How do you feel about GMPCs?


Gamer Life General Discussion

651 to 700 of 1,134 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

knightnday wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

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.

knightnday wrote:

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.

Great!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've run a GMPC twice (will eventually be thrice - going to have been a cleric of some sort all 3 times, amusingly), and have played in numerous campaigns with the GM having a GMPC (ranging from rogues to wizards to psychic warriors to bards to oracles; my co-GM in the upcoming campaign will be playing an arcanist). I haven't had any issues with the other GMPCs.

And I've run games where I didn't have a GMPC, and played in games where the GM didn't have a GMPC. That's fairly normal when one of us running a pre-published adventure, which frequently gives the PCs one or more major NPC allies. In that sort of game, having a GMPC may be just needless overcrowding (and detract from the intended story NPCs).

It just depends on the campaign.

Heh. I guess my group's split works out to "if homebrew, then GMPC; if pre-published adventure, no GMPC," but that still can change from campaign to campaign.

Heh. And no, a conversation that can be split into "You should never ever have a GMPC (and you're almost certainly a bad GM who's oblivious to how bad you are if you do have one)" and "actually, GMPCs can work fine, but it'll depend on the group and the game (and a bad GMPC* is often a symptom of a bad GM)" isn't going to reach a resolution =P

* Especially one behaving like what the Alkenstarian was talking about - practically textbook "doing it wrong." Blargh.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and its reply. Please be civil to each other, thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And others have taken major NPCs from APs and given them over to someone as a PC.....

I will be recruiting such a player for an upcoming chapter of Shackled City....Kirth and TOZ come to mind...but that will be awhile away...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

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.

Yep. I told them my idea, and asked them if they would mind. They said "of course not".

No need for safe word shenanigans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Maybe a posting on how to properly utilize a "DMPC", would be better than a discussion about our feelings and experiences....

A discussion on semantics is never better than a discussion on emotions and experiences. Ever. Who cares if some people use the term differently? As long as they're clear about what they mean, it's fine. We do not have the power or the consensus to actually come to an agreement on a term's definition—if we did, there would have been no meaningful murderhobo or powergaming discussions that went past a page. We do, however, have the power to discuss things that actually matter*. We still won't all agree, but at least we get to really think about something interesting. So let's do that!

*Relatively speaking. I mean, it's D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and on-topic (since the above is pretty much a post about arguing): I've seen GMPCs done well and poorly. I've been in games with GMPCs/NPCs who were run like minor characters and were still annoying, just because the GM was still clearly pushing for them to be respected as a member of the team. When the GM is invested in the NPC like that, that's where my instincts flare up and I roll my eyes.

I like GMPCs that are interesting, serve the party well, and maybe provide some fun roleplaying. I don't want them to feel like PCs. Even the best GMs shouldn't be running true PCs on the side, in my opinion—it's just impossible for them to feel legit to me. Maybe because an NPC played like a PC is inevitably going to want to interact with other NPCs, or be acknowledged by other NPCs, and then it pretty much comes down to the GM referring to himself.

Just grating for me. I like GMPCs that are really just NPCs—recurring characters, sidekicks, guest stars at most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kobold Cleaver raises an interesting point: What do you do if a DMPC is otherwise well-portrayed, but said portrayal crosses a line of tolerance for you based on what you want in an NPC? Do you keep your feelings to yourself, because it's not anything the DM is actually doing wrong, per se? Do you speak up and say, "Look, I'm sorry ... I just find it irritating"? Does it depend on the reaction from other players to said character? Do you graciously disengage and find another game (assuming that's an option)?

As the DM, would you set aside your DMPC for the good of the player who gave it a go and still can't stand it? Would you weigh the overall reception the DMPC receives and tell him, "Sorry, but ... needs of the many"? Certainly a DM has a responsibility to the game, to the players' enjoyment and to his own. Is it wholly situational?

I think, for me, that's where I'd draw the line. If I genuinely couldn't handle a DMPC, and my players disliked the portrayal because of that, I'd ditch him or her. But if someone just said, "You know ... I can't help it. The very idea of it just grates on me, even though you're really not doing anything WRONG wrong." I'd likely say, "You know ... deep down, that's your problem."

Opinions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

Kobold Cleaver raises an interesting point: What do you do if a DMPC is otherwise well-portrayed, but said portrayal crosses a line of tolerance for you based on what you want in an NPC? Do you keep your feelings to yourself, because it's not anything the DM is actually doing wrong, per se? Do you speak up and say, "Look, I'm sorry ... I just find it irritating"? Does it depend on the reaction from other players to said character? Do you graciously disengage and find another game (assuming that's an option)?

