Aranna |
thegreenteagamer wrote:Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
Well yeah, this thread has been going on for exactly 600 posts as of when I hit the submit button. The topic also doesn't allow for much of a breadth in opinions - It really seems to come down to a)yes, GMPCs can work, or b)no, GMPCs cant. Naturally there is going to be a lot of repetition.
On that note...*insert long lengthy paragraph about cautiously agreeing with a) here*
Actually there are more than two sides arguing here.
Side 1: "GMPC can never work"
Side 2: "GMPC can work, but almost never do so it is best to avoid them"
Side 3: "GMPC work wonderfully, If they don't your a bad GM."
Side 4: "GMPC are the best, everyone should use them."
Did I miss any?
Count me in Side 2.
Jaelithe |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
The difference being that the people who've said, "It can't be done right" have been proven wrong and entrench themselves in their perspective anyway, whereas those who've seen it done right have proven their point, much to the dismay of the naysayers.
Only Sides 2 and 3 in Aranna's above post have any validity. I'm a Side 3 guy, but I certainly comprehend Side 2.
KenderKin |
Is not the very idea DMPC meta-gaming?
In first edition we often never even announced to other players what our character classes were, sure we had a paladin and assassin in the same party or both a samurai and a ninja....
One thing that has been lost in the "mechanics" is that detect evil and detect alignment spells/abilities are offensive!
Certainly a PC should take offense and an NPC as well.
Jaelithe |
One thing that has been lost in the "mechanics" is that detect evil and detect alignment spells/abilities are offensive!
Doesn't that depend on whether the person's looking inside you to see or they're simply reading emanations? If the latter, and you don't want to read as evil, well ... don't be evil.
If the former, on the other hand, then you actually have an argument.
BigDTBone |
thegreenteagamer wrote:Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
The difference being that the people who've said, "It can't be done right" have been proven wrong and entrench themselves in their perspective anyway, whereas those who've seen it done right have proven their point, much to the dismay of the naysayers.
Only Sides 2 and 3 in Aranna's above post have any validity. I'm a Side 3 guy, but I certainly comprehend Side 2.
I think your standards for "prove" are a bit squishy.
kyrt-ryder |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.
Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?
Tacticslion |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there are more than two sides arguing here.
Side 1: "GMPCs can never work!"
Side 2: "GMPCs can work, but almost never do so it is best to avoid them."
Side 3: "GMPCs work wonderfully, If they don't you're a bad GM."
Side 4: "GMPCs are the best, everyone should use them."
True, but...
Also edits totally mine because I'm a neeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrd and like reading it better that way. :)Did I miss any?
Yes! (Understandable, as it's wordy, on my part:)
Side 5: "GMPCs can work quite well, but it entirely depends on the nature, skill, and style of a GM and players at the table. Even good GMs can be bad at specific skill-sets; there is nothing inherent to a GMPC as a concept that ruins games, but it has the same potential pitfalls as many other facets of GMing, whether NPC, villain, or favored player's character."
This should be somewhere between 2 and 3 and is substantially more nuanced than any of those presented above. It does not say that GMs are bad because they fail at a specific facet of GMing. It does say that they are bad at a specific facet of GMing (which is true of practically every GM I've ever known - this is why GMs vary in styles that cater to their good skills).
This is where I am.
(Also, I've not actually seen anyone say number four or anything resembling it?)
Jaelithe |
Jaelithe wrote:I think your standards for "prove" are a bit squishy.thegreenteagamer wrote:Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
The difference being that the people who've said, "It can't be done right" have been proven wrong and entrench themselves in their perspective anyway, whereas those who've seen it done right have proven their point, much to the dismay of the naysayers.
Only Sides 2 and 3 in Aranna's above post have any validity. I'm a Side 3 guy, but I certainly comprehend Side 2.
And I think yours might just be calculatedly obtuse.
Irontruth |
Irontruth wrote:I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?
