GMs with their own PC in the Campaign, Good or Bad?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Every now and then I build a character for use by the GM, me, in the campaign. Sometimes it is for a missing class, like the healer. Sometimes, more often than not, I use them to point the characters in the proper direction for the campaign.

Sure, it is actually classified as an NPC, but when it is being used with the party, I consider it a PC.

Thoughts?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Depends on how it's used. My PC tends to be a support type character that only offers opinions when asked for them.

Some people use them to control the party, or solve all the problems themselves instead of letting the players do it. That's bad.


I did it in my current campaign. 2 players and me as GM, so I made 2 NPC's to make sure they don't get killed. Oh sure, I could just reduce CR's but honestly that seemed like more work.

So there's a wizard and a cleric of Erastil (the players) traveling with a dwarf unbreakable fighter and a monk with devout faih in Saranrae instead of Irori.

Neither seems to detract from the PC's at all; in fact story wise they both tie right into the PC's backstories and provide a living reminder to said info, making roleplaying more immersive. In a fight anything inside 30' would destroy these 2 anyway, so the NPC's come in handy.

I guess I say yes to such GMPC's in the game.

Sovereign Court

There are already a lot of options in the game to support a group of adventurers. Cohorts, followers, hirelings, henchmen and women.

If a party is lacking a particular archetype, and your not playing in something published, I think it's a lot better to adjust the play-style to account for what the party lacks. Giving the PC's a bit more time to heal naturally if there isn't a healer, not using a lot of magical traps if there isn't someone with trap finding, etc.

Though that's more up to the players then the GM too. If they lack a healer, they shouldn't be playing like they've got one and charging into every situation head long.


There are two scenarios in which this works fine.
1. It's a support character, like a bard of cleric. Preferably designed to encourage the other PCs to roleplay, too.
2. The party's very small.

Otherwise, tread lightly. The story is supposed to be about the PCs, not the GMPCs.

Scarab Sages

I almost always have a GMPC, especially in the last few years where it seems every game I'm running is me (GM), my wife, and one or two other people. I'd rather not have any of the others running two PCs, so I tend to run something to help fill the party out.

Like others, I usually make the character either a passive, "support" character (dumb brute, buff dispenser or healer) and/or a smart (but often unimaginitive) "scholar" type who can help me point the PCs in the right direction.

I've found it also helps me feel more invested in, and connected to, the story and party, and keeps me interested in the campaign. I do try to make sure to let the others take the lead and get most of the glory, though.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Depends on how it's used. My PC tends to be a support type character that only offers opinions when asked for them.

Some people use them to control the party, or solve all the problems themselves instead of letting the players do it. That's bad.

This.

I've had two. One was a bard who was a (young) silver dragon in disguise, a "guardian angel" for the PCs after they'd done Bahamut a good turn. She was mostly there to watch, occasionally assist, and record their adventures.

The second was a Healer from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook. She was pretty much there to be a healbot, and occasionally shot things with arrows.


Arazyr wrote:

I almost always have a GMPC, especially in the last few years where it seems every game I'm running is me (GM), my wife, and one or two other people. I'd rather not have any of the others running two PCs, so I tend to run something to help fill the party out.

Like others, I usually make the character either a passive, "support" character (dumb brute, buff dispenser or healer) and/or a smart (but often unimaginitive) "scholar" type who can help me point the PCs in the right direction.

I've found it also helps me feel more invested in, and connected to, the story and party, and keeps me interested in the campaign. I do try to make sure to let the others take the lead and get most of the glory, though.

I can get behind that. I am normally the only GM myself and hardly ever have the ability to run a character of my own in someone else's campaign.

Fortunately that has changed recently! We have 2 GM's and 3 teams! Unfortunately one of the GM's will be gone for a month and he needs me to take over for him...sigh


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer: Just so you know, this question comes up frequently and often quickly leads to some rather vehement responses. If you are curious to see what has been said before, you might try searching the forums on either DMPC or GMPC.
.
.
.
With that said, here's a few of the biggest potential pitfalls to bear in mind:

  • Some players will resent it if the GMPC is as powerful as the PCs.
  • Some players will be resentful if the GMPC is considerably weaker and the PCs are always having to save them.
  • Most players will be resentful if the GMPC is a Mary Sue.
  • Running a GMPC can add to the game by ensuring that there is always an NPC with whom they can roleplay who also has the same understanding of the world as the GM in whose mind the world exists.
  • Running a GMPC will cause problems if their knowledge allows them to succeed in ways that are simply not possible for the PCs. i.e. Not being confused over whether the God of Death is evil or true neutral is one thing, being able to solve every last puzzle related to world-specific lore is another.
  • Some players may call foul thinking that the GMPC is taking treasure and XP that is rightfully theirs. Be certain they understand that the treasure and XP rewards are set as they are because you balanced the encounters with those GMPCs in mind. If they were omitted, the battles and rewards would have been proportionally smaller. i.e. They are getting the same xp and gp rewards regardless.