As the DM, would you set aside your DMPC for the good of the player who gave it a go and still can't stand it? Would you weigh the overall reception the DMPC receives and tell him, "Sorry, but ... needs of the many"? Certainly a DM has a responsibility to the game, to the players' enjoyment and to his own. Is it wholly situational?

I think, for me, that's where I'd draw the line. If I genuinely couldn't handle a DMPC, and my players disliked the portrayal because of that, I'd ditch him or her. But if someone just said, "You know ... I can't help it. The very idea of it just grates on me, even though you're really not doing anything WRONG wrong." I'd likely say, "You know ... deep down, that's your problem."

Opinions?

I tend to agree. There are certain things that are just your (the universal your) problem. I dislike punny names and am not overly fond of dinosaurs. While neither hurt anyone if the GM or players do it, I find the former grinds on my nerves and dinos are just meh to me.

Those are my problems, however, and I shouldn't push that on the GM or players and try to make them change for my benefit. Sometimes, if you want to play bad enough, you swallow your dislikes for the good of the game.


Yeah, I guess if you're desperate for a game you can put up with a lot. :P


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I do find the whole, "The GMPC might have to interact with another NPC and that is just GM mental masturbation," idea a bit strange. I mean are there never two or more relevant NPCs "on stage" at the same time? A king, the queen, and the councilor? A general and his XO? Or is it always one "talker" NPC and a bunch of mooks?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I do find the whole, "The GMPC might have to interact with another NPC and that is just GM mental masturbation," idea a bit strange. I mean are there never two or more relevant NPCs "on stage" at the same time? A king, the queen, and the councilor? A general and his XO? Or is it always one "talker" NPC and a bunch of mooks?

Not only that, but as a player I just don't trust the DMPC. There is too much temptation to bend a gray rule into your favor, too much temptation to meta the scenario. I feel that anytime the DMPC got the spotlight that it was taking away from the group. The whole time I would be contemplating that the DM gave an info drop to his PC instead of us, why? What did he really roll? (Are you rolling dice for the DMPC behind the screen too?) What kind of circumstance modifiers is he giving himself. Who is auditing the character build? Is he dropping preferred gear for himself?

Basically, I don't believe anyone has a compartmented enough mind to do this fairly. Unless someone was actively down-powering, in which case I am irritated by carrying the dead weight. If you want to play a character then play, if you want to DM then DM. Don't do both. Because you'll end up doing neither very well.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Not only that, but as a player I just don't trust the DMPC. There is too much temptation to bend a gray rule into your favor, too much temptation to meta the scenario. I feel that anytime the DMPC got the spotlight that it was taking away from the group. The whole time I would be contemplating that the DM gave an info drop to his PC instead of us, why? What did he really roll? (Are you rolling dice for the DMPC behind the screen too?) What kind of circumstance modifiers is he giving himself. Who is auditing the character build? Is he dropping preferred gear for himself?

Why don't you ask the same questions of other NPCs?


pres man wrote:
I do find the whole, "The GMPC might have to interact with another NPC and that is just GM mental masturbation," idea a bit strange. I mean are there never two or more relevant NPCs "on stage" at the same time? A king, the queen, and the councilor? A general and his XO? Or is it always one "talker" NPC and a bunch of mooks?

It's more because the GM decides how NPCs react to PCs. If he's running a PC, he gets this little advantage where NPCs are going to react how he (not the character, mind you, but the player) intends them to. Meanwhile, other PCs have to deal with the same old misunderstandings and "Gee, that sure seemed diplomatic until I said it out loud" shenanigans. This makes interactions between GMPCs and NPCs feel artificial. Even if the GM isn't taking "advantage" at all (and that's a strong word to use anyways), we know he's having to consciously not. Those conversations just don't come off as organic.

NPC-on-NPC banter is supposed to be "scripted". That's why I have absolutely no problem with a GM who plays his NPC like an NPC. It's where the line gets blurred that it starts seeming off. I can't take a GM's PC seriously because, deliberately or no, they will always be treated slightly differently. There's just no way around it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

Kobold Cleaver raises an interesting point: What do you do if a DMPC is otherwise well-portrayed, but said portrayal crosses a line of tolerance for you based on what you want in an NPC? Do you keep your feelings to yourself, because it's not anything the DM is actually doing wrong, per se? Do you speak up and say, "Look, I'm sorry ... I just find it irritating"? Does it depend on the reaction from other players to said character? Do you graciously disengage and find another game (assuming that's an option)?