That aspect of the story is not relevant to what is currently being discussed. The point is that bad DMPC's DO exist. They have occurred often enough for me that we have a code word for it. That is the relevant piece of information you should latch on to. I have no interest in you dissecting my groups interactions or passing judgement on me and my friends.
kyrt-ryder |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
kyrt-ryder wrote:That aspect of the story is not relevant to what is currently being discussed. The point is that bad DMPC's DO exist. They have occurred often enough for me that we have a code word for it. That is the relevant piece of information you should latch on to. I have no interest in you dissecting my groups interactions or passing judgement on me and my friends.Irontruth wrote:I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?
I did latch onto it. I've seen a horrible GMPC used in action, it was bad.
But until we talked to the guy he had no idea it was a problem. He attempted to change his ways for the rest of that adventure and checked with us afterwards to get our opinions. Having failed to succeed, he removed the GMPC from the group and the game got significantly better.
But what I latched onto even more was this backstab codeword. If used aggressively without such a conversation it seems like the sort of thing that would damage a group's cohesion. [I sure as hell know that I wouldn't want to keep playing with a group that ganked my character without talking to me about the reason first. Of course I don't GMPC, this is just my thoughts as a player, one who's also had good GMPC experiences.]
Spook205 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BigDTBone wrote:And I think yours might just be calculatedly obtuse.Jaelithe wrote:I think your standards for "prove" are a bit squishy.thegreenteagamer wrote:Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
The difference being that the people who've said, "It can't be done right" have been proven wrong and entrench themselves in their perspective anyway, whereas those who've seen it done right have proven their point, much to the dismay of the naysayers.
Only Sides 2 and 3 in Aranna's above post have any validity. I'm a Side 3 guy, but I certainly comprehend Side 2.
To explain here, in a less confrontational fashion.
"Those who say it can be done right" are proven by a single anecdotal story in support of the use of NPCs by the DM who fight alongside the party. If the DM does it, his players are ok with it and there are no problems, then 'it can be done right.' There's no particular threshold for rightness in this case.
Trying to argue that 'some people do this right' is incorrect on its face and attempting to argue that 'in fact they are wrong in their position, they were actually not ok with it,' is arguing against actual evidence.
You can still argue you should or shouldn't, but the issue of if it can or cannot be done, is no longer on the table. It can be done. Numerous people on this board have done, or have had it done to them successfully, and therefore its obviously possible.
The remaining argument (after defining what a GMPC is :p) is whether it should or shouldn't be done.
On those lines the arguments are harder to categorize. This is what I've seen.
Pro:
1. It allows the DM to provide useful information.
2. It allows the DM to fill in categories missing in the party.
3. It allows the DM to keep the group 'on story.'
Cons:
1. It robs player agency.
2. It has the potential for DM favoritism towards himself.
3. It presents an avenue for railroading.
Jaelithe |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But until we talked to the guy he had no idea it was a problem. He attempted to change his ways for the rest of that adventure and checked with us afterwards to get our opinions. Having failed to succeed, he removed the GMPC from the group and the game got significantly better.
Kudos for actually speaking to him and letting him try to amend before aborting.
I love when adults interact.
Irontruth |
Irontruth wrote:kyrt-ryder wrote:That aspect of the story is not relevant to what is currently being discussed. The point is that bad DMPC's DO exist. They have occurred often enough for me that we have a code word for it. That is the relevant piece of information you should latch on to. I have no interest in you dissecting my groups interactions or passing judgement on me and my friends.Irontruth wrote:I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?I did latch onto it. I've seen a horrible GMPC used in action, it was bad.
But until we talked to the guy he had no idea it was a problem. He attempted to change his ways for the rest of that adventure and checked with us afterwards to get our opinions. Having failed to succeed, he removed the GMPC from the group and the game got significantly better.
But what I latched onto even more was this backstab codeword. If used aggressively without such a conversation it seems like the sort of thing that would damage a group's cohesion. [I sure as hell know that I wouldn't want to keep playing with a group that ganked my character without talking to me about the reason first. Of course I don't GMPC, this is just my thoughts as a player, one who's also had good GMPC experiences.]
