Well this thread had a happy ending. DM_Blake's advice was spot on and it sounds like it was heard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that doesn't seem to have been brought up is the value of friendly NPCs (or GMPCs—the line between the two can get blurry) as red-shirt teaching tools. As DM Blake was saying, it can be hard to teach the players lessons without killing them... so have the NPCs pay the ultimate tuition.
This works especially well if the PCs already know and trust the NPCs. If you're going to kill off your cleric, don't just take her out—use her death as a teaching tactic. Have her get in over her head in a zerg rush, then give them a "fly, you fools!" moment right before she gets murderized. Or have her fall prey to a trap that they should have been watching out for.
Since Pathfinder is so often a mix of players of different skill levels, one of the main ways players learn what is and isn't possible is by watching their other players. If you as a GM want to teach them that scouting missions might be a good idea, or that you can take a withdraw action without actually retreating from combat, or that you can use cover and terrain to your advantage, or any number of other things, show them it's possible by having your NPCs set an example!
I adore GMPCs for this reason, as my newer players need someone to watch and learn from sometimes. If I know I have a new player, I make an NPC with a few similar class features, just to show them what can be done. The Advanced Class Guide classes are great for this now, since I can show a ranger a few tricks with a hunter or slayer without directly stepping on their toes.
The caveat is that you HAVE to get rid of the NPC, otherwise the PCs will start getting overshadowed. Give your tutorial NPC a maximum of 2 sessions of combat and example out-of-combat encounters before either having her bail on the party and return to town as a standard NPC or die in an especially educational way.
I remember I did that, back in 3.0 days, but with a villain. I used a fighter/mage drow, which showed the group the proper way to use buffs in combat (back when haste gave you an extra action, which you could use to cast spells). Then, after beating them for a while, he left, for plot reasons. It worked well as a glipmse of future as well, as that drow became a recurring villain in the campaing, and the liutenant of the BBEG.
Using a GMPC always makes me shiver, because I remember the old days (20something years ago) when we started to play, and we had a GM who played the game with uber-powerful GMPCs as well. It wasn't nice. I understand that Joe's proposal, which is for a couple of sessions at best, is very different, but I can't avoid to remember those days and shiver
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
*SIGH*. Yes, it's sad. DM_Blake has an ungodly number of favorites for his post, and everyone's piling on the GMNPC when I see only two fundamental issues with it:
(1) It's an optimized GMNPC
(2) The party is big enough not to need one.
We've had a fantastic time going through CotCT, RotRL, and now WotR and JR with active GMNPCs.
However:
(1) The GMNPC is *always* a supporting role (cleric, front-line fighter, rogue, whatever) and *never* does anything without the party asking, "Hey, xxx, can't you do this?"
(2) The GMNPC is *never* the "GM's Pet". As I think Jiggy said, I run GMNPCs, but if the players say, "Hey, xxx, take off!" then xxx will dutifully take off.
I'm a firm believer in GMNPCs, but that's because I run most of my campaigns with 3 players, so they need a 4th to "round them out". But my GMNPCs *never" steal the thunder from the PCs, nor dominate fights. It's funny -- we actively won't play with one guy because he always creates the "I can do everything better than you" GMNPC.
So GMNPCs are NOT always bad, as some would lead you to believe. But:
- If there are 4+ players, you shouldn't have a GMNPC.
- The GMNPC should -never- do anything unless asked to do so by the PCs.
- The GMNPC should immediately leave should the PCs ask him/her to do so.
- The GMNPC should -never- be so optimized that he/she outshines the PCs at ANYTHING except for his/her designated niche, where the players have previously admitted they have a lack, and are not planning on filling it.
I really don't like absolutes. "GMNPCs suck!" is such an absolute. "I always run a GMNPC" is another.
As always, we have found happiness in the middle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like absolutes. "GMNPCs suck!" is such an absolute. "I always run a GMNPC" is another.
As always, we have found happiness in the middle.
The nerve of you, taking a reasonable, considered, and moderate position.
