" ( Reductio ad absurdum, anyone? ). I did not say that is something that occurs in my group, or should - but you'd have to actually have read what I wrote to know that.
Absolutely. Though I found it more a strawman than ad absurdum. Because, none of us were bringing it up. And, well, I have heard edgelord players discussing the characters they are or want to play at various FLGSs.
That’s just one example. In general, the effort you put into playing your DMPC is effort you should be putting into making and describing the world that the other players explore. The way they roleplay their characters should be causing your vision of the world to evolve, bringing to life areas of the world that you may not have given much thought.
I remember talking with a DM about a campaign after we finished it. He said that one of the NPCs that we interacted with a lot was just supposed to be the equivalent of a movie extra but we basically turned him into a major NPC. I really admired the way he was able to run with the ideas that were in our heads and developed a whole narrative out of basically nothing.
Improvisation is, in my opinion, the best skill a GM can ever cultivate. I have improved sessions that turned into very fun games because some of our players had last-minute emergencies and our regularly scheduled session had to be postponed. The ability to think on your feet is more valuable than any amount of prep time, no matter what Batman says.
But, the GM is playing everyone who isn't a PC (with exceptions, my players get to play their additional characters when cameos happen), so, the problem with the GMPC is when they are spotlight hogs, and not acting as regular NPCs. But, to be honest, no matter how much we talk about it, until a nascent GM tries it and finds out, it's academic.
I don't have a DM - I am my group's DM - and yes, me and my Players do exactly as you are advocating. As I'm a DM with a new campaign starting this month ( same Players, new setting, new Characters, as the last campaign story wrapped up in December ), I'm having an open and ongoing email meta-gaming discussion with my Players to build the Party before session #1.
Which was exactlymy point. Did you even read my post? I don't think so, as you go on to defend aspects of your position that I didn't even disagree with.
Let me give you the TL:DR - since you don't seem to be reading texts...
You have made claims that Player meta-gaming is bad. I even quoted the relevant passages of your posts.
You then go on to advocate for Player meta-gaming in Party build. You even did that in your last post.
This is contradicting yourself ( kind of, see point below ).
Your position might not actually be self-contradictory, but your arguments are.
This is because there are multiple kinds of meta-gaming - some good, some tend to cause problems, and all are a matter of whether or not that type of meta-gaming falls within that group's style, or social contract. Some groups would be fine with Player knowledge of Monster weaknesses. Some would be fine with an evil Character in a good Group. It's not anyone's position to tell them that their fun is wrong.
I have never advocated "[creating] powerfull bastards who just think its right to be evil in a good group" ( Reductio ad absurdum, anyone? ). I did not say that is something that occurs in my group, or should - but you'd have to actually have read what I wrote to know that.
And - you know - if multiple people in the thread are interpreting your position as "I'm right, you're wrong", then maybe you should try for a little more consistency, clarity, or diplomacy ( preferably all three).
As has been echoed plenty of times, I try to avoid DM run PCs. The main reason is I hate trying to role-play one sided conversations, IE conversations between myself and... well... myself. It's awkward and not fun for the other players to hear one person talking to themselves. The chances of that happening dramatically increases when one of the PCs is me.
As has been echoed plenty of times, I try to avoid DM run PCs. The main reason is I hate trying to role-play one sided conversations, IE conversations between myself and... well... myself. It's awkward and not fun for the other players to hear one person talking to themselves. The chances of that happening dramatically increases when one of the PCs is me.
Sometimes this happens with my NPCs lol I hate having conversations with myself and myself while my table watches me. It almost feels like some very bad community theater lol
Sometimes this happens with my NPCs lol I hate having conversations with myself and myself while my table watches me. It almost feels like some very bad community theater lol
Yea, I tend to focus one NPC at a time, and rarely do the NPCs "acknowledge" each other in any meaningful, extended way. Often times I'll have one NPC be a spokesperson and role-play that NPC in first person and the other NPC(s) will be background characters and utilize third person pronouns to describe what they do. This works well when it is NPCs... but can't be really possible if there is a DM run PC...