While there's no "one right way to play", there will be a playstyle that your group likes best. Whether it's the presence or absence of a GMPC, or a hack-n'-slash vs. political game, that's the "right way" that you need to be concerned with. Some groups (such as mine) enjoy roleplaying with the bard princess they are working for, or with the young naive cleric noble they were hired to protect. Other groups would be irked by their mere presence.

Therefore, if the players express resentment over a GMPC (or anything else for that matter), talk to them about it! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It depends on the players, the GM, and how the GMPC is run.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
The second was a Healer from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook. She was pretty much there to be a healbot, and occasionally shot things with arrows.

Gah! How do we keep coming up with the same ideas?


TOZ wrote:
Orthos wrote:
The second was a Healer from the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook. She was pretty much there to be a healbot, and occasionally shot things with arrows.
Gah! How do we keep coming up with the same ideas?

Great minds? =D


I have had players in the games I run try to recruit a lot of npcs anyway. I don't exactly tell them what class the npc is but I do try to drop some obscure hints.

Liberty's Edge

I do this sometimes, but its usually because we rotate GMing and so we wind up playing our characters while GMing. Our group uses the rule of the GMPC acts as a support for the group with some roleplaying going on.

Currently my tuesday game is about to get a GMPC fighter as the person who plays the fighter dropped our due to RL issues. Sadly everyone is playing a more squishable character and so they need a meat shield. This meat shield is not very helpful outside of a fight as he sees the party's adventure as their issue and not his. He simply had the luck of getting hired to keep them alive if at all possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to have important NPCs in the game, who occasionally travel with the party, but I never run a GMPC. I think it takes an exceptional GM to pull that off without problems.

And the important NPCs I run usually have problems. The only time they ever save the PCs' bacon is if the PCs put them up to it.


I personally only use NPCs, not GMPCs. The difference being that they can be killed off quite easily, are generally substantially weaker, and may end up leaving once the current quest is over.
The third-level party is currently travelling with two first-level half-orc warriors. They offer the enemy attractive distractions, and give the rogue plenty of chances for flanking.


What I've been doing of late is, if there is a GM-ridealong(they really need it, or the module, AP throws one in). I'll give overall control of said GMPC to whoever is the party leader, or the more experienced player/s at the table. An they'll decide where they want said GMPC to be or do, and then I'll deal with their individual actions, and combat.

Silver Crusade

Many years ago, when I was just starting out...we're talking decades here...it was normal for the GM to have a PC and for players to run multiple characters even. This was due, usually, to small group size and believing that in order to succeed we HAD to have every class. Over the years I've come to realize that good roleplaying and good GM'ing can remove the obsessive need for numerical advantages.

Of course, sometimes, people just wanted to do it. As you can imagine, some were more successful than other...from the player who can have arguments with himself to the player who is simply rolling dice to add to numbers on a piece of paper...you have to consider everything.

I have not simultaneously ran a player while GM'ing in more years than I can count...and my players do not run multiple PCs. Nor do we any longer try to figure out who's playing the rogue and who's got the cleric.

If I do find that the adventure requires particular needs, it is almost inevitably a temporary situation that an NPC can fulfill. By not playing PCs, I am free to not only pay more attention to what the players are doing, but can add more personality to a brief and/or recurring NPC and to the overall adventure. That way I get to have 10 little PCs, all with the same amount of love and fun I would have normally put into a single side PC, that could only have gotten a portion of my attention anyway.

Note: In my Kingmaker campaign, Akiros was a recurring NPC who my players really got to know and love. Kingmaker became one of our funnest campaigns and we had several recurring NPCs. If you are tempted to make a PC as a GM, I strongly recommend you try out the notion of recurring NPCs. They can be a LOT of fun for you and the players without stealing your players spotlights.