Yes, my last post was COMPLETELY an invitation for you to continue to pass judgement on me and my friends, even though you have virtually no context with which to do so. Seriously, you're missing SO MANY DETAILS. And I'm not sharing them. So again, I ask you to stop.
knightnday |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
kyrt-ryder wrote:That aspect of the story is not relevant to what is currently being discussed. The point is that bad DMPC's DO exist. They have occurred often enough for me that we have a code word for it. That is the relevant piece of information you should latch on to. I have no interest in you dissecting my groups interactions or passing judgement on me and my friends.Irontruth wrote:I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.Please tell me the use of this 'backstab the character of your fellow player who happens to be running the game' code is preceded by an actual conversation with the GM in question, explaining why you're unhappy with the GMPC and asking if he can either change his methods or remove the GMPC from the game?
Bad DMPCs do exist. Bad GMs exist as well, and bad players, and bad gaming experiences in general. But so do well-played GMPCs, good players, good GMs and good gaming experiences in general.
People on both/all sides of this can drop their length of time playing on the table and protest that they saw it done well or done poorly and that still only means that in their own experience it is good or bad.
I am not up to DrDeth's 40 years -- mine's only around 38 -- and I've seen good and bad GMPCs. Some were straight up railroading manipulative stealing the limelight characters, and others were intricately complex characters that the players loved.
There is no one right answer. There is no One True Way. Do what you want, what your table can agree with, and don't sweat what Random Individual on the message boards tells you is the way it should be.
Aranna |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aranna wrote:Actually there are more than two sides arguing here.
Side 1: "GMPCs can never work!"
Side 2: "GMPCs can work, but almost never do so it is best to avoid them."
Side 3: "GMPCs work wonderfully, If they don't you're a bad GM."
Side 4: "GMPCs are the best, everyone should use them."True, but...
Also edits totally mine because I'm a neeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrd and like reading it better that way. :)
Aranna wrote:Did I miss any?Yes! (Understandable, as it's wordy, on my part:)
Side 5: "GMPCs can work quite well, but it entirely depends on the nature, skill, and style of a GM and players at the table. Even good GMs can be bad at specific skill-sets; there is nothing inherent to a GMPC as a concept that ruins games, but it has the same potential pitfalls as many other facets of GMing, whether NPC, villain, or favored player's character."
This should be somewhere between 2 and 3 and is substantially more nuanced than any of those presented above. It does not say that GMs are bad because they fail at a specific facet of GMing. It does say that they are bad at a specific facet of GMing (which is true of practically every GM I've ever known - this is why GMs vary in styles that cater to their good skills).
This is where I am.
(Also, I've not actually seen anyone say number four or anything resembling it?)
~hangs my head in embarrassment~
Sorry about the need to edit my grammar, I usually am better at checking that.While your position is layered in nuance it still meets the norms for Side 3... You believe they are good, and that when they turn out bad it is the fault of the GM's skill. Call it a different side if you wish, but it seems like you are just nuancing yourself onto a side by yourself.
I highly suspect side 2 and side 3 are the biggest sides here. And I am sure I saw a post or two similar to side 4... but I may have taken a joke post as serious or be misremembering details, it is a big thread and I don't want to search it for the one or two that might be on that side. I did start combing it to see what sides had the most people and so far the biggest side is 2 followed by 3 and then 1... I haven't found those side 4 posts yet and I am in no hurry to finish my poll. It is tedious work.
knightnday |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay!
Now we don't even care if our labels are consistent through single posts :-)
Yeah yeah, I was in a hurry and frankly labeling these things is not consistent from person to person. What people call a DMPC/GMPC I call "an NPC."
This troubling need to label things so we can say "This bad! This not so bad!" is more effort than it is worth. :)
Tacticslion |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I post: I know, I know, thegreenteagamer, yeah.
I get it.
I... I just can't help myself.
"No, I don't have a problem; you have a problem!" >.>
;)
Also, The Alkenstarian, you know I heart you, right man? Awesome. :D
('Cause I do. You're a great person I just happen to disagree with right now.)