My gaming group goes through this process all the time. We often discuss game elements that we like/dislike. One example is XP. I have one player that loves XP and wants it to be part of the game. Everyone else hates XP and wants it removed from the game or kept under the hood. For the one player who loves XP, well he also loves our gaming group so he lets XP go because its worth it to him to keep playing. On the other hand, a player once mentioned that he has no taste for an evil campaign and would sit one out if the group wanted to play one badly enough. You have to weigh out your desire to play with what you are willing to sacrifice or put up with.

My group is comfortable enough doing this. What I have seen is a lot of folks who are not. They would rather put up with elements they greatly dislike because "bad gaming is better than no gaming." When this happens folks either sit on it and have less fun, or worse, they go one to sabotage the game in a passive aggressive protest to try and force the game in a direction they find more suitable. To avoid that I strongly suggest groups try and discuss gaming elements before and after sessions.

Jaelithe wrote:
As the DM, would you set aside your DMPC for the good of the player who gave it a go and still can't stand it? Would you weigh the overall reception the DMPC receives and tell him, "Sorry, but ... needs of the many"? Certainly a DM has a responsibility to the game, to the players' enjoyment and to his own. Is it wholly situational?

I'd say its entirely situational. You should always weigh the group vs. your own preferences. I think you can graciously bring up grievances for discussion. If you are odd man out, you should decide whether or not you can overlook the element for the good of the game. Its important to remember its a group activity so there needs to be some give and take. If one person is laying down an ultimatum against the rest of the group, I'd ask them to sit out as GM. Personally knowing my group a person would more likely remove themselves than force everyone to give up something they are interested in. YMMV.

Jaelithe wrote:

I think, for me, that's where I'd draw the line. If I genuinely couldn't handle a DMPC, and my players disliked the portrayal because of that, I'd ditch him or her. But if someone just said, "You know ... I can't help it. The very idea of it just grates on me, even though you're really not doing anything WRONG wrong." I'd likely say, "You know ... deep down, that's your problem."

Opinions?

Agreed. Folks need to be flexible to make this game work. Everyone has a breaking point though too where it might be a good idea to walk away or sit out. Like lets say you are good at running a GMPC, and everyone says you are good at running GMPCs, but they don't want you to because they don't like it. Do you drop the GMPCs or do you drop as GM?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Not only that, but as a player I just don't trust the DMPC. There is too much temptation to bend a gray rule into your favor, too much temptation to meta the scenario. I feel that anytime the DMPC got the spotlight that it was taking away from the group. The whole time I would be contemplating that the DM gave an info drop to his PC instead of us, why? What did he really roll? (Are you rolling dice for the DMPC behind the screen too?) What kind of circumstance modifiers is he giving himself. Who is auditing the character build? Is he dropping preferred gear for himself?
Why don't you ask the same questions of other NPCs?

Because most of those questions are about party dynamics and other NPC's aren't in my party.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I do find the whole, "The GMPC might have to interact with another NPC and that is just GM mental masturbation," idea a bit strange. I mean are there never two or more relevant NPCs "on stage" at the same time? A king, the queen, and the councilor? A general and his XO? Or is it always one "talker" NPC and a bunch of mooks?

Depends on how your table runs their games. At mine scenes that are role-play acted out always include the PCs, and thus the GMPC. Sure as GM I might have say, town guards and thieves, in the same scene with PCs and it all plays out as individuals. Though, if the PCs check out of a scene because they are finished, or not interested, I have to account for the GMPC. As I mentioned before my preference is to play GMPCs as individuals with motives and not party role filling robots. So if a GMPC is genuinely interested in seeing something through, the players sit back and wait while I act it out myself. That is odd, and not to a benefit of the game for us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Agreed. Folks need to be flexible to make this game work. Everyone has a breaking point though too where it might be a good idea to walk away or sit out. Like lets say you are good at running a GMPC, and everyone says you are good at running GMPCs, but they don't want you to because they don't like it. Do you drop the GMPCs or do you drop as GM?

If all you'd have to look forward to was sullen silence and/or snide comments from your players, I'd say the answer was obvious. If you knew people just weren't as happy, and simply couldn't help it, I'd likely eliminate the DMPC/send the DMPC away—which in turn might leave me really annoyed despite myself, or might not.