It gets even more awkward if there are no players directly involved. IE the players are sneaking by two guards chatting... At this point I just describe their conversation in generalities, such as "You hear two guards casually exchanging pleasantries".
So quick question, while the convo is still hot. If you have a low number of players, would it be better to have an NPC help them in combat, or have a "party" character where each round the players decide together what that character will do?
So quick question, while the convo is still hot. If you have a low number of players, would it be better to have an NPC help them in combat, or have a "party" character where each round the players decide together what that character will do?
I really don't like to put more on my plate, as DM, than necessary. In the situation you're presenting I'd create an mook for the players to handle and let them choose what it does.
edit: The only part I'd take a hand in is if/when it levels up. I'd have to have a say, this way the party doesn't inadvertently hurt their chances of success.
I hate having conversations with myself and myself while my table watches me. It almost feels like some very bad community theater lol
I feel your pain here :) The most recent time I've been forced down this path ( Players were overhearing a discussions between two major NPCs ), I totally cheated and said "OK, for the sake of brevity ... " and just gave a synopsis of the conversation. No one complained :)
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.
As has been echoed plenty of times, I try to avoid DM run PCs. The main reason is I hate trying to role-play one sided conversations, IE conversations between myself and... well... myself. It's awkward and not fun for the other players to hear one person talking to themselves. The chances of that happening dramatically increases when one of the PCs is me.
Sometimes this happens with my NPCs lol I hate having conversations with myself and myself while my table watches me. It almost feels like some very bad community theater lol
I had to speak to RP two captured goblins who began arguing between themselves that they shared too much information. At one point, one of them said, "should we tell them about the wizard, too?" which I then turned to look the other way and in a terribly imitated goblin voice told myself to shut up. It got the whole table LOL'ing but it only lasted for a few moments. Twas worth it.
So quick question, while the convo is still hot. If you have a low number of players, would it be better to have an NPC help them in combat, or have a "party" character where each round the players decide together what that character will do?
I had a situation like this arise with my current group. At the start, there were only 3 players (1 of which was just there to kinda play but wasn't that into it) and they all had never played any sort of RPG. I decided, for the first adventure, to add an NPC to the group under the guise of observing the group for entrance into a Guild. I participated in combat (to make sure no one died the first time out) and inserted witty NPC banter; but outside of combat the group was in charge of everything. Now Lana the ranger makes guest appearances now and again to the delight of the table but I stick behind the screen for the most part.
Other than that, I've played a character in a game where we rotated the DM responsibilities but it was a little weird as my character didn't really participate outside of combat when I was running the show.
So quick question, while the convo is still hot. If you have a low number of players, would it be better to have an NPC help them in combat, or have a "party" character where each round the players decide together what that character will do?
As a throwback to an earlier page, I have brought in an allied NPC on occasion them the story leads things in that direction, but I shy away from decision making with that character. He is just along for the ride until the purpose of his alliance has been fulfilled. It isn't much extra work on my part and when we're in combat, I just try to support characters in what they are doing rather than lead the attack. These kinds of characters almost never stick around for more than one or two sessions.
The idea of a party character isn't a bad one, but I wonder if it would slow the gameplay down making decisions by committee every time a decision has to be made. It might be a better idea to have a pass-around character for a while with one person controlling the extra character for the session. Try it both ways and see which one suits your group best. I would tend to shy away from a long-term NPC-type character that tags along with the party, but that's just my opinion. I do understand the struggles of trying to play with few players and still presenting a rounded party. When we stray from optimal conditions, we have to work with what we have :)
So quick question, while the convo is still hot. If you have a low number of players, would it be better to have an NPC help them in combat, or have a "party" character where each round the players decide together what that character will do?
As a throwback to an earlier page, I have brought in an allied NPC on occasion them the story leads things in that direction, but I shy away from decision making with that character. He is just along for the ride until the purpose of his alliance has been fulfilled. It isn't much extra work on my part and when we're in combat, I just try to support characters in what they are doing rather than lead the attack. These kinds of characters almost never stick around for more than one or two sessions.