And don't even get started on the incredible awkwardness of watching an actual NPC and a GMPC leading a conversation with the same person making up both sides of the talking. That's one way to instantly reduce the players to spectators. And when the GM actively tries not to ask the "right" questions to avoid abusing his story-related knowledge, it gets even weirder, with players either wondering why the GMPC is not asking the obvious questions, or they can deduce what the obvious questions would be, based on the sheer awkwardness of the conversation going on.
Man, as a player, this is hilarious sometimes, depending on the GM. I mean, there are some really awesome times of gaming when a GM is really good at balancing multiple NPCs (or a GMPC and one or more NPCs) when this is done well. Great stuff.
As a GM, yeah, it's kind of awkward for me when it's only me talking, and something I try to avoid, but when players work to end feuds between two NPCs and force them to "talk their issues out" and then get all crestfallen and disappointed 'cause I was just going to hand-waive the conversation... sigh.
I do not believe in the existence of a well run GMPC. I believe that a lot of players don't want to hurt their GMs feelings. I believe that a lot of players somehow manage to convince themselves it's not entirely horrible. But I don't believe an actual GMPC is ever beneficial to the game, or that it is appropriate.
I'm happy to inform you that you are entirely incorrect in your belief, though, of course, you are welcome to keep it, as it is informed by your experiences.
The thing is, even as you believe something strongly, I have experienced things that refute that directly. While I understand your disbelief, I wanted only to give you information: I enjoy GMPCs, when not poorly done. I enjoy them as a player. I have from the beginning.
However, I would like to point out one thing that is misleading:
No matter what the arguments in favour of GMPCs may be, this is an irrefutable, incontestible fact. The GM, being the person running the game, will always have a huge advantage over ordinary players, in that he or she knows the entire story, every trap location, every weakness of every monster, every secret door, every cleverly disguised NPC subterfuge and every location of every piece of loot.
The GM, of course, has an "advantage" (whatever that means). The GMPC, however, does not - not any more than any PC has against their first troll, or any NPC does against the BBEG.
Now, there's a major thrust to your argument that has several mistakes, though they're understandable, and I'd like to address them.
But because of the inherent, automatic and, in my opinion, incontrovertible fact that GMs know all there is to know at any given time within the narratives of the stories they are telling, GMPCs can never, under any circumstance, for any reason or through any legerdemain, subterfuge or skulduggery be equal to the other PCs,
First mistake: the GM is not "equal", but the PCs (incuding the GMPC) are.
and this means that either the GM has to constantly take a back seat (which effectively reduces their GMPC to an NPC ... and which in my opinion is the way to go),
This is mistaken, because it presupposes that NPCs as NPCs must, by default, always take a "back seat" to the PCs at any given point in time.
As a non-GM player who has pulled my GM's NPCs into spotlights where they (the NPCs, not as a fellow party member) must take the spotlight for various reasons, this fundamentally doesn't apply to games that I've played int.
deliberately dumb down their play to a point where it becomes both akward and obvious to the players in order to avoid taking advantage of their additional knowledge of the campaign (which seems counter to the entire idea of making a GMPC in the first place)
This seems weird, as it automatically negates anyone from playing a pre-published module they've ever played before; effectively it relies on an entirely different style of play being considered invalid - a style of play that goes back to some of the earliest gaming styles out there.
or they will be the Mary Sue that my experience shows that they tend to end up being, solving every riddle the other players can't immediately figure out, procuring every good deal, every diplomatic breakthrough and every killing blow against great and overwhelming monstrosities, thereby reducing the PCs to bit players in their own story. Effectively making them the story-equivalent of walk-on extras with the occasional line.
And this is mistaken because it's hyperbole and completely misses a huge range of "competent but not all-knowing" within its parameters.