What's this place coming to. :P| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a lot of "always" and "nevers" for someone who doesn't like absolutes.
Mr. Fishy runs small groups so he started making henchmen. Party hires a henchmen to follow them around and soak attacks and help with puzzles, like standing on a plate or pulling a lever. Working out the puzzle is still PC work.
Mr. Fishy has played in games with GMPC's who were handled poorly.
But Mr. Fishy has seen them handled well to and it can improve the game by giving the players a connect to the world they might no have otherwise.
However, the NPC has to be handled carefully or he become a Gandalf figure. A GM device to save the party from an overwhelming encounter, rather than a tool to help the party. Mr. Fishy prefers to let the party decide if they need help. Mr. Fishy will add a NPC for limited run if that NPC is a story character.
*SIGH*. Yes, it's sad. DM_Blake has an ungodly number of favorites for his post, and everyone's piling on the GMNPC when I see only two fundamental issues with it:
(1) It's an optimized GMNPC
(2) The party is big enough not to need one.We've had a fantastic time going through CotCT, RotRL, and now WotR and JR with active GMNPCs.
However:
(1) The GMNPC is *always* a supporting role (cleric, front-line fighter, rogue, whatever) and *never* does anything without the party asking, "Hey, xxx, can't you do this?"
(2) The GMNPC is *never* the "GM's Pet". As I think Jiggy said, I run GMNPCs, but if the players say, "Hey, xxx, take off!" then xxx will dutifully take off.I'm a firm believer in GMNPCs, but that's because I run most of my campaigns with 3 players, so they need a 4th to "round them out". But my GMNPCs *never" steal the thunder from the PCs, nor dominate fights. It's funny -- we actively won't play with one guy because he always creates the "I can do everything better than you" GMNPC.
So GMNPCs are NOT always bad, as some would lead you to believe. But:
- If there are 4+ players, you shouldn't have a GMNPC.
- The GMNPC should -never- do anything unless asked to do so by the PCs.
- The GMNPC should immediately leave should the PCs ask him/her to do so.
- The GMNPC should -never- be so optimized that he/she outshines the PCs at ANYTHING except for his/her designated niche, where the players have previously admitted they have a lack, and are not planning on filling it.I really don't like absolutes. "GMNPCs suck!" is such an absolute. "I always run a GMNPC" is another.
As always, we have found happiness in the middle.
What's a GMPC?
Are the NPCs in the start of WotR GMPCs?
Are the NPCs trapped on the island with you in SS GMPCs?Personally, I think there should never be a GMPC, in the sense that the GM should never be thinking of an NPC as the GM's PC. That doesn't say anything about whether there should be NPCs traveling with the party.
On the one hand, I think the distinction is easy:
- If it's a person/creature/what-have-you that travels with the party for a specified, finite length of time it's an NPC. The group in WotR travels with the PCs through Book 1, and possibly parts of Book 2, but then goes away. In CotCT, there are NPCs who join the group for one entire book, but that's it. Finite time = NPC.- If the time is indefinite, the person/creature/what-have-you levels up with the party, and the intent is for that person/creature/what-have-you to travel with the party throughout the entire campaign, it becomes a GMNPC.
On the other hand, I 100% agree. If the GM thinks of any NPC as "my PC", that NPC should be retired forthwith. You can't have an emotional attachment to any NPCs in the game, whether NPC or GMNPC based on my distinction.
EDIT: And I notice that you use the initials, "GMPC". I would -never- accept that set of initials. An "NPC" is someone the GM runs the party interacts with a handful of times. A "GMNPC" is someone the party interacts with throughout the campaign.
There should never be any such creature as a "GMPC". (Yeah, now I'm having fun with the always/nevers!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always assumed a GMPC was an NPC built to PC level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: And I notice that you use the initials, "GMPC". I would -never- accept that set of initials. An "NPC" is someone the GM runs the party interacts with a handful of times. A "GMNPC" is someone the party interacts with throughout the campaign.