The idea of a party character isn't a bad one, but I wonder if it would slow the gameplay down making decisions by committee every time a decision has to be made. It might be a better idea to have a pass-around character for a while with one person controlling the extra character for the session. Try it both ways and see which one suits your group best. I would tend to shy away from a long-term NPC-type character that tags along with the party, but that's just my opinion. I do understand the struggles of trying to play with few players and still presenting a rounded party. When we stray from optimal conditions, we have to work with what we have :)
That's a good point. Maybe instead of group decisions, it could be alternating turns. That way it cuts down on the team decision making.
the only thing i'd advise you not to fall prey to while helping your group, is to not portray the NPC as it should be.
exemple... your group of 2 meets a prisonner who escaped and got trapped down below the dungeon. he joins the party until he is freed by going outside the dungeon. he knows a part of the layout but never offers anything not even advice, he just literally follows the group and offer combat help.
while that exemple might seem great for a DM trying not to hug the spotlight, it is also a disconcerting thing to do for yyour players who expect the prisonner to actually give them out some info that they have not yet discovered. after all, you put him there and he does have knowledge. now how to hand out that knowledge is entirely up to the DM. while that prisonner do not know anything about the dungeon below, he might know a few things about the prison above that maybe the players could want. so it is important to know what the NPC knows and not just stop yourself from playing that. it is also important for your NPC to be not just an aid in combat mechanics, but also an aid in role playing. its easy to not hug the spotlight, but that NPC could have a moment to shine, aka, hes the one giving the killing blow of a monster or know that this corridor is booby trapped. based on his knowledge of course. the NPC could also die a heroic death saving a party member, knowing that these players are more important then him and their survival is paramount. all of these are good things that boost immersion and makes the players feels something else then just, he's there for help.
overall, he can be heroic, but it has to be for the player and not for himself. or he could simply be a coward who just want out of there and knows nothing. at that point you shouldn't be surprised if the players just dont care for him and never heal him in combat. just be ware that players often tend to take NPCs as meatshield. if you dont want that to happen, you should give that NPC a reason to be loved or cared about. information is often a great thing for that one.
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 know how to be fair and don’t mind the extra work, it literally isn’t a problem. Some people just can’t, and that’s okay. Some people are amazing DM PC. Just know yourself and don’t let others dictate what could be a great or terrible experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really hate the way these fora do quotes.
This is a strawman of what I said. Part of metagaming is making a character that will get along with the group, and not taking things so seriously that it gets in the way of the game. Additionally, a huge part of metagaming is the social contract and the agreement that you’re going to make a group of characters that will work together. Getting everyone together for that first meeting, unless you’ve all been given invitation is metagaming.
Wow, that’s just . . . incoherent. First off, you’re, again, strawmanning because you’re saying this is how metagaming works. Sure, in your very narrow example, metagaming is bad. But, it should have never gotten that far. It’s a violation of the social contract for the group. I don’t have to expect my players to play their characters in character, that’s why there here. But, they also are part of the social contract, and work together to entertain and amuse their fellow players.
Another strawman which can be answered with the simple: “WHY ARE YOU PLAYING WITH THIS PERSON!?” That’s not an “example” that’s “I’m going to strawman the perfect reason why my idea of metagaming is bad.”
These aren’t metagame examples, they’re examples of a player who needs a serious talking to. It sounds more like they want to be playing an entirely different game. They wouldn’t be welcome in my games, and probably wouldn’t last long in the group as they’re playing antithetical to the social contract.
These aren’t metagaming examples, they’re bad GM/Player relationship examples. This is a breakdown in communications. It sounds less like anyone is metagaming, and more that the GM needs to sit down with the player and find out what their expectations for the game are, and lay their own expectations out. I mean, did the GM vet any of these characters?
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...”
That is your opinion, and I happen to consider it wrong.