As a simple example, let's say that a party consists of a dwarven cleric, a GMPC half-orc fighter, a half-elf archeologist bard, and a elven wizard. The GM checks the module he's going to run (either pre-published or home-brew) and makes sure there's either randomly generated treasure with enough that people can readily get what they want, or that there's "something for everyone" in roughly equal value or power. He looks at all the major points where any knowledge might be required. While Roy Greenhilt (a fighter) famously took ranks in Knowledge (engineering) and has a solid intelligence, Goy Rreenhilt, the GMPC did not and has an average intelligence. The GM knows that any knowledge check that requires a DC 10 or higher in any category is simply unknown to Goy, and thus he is unreliable in that regard, and really can't help. That said, Goy has taken Profession (soldier) by using his favored class bonus as a skill, and uses his feats and magic items to be rather competent at fighting various foes and controlling the pathways to get to his friends (Lunge, Combat Patrol, and a weapon with the Reach special property). Beyond that, he's good at Intimidate (and has taken feats to scare the crap out of foes) to demoralize and debuff his party's foes and Perception (and has taken feats to augment his perceptive abilities) to ensure that sneaky folk don't slip past his guard. Lawful Good. He speaks up on matters involving soldiering, and he has connections with some former buddies in government places (that offsets the chaotic good bard's connections with criminal underworld and institutions of higher learning (the latter shared by the wizard); and the neutral good cleric's connections with various churches). He is a party member in good standing, and has some stories involving him, though no more than anyone else.
That (outside of the ludicrous name) is an off-the-cuff example of a well-built GMPC who has competencies and skills relevant to the character, but works well with the team (at least, in a general sort of way). He's not a buff-bot, but neither is he a glory-hog. He has a personality (though you probably can't tell), and elements tied to the campaign world just like the players while also offering unique skills and insight. He doesn't necessarily step on anyone's toes, and he works well over-all as a member.
As a GM, looking at the composition, you're going to realize that the direct damage output of the party isn't going to be that high without lots of expended resources, making this more of a "enter, expend, retreat (repeat)" game than a "enter, kill everything" game and adjust accordingly.
Were I any of the other players, I'd not mind playing with that guy, who, as it turns out, is doing things that are rather uniquely a fighter's style of doing things, and doing so well. It's only if he starts out-charisma'ing the bard, out-religious'ing the cleric, or out-knowledge'ing the wizard that I'd become concerned or annoyed. Of course, that'd be true if something similar happened to any of my fellow players as well (though, actually, the bard would likely be more direct-damaging than the fighter, I gotta say).
Presupposing we all got things that made us happy? That's great!
Presupposing none of us got things that made us happy? Eh, okay, I'll deal.
Presupposing only one of us got things that made them happy, or only one of us didn't get things that made them happy? That's irritating (regardless of whether or not I am the person).
And that's the trick: it's when the GMPC gets unwarranted favoritism or hatred that's bothersome. The GMPC itself isn't the problem. It's the way the others are playing the game.
... which speaks of play-styles and personal natures instead of an inherently-problematic element.
It feels an awful lot like some of those who are virulently anti-GMPC employ the "Roman Solution" to a problem: it doesn't matter if you're the guilty party, you're the one that gets punished.
And the thing is, I get that people don't like GMPCs. I get it, and that's fine: not your cup of tea. You've had bad experiences.
But it blows my mind that people are so unhappy with someone else playing a game that they kill off that person's character from spite. That seems ridiculous - like an exaggerated joke. But I believe people are being serious... which is really incongruous to me.
Regardless, I do not, ever, suggest that everyone should GMPC.
Similarly, some people should not play or run in a Dungeon Crawl game, and some shouldn't do a RP-heavy game, or political intrigue, or action-adventure, or swashbuckling, or Eastern, or Western, or Siege-defense, or Siege-attack, or Warfare-themed, or Horror, or whatever. Similarly, some shouldn't GM for their SO or BF or whomever. Similarly, some shouldn't make long-term or recurring villains (weird concept, I know).
Having those on your personal "should avoid" list does not make you a bad GM. It means that those elements are on your personal "should avoid" list.
Great list, Spook! If I may, however, some slight alterations, based on my own observations (and I'm likely missing some things, too).