In a round robin DMing setup, often a character is an NPC for three weeks and then a PC for two or three after that. I just don't see the problem as truly a problem, thus, perhaps because I'm used to that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

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.)

That's perfectly okay. I disagree with practically every argument you made, however, based on extensive, personal experience with this.

Let me start by once more underscoring that if someone else is okay with this, then it's entirely up to them to use GMPCs ... but for me, it's a dealbreaker that would result in me leaving that game first and the group entirely subsequently.

Next, I know this is hard for some people to grasp and accept, and I think we are all going around in circles, but in thirty years in this hobby, and -hundreds- of games behind me, both stand-alone scenarios and campaigns (I used to play seven days a week for almost a decade so the number of GMs I've played under and the number of campaigns I've taken part in is getting pretty extensive by now), I have never seen one single example of a GMPC that did not turn into one of the three archetypes I mentioned and I am willing to go out on a limb and say that eight out of ten of them were the Mary Sue-variety.

In thirty years.

Tacticslion, you may disagree with me, but can you at some point acknowledge that my experiences have been so singularly horrible that the truth, as I perceive it through my hands-on, practical experiences with this phenomenon makes this a no-brainer?

And no, they were not bad GMs. Some of the best GMs in this country ran some of those games and they still turned into Mary Sue-exhibitions. The games ranged from horror, to World of Darkness emo-fests, to Fantasy, to Sci-Fi, to mixtures of the whole lot, to silly plots involving aliens in rabbit slippers with the Rogers and Hammerstein Shtick and a gazillion oops-points, wielding don't-point-that-thing-at-my-planet-guns and Humongous Bzzt's. And the result has always ... always ... been singularly, unequivocally bad. One of the worst examples in the RP history of two cities around here was, in point of fact, run by a much younger and much dumber me.

Alright, you've had good experiences with it. Awesome. Good for you. And good for everyone else who's had those good experiences. All I can say is that despite every promise that "it's not going to be like that" or "this time it'll be different", it always is like that and it never is different, as far as I'm concerned, and that by now, the negative experiences are so massive, so overwhelming and so destructive for my wish to play this game that it is an absolute, diamond-hard, unquestioning and complete deal-breaker for me as a player. Any GM I play with that introduces a GMPC will lose a player. Instantly.

I'm not even going to wait around anymore to see if it really IS different this time, because I simply do not believe it is possible anymore.

Other people see things differently. This is what subjectivity/objectivity is about, after all. Your experience with any one of the multitude horror-stories I could outline in great and painful detail might have been "yay, awesome, great character, I can't wait to play again and have more fun with this GM run PC", while my own experience with the exact same situation is "Oh ... dear ... gods ... where the blooming fiery underpants of horror +3 is the nearest exit??!"

Because we perceive the exact same situations from completely different angles.

The bottom line is ... there's a reason why some people think Nickelback is the greatest band ever, and that Jeff Dunham is funny. I can respect the fact that people think so, even if I can't personally grasp the logic behind it. Conversely, those people may think that I'm bonkers for listening to metal and Baroque music, and that I think George Carlin should be deified.

Tastes vary. It's as simple as that. And because tastes vary, no amount of evidence presented by the pro-GMPC crowd will convince the anti-GMPC crowd that they are right, OR vice versa.

I never saw this thread as a debate in order to convince others of the truth of what I'm saying. Those who agree with me already do. And those who disagree will never be convinced regardless of how polite or how vitriolic I am.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is exclusively a place to voice opinions.

Nothing more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair, fair, I see where you are coming from. A frog in a deep well knows nothing of the ocean. There is no ocean, there can't be an ocean, because there is the well and only the well, and it "always is like that and it never is different".

Thank you for briefly sharing your own foray into it. You have clearly communicated that you did it badly once upon a time. There is no shame in mistakes far in the past. I would like to encourage you to message me if you would like to try the ocean, be helped to get to the ocean or hear what it was like.

George Carlin should be taught and discussed in schools, but not deified.


Jaelithe wrote:
Pan wrote:
Agreed. Folks need to be flexible to make this game work. Everyone has a breaking point though too where it might be a good idea to walk away or sit out. Like lets say you are good at running a GMPC, and everyone says you are good at running GMPCs, but they don't want you to because they don't like it. Do you drop the GMPCs or do you drop as GM?