There should never be any such creature as a "GMPC". (Yeah, now I'm having fun with the always/nevers!)
As far as I can tell, you're the only one using the GMNPC term. The standard usage is GMPC and it's basically pejorative - precisely because of the GM's PC connotation.
I think we're in basic agreement. Though I don't think duration is the key distinction. The NPCs in the APs are distinct and flawed enough, IMO, that you could keep them with party without crossing boundaries.
If I did want to keep an NPC with the party longterm for plot reasons, I'd definitely keep them behind the PCs in level though. They could help and fill their plot role, but be enough weaker not to steal the spotlight.
Accepted -- except, as I said, in RotRL, WotRL, CotCT, and JR we've only had 3 players, so the players have suggested to me, "Can you run an xxx as a GMNPC?" and I've acquiesced.
So in virtually every AP I've run, I've had an NPC who travels with the party throughout, who is the same level as them, who gets an equal share of the treasure, and who otherwise is effectively a "PC run by the GM", and it's worked out very well for us.
But as I keep mentioning, I think that's because I make sure I build an effective "whatever" that they ask for, and then that "whatever" does not step outside the boundaries of what he/she has been asked to do, never proposes solutions, and is otherwise kind of like the PC played by the drunk guy in the corner who only wakes up to participate in the combats...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*SIGH*. Yes, it's sad. DM_Blake has an ungodly number of favorites for his post, and everyone's piling on the GMNPC when I see only two fundamental issues with it:
(1) It's an optimized GMNPC
(2) The party is big enough not to need one.We've had a fantastic time going through CotCT, RotRL, and now WotR and JR with active GMNPCs.
However:
(1) The GMNPC is *always* a supporting role (cleric, front-line fighter, rogue, whatever) and *never* does anything without the party asking, "Hey, xxx, can't you do this?"
(2) The GMNPC is *never* the "GM's Pet". As I think Jiggy said, I run GMNPCs, but if the players say, "Hey, xxx, take off!" then xxx will dutifully take off.I'm a firm believer in GMNPCs, but that's because I run most of my campaigns with 3 players, so they need a 4th to "round them out". But my GMNPCs *never" steal the thunder from the PCs, nor dominate fights. It's funny -- we actively won't play with one guy because he always creates the "I can do everything better than you" GMNPC.
So GMNPCs are NOT always bad, as some would lead you to believe. But:
- If there are 4+ players, you shouldn't have a GMNPC.
- The GMNPC should -never- do anything unless asked to do so by the PCs.
- The GMNPC should immediately leave should the PCs ask him/her to do so.
- The GMNPC should -never- be so optimized that he/she outshines the PCs at ANYTHING except for his/her designated niche, where the players have previously admitted they have a lack, and are not planning on filling it.I really don't like absolutes. "GMNPCs suck!" is such an absolute. "I always run a GMNPC" is another.
As always, we have found happiness in the middle.
I agree with this post in all ways.
As a player, I love having GMPCs alongside myself, presuming the party isn't too large to support them. It's nice to have the freedom to make the build I want instead of the build the party "needs" to function. As a GM, I've not had any complaints, and have had players actively recruiting or requesting them. (Not in every game, but then I've not always had the same players.)
The Absolutes are... frustrating. At the same time, I like Blake's post, and Mr. Homes' post, despite disagreeing with the fact that GMPCs have to die or be avoided in all places.
And thejeff, I, too, use the GMPC term in a non-prejorative way. Always have. :)
EDIT:
I always assumed a GMPC was an NPC built to PC level.
This isn't really that far off. There is a difference, as I treat all the party members (the long-term folks that are in it for the haul) as "the heroes" (even if some, i.e. the PCs are significantly more "the heroes" than others, i.e. the GMNPCs). That said, mine have definitely tended to suffer from harsh, harsh fates. It's a bit liberating as a GM to be able to absolutely devastate a party member - really run them through the wringer - without hurting someone's feelings (because, you know, you're the one playing them). Unless, of course, there's a deep emotional bond of attachment. In which case it's really fun!*
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, geez. Xanesha HAD to target someone. I was *SOOOOO* happy when they put my GMNPC barbarian right next to her invisible location.