On those lines the arguments are harder to categorize. This is what I've seen.
Pros:
1. It allows the DM to provide useful information.
2. It allows the DM to fill in categories missing in the party.
3. It allows the DM to keep the group 'on story.'
4. It allows the GM to interact with/RP with their group, consistently.
5. It allows the GM to play a non-villainous role.
6. It allows the GM to add <insert thing here> without afflicting a PC in a way that would harm the experience of their player.Cons:
1. It has the potential to robsplayers the feeling of agency (or even actual agency, see "3", below).
2. It has the potential for DM favoritism towards himself.
3. It presents an avenue for railroading.
4. Some people loathe it unrelentingly and it ruins their game experience as a result.
5. It could lead to some awkward RP moments.
EDIT: for two very important words I left out! Wow, that looked far more condemning than I meant. O.o Sorry.
Pappy Smurf |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok the sides can be smurfed up thusly.
Side 1
I tried it/saw it tried it was miserable & horrible.
(completely unworkable)
Side 2
I did it/saw it, it worked great!
Side 1
When you did it the players just didn't tell you (or left) because it was miserable/horrible.
When you saw it, although you didn't mind all the other players were miserable (it was horrible).
side 2
Nope in my experience it was great.
Side 1
Not really you just didn't know any better (your clueless)
Tacticslion |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
~hangs my head in embarrassment~
Sorry about the need to edit my grammar, I usually am better at checking that.
Hey, don't worry about it! (Trust me, the amount of times I see my own posts that it's too late to edit and go "Nnnnnnnnoooooooooo~!" is too many to count. As I said, I'm a "nnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd" >.>)
While your position is layered in nuance it still meets the norms for Side 3... You believe they are good, and that when they turn out bad it is the fault of the GM's skill. Call it a different side if you wish, but it seems like you are just nuancing yourself onto a side by yourself.
I can understand that. The reason I take pains to word it differently, though, is because the GMs in question that do something wrong aren't necessarily bad GMs.
I find that incredibly important to stress, because, honestly, I want to be clear: I respect people who can't do something well and are honest about it, and I've seen people ace a looooooooooot of different parts of GMing, and fail terribly at certain aspects.
I'm that way, too - there are some things that I rock the hiz-ouse on I'm so, so, sorry for everything, but there are other things that I suck like a hoover at. Some of those are things I should work at.
Some of them are things I should avoid trying...
Finding out the difference is... not always easy.
>.>
In any event, I really want it to be clear: just because someone isn't capable of doing one thing well doesn't automatically make them a bad GM, and that's why I didn't want to be part of side "three" - it may be a skill failure on the GM's part, but not at all of GMing.
(Kind of like how a wizard might rock at Knowledge (local) but be unable to beat a DC 10 at Knowledge (religion), because his skill points are allocated differently, no matter how smart he is.)
I highly suspect side 2 and side 3 are the biggest sides here. And I am sure I saw a post or two similar to side 4... but I may have taken a joke post as serious or be misremembering details, it is a big thread and I don't want to search it for the one or two that might be on that side. I did start combing it to see what sides had the most people and so far the biggest side is 2 followed by 3 and then 1... I haven't found those side 4 posts yet and I am in no hurry to finish my poll. It is tedious work.
I'd say sides 2/3/5 (if you count the last) are, yes. I've seen several in side 1, though I don't recall any side 4... but, yeah, I might have missed it, or dismissed a serious post as a joke or something, myself! :)
Kalindlara Contributor |
Kalindlara Contributor |
Spook205 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great list, Spook! If I may, however, some slight alterations, based on my own observations (and I'm likely missing some things, too).
On those lines the arguments are harder to categorize. This is what I've seen.