When I was playing in my very first D&D games (1e) my DM (who is still one of my best friends to this day) would run three of his major uber-powered PCs with the group at any time. He always claimed an equal share of treasure and XP. I didn't really know any better at the time, but I learned that that just ain't kosher.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Agreed, Cal. He should be getting less than the PCs, if anything at all.


I will level NPCs up, along with PCs, but they don't suck XP out of the encounter awards. That's a bit cheap, especially since my NPCs tend to be a little inept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is bad most of the time. Not only is it a conflict of interest on the GMs part since he can tailor treasures to exactly what his GMPC wants but also he can grant his GMPC more powerful abilities or other influences over the game world the PCs aren't getting.

When done right the GMPC is always equal to or weaker than the PCs so that he or she never steals the spotlight. They never offer outside advice beyond what their own skills would allow them to know, AND first chance to use such a skill should always be given to the PC! They should NEVER take leadership of the group and always be a loyal follower going along with whatever the group wants. They should always get last pick of any treasure (whatever method used to split loot). They should share XP equally with the group and never get any extra bonus XP.


I ran one with the party for the start of the current campaign. The PC's were level 8 and the NPC I ran was level 6. He was their patron (aka the one funding the operation). He had some resources, information and contacts for the party to use. He was able to survive combat as long as he stayed out the way and never out shone the PC's. Once the party has sufficient reason to work together and began getting enough reputation I had the patron killed off in a combat because he was no longer needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a GMPC who was killed off early inn a campaign. The party was still under attack, and the fight lead to another room. During the combat (with demons) some other baddies were gated into the original room. A couple of characters perceived it and fought their way to the other room to discover her body had been stolen.

Later in the same campaign they saw her again. She had been altered. Her head had been sewn back on and they found she had changed her name to Legion and was also possessed by 100 demons.

They took it upon themselves to save her, and they did. It was a great campaign side mission spawned by a GMPC.


To add to my earlier post, that DM played by a rule that whoever did the final amount of damage needed to kill a monster got ALL of the XP for it. Again, at the time, I didn't know any better. But it still pissed us off that we'd be down to our last breaths but knew were close to killing the dragon when one of his PC's would throw a rock at it and kill it, claiming everything for himself. It's probably a good thing he doesn't play anymore, although he is my very dear friend. I'd not only take his XP away I'd make him wash my car, too.


If the DM creates and controls a character, that character is an NPC.

If a player creates and controls a character, that character is a PC.

That doesn’t mean I’m against helpful NPCs who may adventure with the PCs.
These helpful NPCs should be handled like any other NPC. If the DM begins to see one of them as his ‘PC’, then he’s not being impartial. The temptation to cheat, to steer the game towards making his ‘PC’ the center of attention, to make rules calls in favor of the ‘GMPC’, etc. may cause problems. Even if the GM is able to switch between player and DM modes without batting an eye—the players may call foul. Perception of impartiality and fairness is almost as important as the real thing.

YMMV. What works for me may not be what works for you.


I have one player that is really hostile to the GMPC in my game right now. He thinks it is stupid when they turn out to betray you, and even if they never do, he doesn't want the GM's help in any way. Generally, I don't run them when he is playing unless it is a short term NPC just traveling with them or doing something with them.

Normally though, I'm like the OP when it comes to this.


Personally, I'm actually not against GMPCs in games I play in. I played in a 4 year long Rifts campaign with a full blown GMPC in our party. He was about equal in a fight to all three of us and had higher technical skills than we did. He was my character's martial arts trainer and another characters husband. The GM played the guy himself in a game and kept him around as a super NPC.

I didn't mind. It was great RP. I don't see what the big deal is. The game still felt hard.

The thing that actually pisses me off, about Pathfinder more than any other system, is the stupid NPCs with levels. The town mayor, black smith, carpenter, and even the two hit dice whores all being higher level than my starting 1st level character. Worse, when my character is so accomplished that he can kill 30 guys in a fight, the GM will probably still have 10th level teleporting magi with +4 weapons who travel around supporting the crown. High level NPCs are just so aggravating to me. They ruin the game.

I'll take one uber GMPC over a world full of 10th level mayors and 2nd level prostitutes any day.


I currently run a GMPC in the kingmaker game that I run. The guy provides the melee bruiser that the party needs, as well as giving some minor healing in the form of LOH. He has his opinions, doesn't lead the party by any means, but helps out in the background as well as ocasionally giving them interesting discussions about good and evil etc.