Yeah, she killed him but good.
And yeah, it let to the players talking about her in awe two years after the fact, *without her having killed a 'real' PC*!
GMNPCs are awesome! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think there should never be a GMPC, in the sense that the GM should never be thinking of an NPC as the GM's PC. That doesn't say anything about whether there should be NPCs traveling with the party.
I fully agree with this, at 101%
If my group is short in players, I'd rather give them a free Leadership feat, or something like that.
I'm thinking now on the 3rd party The Way of the Wicked and the
I not only agree, but continue to be surprised how much the GM having a player character or anything like it messes things up.
It seems more or less harmless, but never is. GMPCs never get played or ruled on objectively.
the funny part is, I Favorited GM_Blake's post as well, even though it kinda ripped on me a bit.
A move I approve of, if something is nifty or useful enough!
|
NPC's can have an evil, neutral, or good alignment. It's up to the PC's to figure out which.
"Your weary party stumbles into a graveyard. It's after dusk, but you can make out 2 shadows about 80 feet away. One appears to have a shovel. What do you do?"
"Roll initiative. And I'll make a stealth check."
"Ok."
Dice roll, dice roll, dice roll.
"Good work, sneaky dude. You just killed a cleric of Iomedae and a gravedigger. You didn't need any healing, did you?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*SIGH*. Yes, it's sad. DM_Blake has an ungodly number of favorites for his post, and everyone's piling on the GMNPC when I see only two fundamental issues with it:
(1) It's an optimized GMNPC
(2) The party is big enough not to need one.We've had a fantastic time going through CotCT, RotRL, and now WotR and JR with active GMNPCs.
However:
(1) The GMNPC is *always* a supporting role (cleric, front-line fighter, rogue, whatever) and *never* does anything without the party asking, "Hey, xxx, can't you do this?"
(2) The GMNPC is *never* the "GM's Pet". As I think Jiggy said, I run GMNPCs, but if the players say, "Hey, xxx, take off!" then xxx will dutifully take off.I'm a firm believer in GMNPCs, but that's because I run most of my campaigns with 3 players, so they need a 4th to "round them out". But my GMNPCs *never" steal the thunder from the PCs, nor dominate fights. It's funny -- we actively won't play with one guy because he always creates the "I can do everything better than you" GMNPC.
So GMNPCs are NOT always bad, as some would lead you to believe. But:
- If there are 4+ players, you shouldn't have a GMNPC.
- The GMNPC should -never- do anything unless asked to do so by the PCs.
- The GMNPC should immediately leave should the PCs ask him/her to do so.
- The GMNPC should -never- be so optimized that he/she outshines the PCs at ANYTHING except for his/her designated niche, where the players have previously admitted they have a lack, and are not planning on filling it.I really don't like absolutes. "GMNPCs suck!" is such an absolute. "I always run a GMNPC" is another.
As always, we have found happiness in the middle.
henchmen are not GMPCs, just saying, you're describing henchmen.
|
If the GM is a ham fisted, thank him for his brutal abuse and learn to beat him. Mr. Fishy cut his teeth on a hyper competitive GM. He taught me to be cagey.
Mr Fishy- What you are describing is a GM who is competing with the players but sticking to the rules. In this case the PCs can win if they plan well enough, though it is difficult.
Such GMs are not ideal and it isn't the right approach to GMing. But you can win.
But they are not the worst kind. A truly bad competitive GM changes opposition during encounters, has things occur that clearly could not [why was there no chance of noticing that?] and, if need be, will not stick to the rules.
Had a few that where heavy handed that didn't like PCs that would move ahead of the group. Had dwarven giant hunter that's favorite terrain was jungles. Found two hill giants after killing one the others AC in mid combat increased as well as it's BAB when it rolled two crits and its total AC strike went up by 4 points and damage by 6 just enough to bring me into negatives at the time.