Pros:
1. It allows the DM to provide useful information.
2. It allows the DM to fill in categories missing in the party.
3. It allows the DM to keep the group 'on story.'
4. It allows the GM to interact with/RP with their group, consistently.
5. It allows the GM to play a non-villainous role.
6. It allows the GM to add <insert thing here> without afflicting a PC in a way that would harm the experience of their player.Cons:
1. It has the potential to robs players the feeling of agency (or even actual agency, see "3", below).
2. It has the potential for DM favoritism towards himself.
3. It presents an avenue for railroading.
4. Some people loathe it unrelentingly and it ruins their game experience as a result.
5. It could lead to some awkward RP moments.
Hey I made the list hoping people would correct/add to it.
The pro and con argument, I feel is more productive then all of these 'Sides.'
I keep expecting zakus from Side 3 to show up.
Aranna |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I am giving up on the poll... not only are my sides turning out to ALL be fairly inaccurate BUT there are just too many people who don't clarify their stance enough to have such a specific side. As it stands though the numbers were approximately Anti-GMPC 60%, Neutral 20%, Pro-GMPC 20%... While this probably would have changed in exact percentages if I had finished it is pretty clear that for whatever reason (GM skill or GMPCs themselves being the problem) using GMPCs has been a negative experience for most people. Even the pro and neutral camps acknowledge bad GMPCs they just attribute the occurrence to specific instances and NOT a general trend like the Anti GMPC crowd seems to advocate. I guess this just boils down to whether you see bad GMPCs as a GM specific bad thing or a general fact that takes a specific good GM to overcome if they can be overcome at all. Or that surprisingly large third group that refuses to take a pro or con position and just chalks it up to specific groups good or bad.
TriOmegaZero |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or that surprisingly large third group that refuses to take a pro or con position and just chalks it up to specifics groups good or bad.
Group composition has a far greater effect on social interactions than specific rules or interactions do, at least in such a highly social activity.
knightnday |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aranna wrote:Or that surprisingly large third group that refuses to take a pro or con position and just chalks it up to specifics groups good or bad.Group composition has a far greater effect on social interactions than specific rules or interactions do, at least in such a highly social activity.
Yup.
Whether you've had a good or bad experience with GMPCs or dragons or Cheliax or gnomes or magic items or house rules or whatever comes down to specific instances and interactions.
I mentioned this earlier and it bears repeating: just because a relationship failed does not mean ALL relationships or ALL of a gender* are horrible and they should never be trusted. It isn't and hasn't been bad for everyone, your experiences are clouding your perception.
*Forgive me for not knowing how to say gender identification(?) better in this situation, so using gender as an all inclusive here.
DrDeth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.
Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.
Yes, and this is very nice. But that's not what people mean by DMPCs.
They mean a fully fledged PC, done with the same or better stat build as the PCs (instead of the standard array or even elite array) with full PC (not NPC) magic, and adventuring with the party as a full member.
In fact, the party almost never 'fights' a DMPC so that there's rarely any issues with 'a balanced fight'.
But es, your thoughts on NPCs and opponents are well done, thank you.
DrDeth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....And don't even get started on the incredible awkwardness of watching an actual NPC and a GMPC leading a conversation with the same person making up both sides of the talking. That's one way to instantly reduce the players to spectators. And when the GM actively tries not to ask the "right" questions to avoid abusing his story-related knowledge, it gets even weirder, with players either wondering why the GMPC is not asking the obvious questions, or they can deduce what the obvious questions would be, based on the sheer awkwardness of the conversation going on...
Yes, any real person would wonder "Why is B'ob* so clever, witty and perceptive when talking to us, but useless and tongue-tied when talking to anyone else?"
Simply redefining the term "DMPC" does not help the issue.
I do disagree however- there can be good DMPCs- the less they do, the better, however.
* because all fantasy characters have to have gratuitous ' in their names, no?
DrDeth |
Actually there are more than two sides arguing here.Side 1: "GMPC can never work"
Side 2: "GMPC can work, but almost never do so it is best to avoid them"
Side 3: "GMPC work wonderfully, If they don't your a bad GM."
Side 4: "GMPC are the best, everyone should use them."
Did I miss any?Count me in Side 2.
Side 2, for me also.
DrDeth |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a horrible GMPC used in action, it was bad.