Metagaming as the player is one of the best ways to help the GM. If you know the characters shouldn’t read aloud from the book, go ahead, help the GM kickstart the plot. If you know NPC X is the villain, have your characters schmoose with them and genuinely like them. That way, when the betrayal comes about, it’s more compelling for your character. Use your player knowledge to enhance the game. Make it more fun. When I’m sitting at the table as a player, my job is to entertain the other players as well as the GM. But, in my group, we don’t protect our characters. We expose them, so drama can happen and be interesting.
Agan, this isn’t metagaming, this is the player creating a character that doesn’t fit within the existing group dynamic. This seems to be an issue where the characters are created in a vacuum and no one tries to work within the group, or they have their own definition of fun and don’t care about the other players. These aren’t metagame issues, they’re communication/social contract issues.
Again, your opinion. Again, my experience has shown that your opinion is wrong.
Your examples are less about metagaming and more about the importance of communications between all members of the gaming group. Those examples are glorious examples of why the GM should set the expectations for the game with all of the players, while they’re together so any questions can be heard by everyone and discussed. Also, so the players can discuss what they want to run and how their group dynamic will work. Session Zero is very useful and important.
Actually, your examples are showing that. You’re showing that your game allows people to play whatever they want.
And, if your point actually was that they need to have some reason to stick together, you did a horrible job showing it. I agree. The characters need a reason to stay together. That’s, usually, defined during the expectations stage of campaign design.
Again, strawman. No one is saying that. A psychotic character wouldn’t make it past the “my idea is X” phase of character generation. All your examples are strawmen because they’re all the worst possible example, and you’re trying to pass them off like their normal. None of them are. At least not in any game I’ve ever played in or run outside of a convention.
If someone comes to me and says “I want to run a completely disruptive character in your game” I tell them “no.” I’ll explain why their character doesn’t work and why I don’t allow those characters in my game.
Metagaming is not making excuses for bad player/character behavior. It isn’t when we have a quartet of military police fighting the Aeon War, and someone decides to bring in The Joker, and wants to help the cultists along (because, hey, the Rapine Storm has the right idea!). But, that seems to be what you think it is.
Metagaming is when Catholic Inquisitor Yvette LeClaire works with Soul-Collecting demon Betty Contessa Garcia. The two characters are opposed, but can be united under circumstances, and the two can grow as they learn about their opposition and realize they’re not so different. The players have to metagame to get the characters to be willing to work together, then the magic can happen.
Before and during all of my games, I ask my players, regularly, what they want out of the game. I want to know what they want to happen and what they want to happen to their characters.
I’ve never worried about making a character that would get “wrecked” in play. That’s not why I’m playing.
Your previous examples don’t indicate anything like that.
Agan, this is a huge strawman. And, honestly, it’s more indicative of your previously exampled playstyles than anyone elses.
In general, I agree with you. GMPC/DMPC is a pejorative and generally a bad thing. A well-played GMPC is indistinguishable from an NPC, because that’s all it is.
I don't have a DM - I am my group's DM - and yes, me and my Players do exactly as you are advocating. As I'm a DM with a new campaign starting this month ( same Players, new setting, new Characters, as the last campaign story wrapped up in December ), I'm having an open and ongoing email meta-gaming discussion with my Players to build the Party before session #1.
Which was exactly my point. Did you even read my post? I don't think so, as you go on to defend aspects of your position that I didn't even disagree with.
Let me give you the TL:DR - since you don't seem to be reading texts...
I have never advocated "[creating] powerfull bastards who just think its right to be evil in a good group" ( Reductio ad absurdum, anyone? ). I did not say that is something that occurs in my group, or should - but you'd have to actually have read what I wrote to know that.
And - you know - if multiple people in the thread are interpreting your position as "I'm right, you're wrong", then maybe you should try for a little more consistency, clarity, or diplomacy ( preferably all three).
As for DMPCs - I gave you the precise definitions of the boundaries, beyond where I believe DMPCs can be a problem ( hint, in the very likely instance that you didn't even read the definition - they're not those instances where "DM PC are nothing more then NPC" - but again, your experience is not a universal one, and I've seen examples of problems caused by the type of DMPCs, as I defined them, in my day - although you attempted to blame that on me, saying "there is no coicidence and something might be because of your own perception" ).