(lizardmen side quest got him stripped of rank from the council and nearly led to his own execution due to subordination of the king.)

The important thing really is that he fulfils a need of the party that they themselves identified. Because I level up the party when it makes story sense for them to level up, there isn't an issue with power balance as such, as the NPC is actually slightly less powerful than they are due to the campaign having been gestalted and the NPC has not been gestalted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, it is never worth it.

The campaign is my PC. The NPCs need portrayal, and it is much easier to focus on them if I'm not trying to get my player-jollies out of a GMPC. If I'm not invested in a character, then it's just an NPC.

I'm not saying it can't be done right, but I am saying it never needs to be done, and if you're experiencing the urge to favor a specific NPC as your own, that's a strong indicator that you need to find a game to be a player in.


Well true Evil Lincoln. It normally doesn't need to be done. In my case we were using rotating GMs and didn't want to switch characters. So it was important to the story that my PC for example firmly take a back seat and NOT be important while I was running the game. The same for the other two GMs. So having established limits helped us all have some fun.

Silver Crusade

I don't have GMPC's I have NPC's that travel with the party.


Aranna wrote:

Well true Evil Lincoln. It normally doesn't need to be done. In my case we were using rotating GMs and didn't want to switch characters. So it was important to the story that my PC for example firmly take a back seat and NOT be important while I was running the game. The same for the other two GMs. So having established limits helped us all have some fun.

It may be a necessary evil in a round robin campaign. Those have never worked for me.

Grand Lodge

FallofCamelot wrote:
I don't have GMPC's I have NPC's that travel with the party.

This is what it should be. As a player I always come to resent a DM having a character in party. I do see it as the DM leeching xp and loot from the other players and often needlessly. Most games have enough coin to affort healing potions or invisibility wands so that even if you are missing support characters these rolls can be filled. A smart group should be able to think around their losses.

I have no problems with an NPC, who plot wise, travels with the party for a while. But with the players creating a team, it has always seemed out of place to have the DM in the party too. Especially when the DM has other motives for the character such as betrayal, the PCs usually dont have a choice in having the GMPC around.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Winston Colt wrote:
This is what it should be. As a player I always come to resent a DM having a character in party. I do see it as the DM leeching xp and loot from the other players and often needlessly.

This is why my DMPCs take vows of poverty and level with the party, not ahead of the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
I'll take one uber GMPC over a world full of 10th level mayors and 2nd level prostitutes any day.

I don't care about the mayor, but I'll take the levelled-up whores, please.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I don't care about the mayor, but I'll take the levelled-up whores, please.

/seconded.


Shifty wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I don't care about the mayor, but I'll take the levelled-up whores, please.
/seconded.

/thirded.


Shameful


Aranna wrote:

Shameful

Which bit?

Why?


Leveled up whores of course. Did you really need to ask.


Why do they make you feel ashamed?

Or are you judging them?

Sovereign Court

What is the difference between a 1st level whore and one that is second level?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 BAB


My next DMPC is going to be a fourth-level "expert".


Shifty wrote:

Why do they make you feel ashamed?

Or are you judging them?

Yes...

But more than that, the idea of imaginary porno of whores traveling with your PCs as GMPCs. I would feel uncomfortable at such a table to be sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather hang out with beautiful, passionate courtesans than the usual pack of murderous hobos that comprise most parties.

But to each their own.


Aranna wrote:


Yes...

But more than that, the idea of imaginary porno of whores traveling with your PCs as GMPCs. I would feel uncomfortable at such a table to be sure.

But what if the whore needed help? Do you only look after the chaste and morally acceptable, yet some downtrodden down on his luck young guy trying to shake daddys little moneymaker to put himself through Wizard college is beneath your protection?


Shifty wrote:
yet some downtrodden down on his luck young guy trying to shake daddys little moneymaker to put himself through Wizard college is beneath your protection?

Hee hee!


Oh no, murderous hobos need not apply. I like building characters who are part of their community and encourage it in others as well.

Er, Shifty, yes I would protect even such a distasteful individual... but completely in character of course. My Cormyrian Noble would of course spare no time in lecturing him on his choices. My Sunite Paladin would of course react very differently, but I had to stop playing her since she got me into too many embarrassing situations.

When people got excited over whores I envisioned a more adolescent behavior.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / GMs with their own PC in the Campaign, Good or Bad? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.