But until we talked to the guy he had no idea it was a problem. He attempted to change his ways for the rest of that adventure and checked with us afterwards to get our opinions. Having failed to succeed, he removed the GMPC from the group and the game got significantly better.
Now, see that's the way to do it. Yes, bad DMPC running DMs will have no idea they are annoying the snot out of their players. In fact often they will think they are GREAT DMs. Now- you sat down and talked with your DM like adults, he worked on the issue, tried to fix, and they rectified the problem. That's a good DM.
An even better DM would sit down with their players and ask before they had to summon up the nerve to confront him/her about it. Try it!
And if your players say "Heck no problemo, Bob/Barbara, you run your DMPC pretty well, but thanks for asking, we have had some pretty bad ones in the past"- then you're still the better person and wiser, too. What can it hurt to ask?
DM Under The Bridge |
The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.
Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.
Hear hear, that is well put.
DM Under The Bridge |
Vincent Takeda wrote:The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.
Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.
Now DMPCs are NPCs, a definite change in goal posts.
NPCs are a supporting cast for the players, DMPCs are quite different as NPCs don't normally join an adventuring party.
It also depends on how you play the Pathfinder game, pvp or tabletop, DMPCs would function quite differently in both of these methods of playing the Pathfinder game.
My DMPCs are part of the adventuring party. What are you talking about?
Of course they are with the party, where else would they be? Behind the scenes and uninvolved?
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, those DM's here who say they run DMPCs (not counting solo and rotating games)- have you asked your players about your DMPCs?
Yeah, of course. Now, that was a long time ago, and the players were almost all new to the game. I haven't had to offer a GMPC for a long time.
DM Under The Bridge |
Ah, trying to go for the undermine tactic, that it is really a problem and we don't even realise!
Except my players are happy, they tell me they are having a great time, they express enjoyment of gaming with and alongside the dmpcs and tell stories of memorable events involving those dmpcs years later.
They also have complete choice how they react to dmpcs and they can reject their help or swap them out for others. Another dm I know is far better at this than I. He had a roster of them in his kingmaker game!
The youngest dm has also used one through his first campaign and received praise for how well he did it, and for how proficiently he pulled off the dmpc traitor event. This left him a very happy dm, because the dmpc was an important pivot point for the campaign's context. While the dm enjoyed playing her, we also had to kill her (or be killed) as a part of the ending. She had concealed that she was stronger than any individual party member, but we never knew this until we had to fight her, and she was crucially not stronger than the party as a whole. Yes, we had to unite against the dmpc as the dm set it up that way, and it was great fun.
The idea that dms always protect their dmpcs is something I would argue against. I've seen them thrown under the wheels of the plot to benefit the game, and I do it too. My dmpcs are not protected, they are npcs close to the party and recurring, but not invincible.
DM Under The Bridge |
I am currently a GMPC. I am an old wandering seer with minor dementia using my visions to help the party prepare for each coming day. Nothing spectacular. I am playing a diviner for a Bandit Game. No worries.
(Great idea Dinkster)
A past DMPC
I am a reliable good hobgoblin trying to improve myself and help people in Isger. With tower shield and sword or greatsword I aid the party in a defensive or offensive capacity. I've got your back so you don't have to worry about flankers.
knightnday |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, those DM's here who say they run DMPCs (not counting solo and rotating games)- have you asked your players about your DMPCs?
If not- why?
That's all that I am asking.
As far as feedback goes: ask. Speak with the players after each session or set of sessions. I've gone as far as passing around questionnaires or holding informal rap sessions at the end of the game, taking a few minutes out of the end of the game to say "Hey, what did you like? What did you not like? What could we do differently?"
If you don't come across defensively or aggressively people are willing, usually, to talk to you about the game. This has worked with relative strangers as well as people as close as my wife. If you don't ask, you may never find out. Keep in mind that if you do ask, however, that you may get feedback that you may not like or face problems you were previously unaware existed.
Then you have to decide how to act on them, whether the players are tired of the same old same old game, GMPCs, not enough or too much of an element and so on.