If you and your group never cross those boundaries, then good for you! That's a proper use of NPCs That doesn't make the problem type of DMPC non-existent, or something that need not be watched for, or be guarded against.
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.
Speaking from experience, I did the DMPC thing once and I think it was a mistake. I did it because the party was small and needed another character and I had an idea for a character that solved the problem. I’m not a great DM and trying to run a character as well made me even worse. The biggest problem I have with DMing is communicating the vision in my head to the players. Even if you do a great job of this, your players will often imagine things slightly differently then you are imagining things. To me, one of the things that makes a great DM is the ability to recognize that your players are seeing things slightly differently and being able to adjust things on the fly to keep the narrative going. Even if you avoid the metagaming trap, your DMPC sees things exactly the way you imagine it which gives your DMPC an advantage over other players. Let’s say you are describing a scene by giving out details that you think will lead the party to some clue to solve a mystery. You think it’s obvious, you think your DMPC would think it’s obvious, but the other players somehow focus on something else you said and want to go in a different direction. Do you adjust the narrative and go with what the other players are interested in, or do you have your DMPC find the clue and essentially railroad the group? The clue was never meant to railroad them but by having your DMPC find it, you steer the party back to narrative you envisioned instead of going with the narrative the other players could help you create.
That’s just one example. In general, the effort you put into playing your DMPC is effort you should be putting into making and describing the world that the other players explore. The way they roleplay their characters should be causing your vision of the world to evolve, bringing to life areas of the world that you may not have given much thought.
I remember talking with a DM about a campaign after we finished it. He said that one of the NPCs that we interacted with a lot was just supposed to be the equivalent of a movie extra but we basically turned him into a major NPC. I really admired the way he was able to run with the ideas that were in our heads and developed a whole narrative out of basically nothing.
Absolutely. Though I found it more a strawman than ad absurdum. Because, none of us were bringing it up. And, well, I have heard edgelord players discussing the characters they are or want to play at various FLGSs.
Improvisation is, in my opinion, the best skill a GM can ever cultivate. I have improved sessions that turned into very fun games because some of our players had last-minute emergencies and our regularly scheduled session had to be postponed. The ability to think on your feet is more valuable than any amount of prep time, no matter what Batman says.
But, the GM is playing everyone who isn't a PC (with exceptions, my players get to play their additional characters when cameos happen), so, the problem with the GMPC is when they are spotlight hogs, and not acting as regular NPCs. But, to be honest, no matter how much we talk about it, until a nascent GM tries it and finds out, it's academic.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Published Subclasses
As has been echoed plenty of times, I try to avoid DM run PCs. The main reason is I hate trying to role-play one sided conversations, IE conversations between myself and... well... myself. It's awkward and not fun for the other players to hear one person talking to themselves. The chances of that happening dramatically increases when one of the PCs is me.
Sometimes this happens with my NPCs lol I hate having conversations with myself and myself while my table watches me. It almost feels like some very bad community theater lol
Published Subclasses
You control literally every character in the game, bar the PCs :)
Journeyman DM
Journeyman Adventurer
Yea, I tend to focus one NPC at a time, and rarely do the NPCs "acknowledge" each other in any meaningful, extended way. Often times I'll have one NPC be a spokesperson and role-play that NPC in first person and the other NPC(s) will be background characters and utilize third person pronouns to describe what they do. This works well when it is NPCs... but can't be really possible if there is a DM run PC...
It gets even more awkward if there are no players directly involved. IE the players are sneaking by two guards chatting... At this point I just describe their conversation in generalities, such as "You hear two guards casually exchanging pleasantries".
So quick question, while the convo is still hot. If you have a low number of players, would it be better to have an NPC help them in combat, or have a "party" character where each round the players decide together what that character will do?
Published Subclasses
I really don't like to put more on my plate, as DM, than necessary. In the situation you're presenting I'd create an mook for the players to handle and let them choose what it does.
edit: The only part I'd take a hand in is if/when it levels up. I'd have to have a say, this way the party doesn't inadvertently hurt their chances of success.
I feel your pain here :) The most recent time I've been forced down this path ( Players were overhearing a discussions between two major NPCs ), I totally cheated and said "OK, for the sake of brevity ... " and just gave a synopsis of the conversation. No one complained :)
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 had to speak to RP two captured goblins who began arguing between themselves that they shared too much information. At one point, one of them said, "should we tell them about the wizard, too?" which I then turned to look the other way and in a terribly imitated goblin voice told myself to shut up. It got the whole table LOL'ing but it only lasted for a few moments. Twas worth it.
I had a situation like this arise with my current group. At the start, there were only 3 players (1 of which was just there to kinda play but wasn't that into it) and they all had never played any sort of RPG. I decided, for the first adventure, to add an NPC to the group under the guise of observing the group for entrance into a Guild. I participated in combat (to make sure no one died the first time out) and inserted witty NPC banter; but outside of combat the group was in charge of everything. Now Lana the ranger makes guest appearances now and again to the delight of the table but I stick behind the screen for the most part.
Other than that, I've played a character in a game where we rotated the DM responsibilities but it was a little weird as my character didn't really participate outside of combat when I was running the show.
As a throwback to an earlier page, I have brought in an allied NPC on occasion them the story leads things in that direction, but I shy away from decision making with that character. He is just along for the ride until the purpose of his alliance has been fulfilled. It isn't much extra work on my part and when we're in combat, I just try to support characters in what they are doing rather than lead the attack. These kinds of characters almost never stick around for more than one or two sessions.
The idea of a party character isn't a bad one, but I wonder if it would slow the gameplay down making decisions by committee every time a decision has to be made. It might be a better idea to have a pass-around character for a while with one person controlling the extra character for the session. Try it both ways and see which one suits your group best. I would tend to shy away from a long-term NPC-type character that tags along with the party, but that's just my opinion. I do understand the struggles of trying to play with few players and still presenting a rounded party. When we stray from optimal conditions, we have to work with what we have :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's a good point. Maybe instead of group decisions, it could be alternating turns. That way it cuts down on the team decision making.
Published Subclasses
the only thing i'd advise you not to fall prey to while helping your group, is to not portray the NPC as it should be.
exemple...
your group of 2 meets a prisonner who escaped and got trapped down below the dungeon. he joins the party until he is freed by going outside the dungeon. he knows a part of the layout but never offers anything not even advice, he just literally follows the group and offer combat help.
while that exemple might seem great for a DM trying not to hug the spotlight, it is also a disconcerting thing to do for yyour players who expect the prisonner to actually give them out some info that they have not yet discovered. after all, you put him there and he does have knowledge. now how to hand out that knowledge is entirely up to the DM. while that prisonner do not know anything about the dungeon below, he might know a few things about the prison above that maybe the players could want. so it is important to know what the NPC knows and not just stop yourself from playing that. it is also important for your NPC to be not just an aid in combat mechanics, but also an aid in role playing. its easy to not hug the spotlight, but that NPC could have a moment to shine, aka, hes the one giving the killing blow of a monster or know that this corridor is booby trapped. based on his knowledge of course. the NPC could also die a heroic death saving a party member, knowing that these players are more important then him and their survival is paramount. all of these are good things that boost immersion and makes the players feels something else then just, he's there for help.
overall, he can be heroic, but it has to be for the player and not for himself. or he could simply be a coward who just want out of there and knows nothing. at that point you shouldn't be surprised if the players just dont care for him and never heal him in combat. just be ware that players often tend to take NPCs as meatshield. if you dont want that to happen, you should give that NPC a reason to be loved or cared about. information is often a great thing for that one.
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 know how to be fair and don’t mind the extra work, it literally isn’t a problem. Some people just can’t, and that’s okay. Some people are amazing DM PC. Just know yourself and don’t let others dictate what could be a great or terrible experience.