If all you'd have to look forward to was sullen silence and/or snide comments from your players, I'd say the answer was obvious. If you knew people just weren't as happy, and simply couldn't help it, I'd likely eliminate the DMPC/send the DMPC away—which in turn might leave me really annoyed despite myself, or might not.

In a round robin DMing setup, often a character is an NPC for three weeks and then a PC for two or three after that. I just don't see the problem as truly a problem, thus, perhaps because I'm used to that.

You also are describing an extremely rare DMing arrangement. If round-robin (with the same characters) works for your group then great. I can't stand that either. I need more continuity in my game. There is also a very real question of which GM 'owns' the campaign. Who is making decisions about the world? Who is keeping it internally consistent? When ever a group I'm with rotates GMs, they rotate campaigns as well. And it is more like 2-3 times a year, rather than every 2-3 weeks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
I think George Carlin should be deified.

George would not have approved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
You also are describing an extremely rare DMing arrangement. If round-robin (with the same characters) works for your group then great. I can't stand that either. I need more continuity aim my game. There is also a very real question of which GM 'owns' the campaign. Who is making decisions about the world? Who is keeping it internally consistent? When ever a group I'm with rotates GMs, they rotate campaigns as well. And it is more like 2-3 times a year, rather than every 2-3 weeks.

Since you haven't a clue as to the level of continuity in others' games, your comment about needing "more continuity" doesn't make much sense. More than you and your friends could manage? Perhaps so; I wouldn't presume to say, having never sat in with you and yours. More than me and my friends? Until you've played with us, you've no idea whether that's true.

As to "who 'owns' the campaign," well ... sometimes it's a co-op among extremely mature players who enjoy the synergy and creative tension, assembling something greater than the sum of its parts ... sometimes there's a campaign overseer and the other DMs think nothing of running short-term adventures about which he or she knows nothing to give him or her a chance to play regularly. The Head Forester doesn't necessarily know, or need to know, the location of every tree.

The last time I was running a game for a fairly standard-sized group, we had three RPG campaigns going simultaneously, one of which was a supers game, and would simply gather, decide what we wanted to do that day, and play. Worked for us.


There are many ways to rotate DM duties (we did most of them)

One way is that the same group of PCs are utilized in every DMs game and that DM runs through a campaign arc.

Probably one of the best ones was the World's Serpent Inn. We went from Forgotten Realms to Grey Hawk, to Darksun, to Ravenloft, to savage world....etc.

F#+$ continuity! It was awesome fun!

The other way would be to try and maintain the continuity of the game with rotating DM duties, that was done thorough communication among us all about what would be acceptable unacceptable in the game-world (and also is something was introduced that was not acceptable, it was promptly written right back out of the game)....


Jaelithe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You also are describing an extremely rare DMing arrangement. If round-robin (with the same characters) works for your group then great. I can't stand that either. I need more continuity aim my game. There is also a very real question of which GM 'owns' the campaign. Who is making decisions about the world? Who is keeping it internally consistent? When ever a group I'm with rotates GMs, they rotate campaigns as well. And it is more like 2-3 times a year, rather than every 2-3 weeks.

Since you haven't a clue as to the level of continuity in others' games, your comment about needing "more continuity" doesn't make much sense. More than you and your friends could manage? Perhaps so; I wouldn't presume to say, having never sat in with you and yours. More than me and my friends? Until you've played with us, you've no idea whether that's true.

As to "who 'owns' the campaign," well ... sometimes it's a co-op among extremely mature players who enjoy the synergy and creative tension, assembling something greater than the sum of its parts ... sometimes there's a campaign overseer and the other DMs think nothing of running short-term adventures about which he or she knows nothing to give him or her a chance to play regularly. The Head Forester doesn't necessarily know, or need to know, the location of every tree.

The last time I was running a game for a fairly standard-sized group, we had three RPG campaigns going simultaneously, one of which was a supers game, and would simply gather, decide what we wanted to do that day, and play. Worked for us.

Well, without getting too deep into your post; part of continuity for me includes the voice of the game. Unless you and your friends and very skilled voice actors I would have to presume that you aren't achieving that. I could be wrong.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:


In a round robin DMing setup, often a character is an NPC for three weeks and then a PC for two or three after that. I just don't see the problem as truly a problem, thus, perhaps because I'm used to that.

Yeah this explains a lot. This gaming style makes GMPC more than a useful tool, but a necessary one. Since you have a lot of practice I am guessing you have rounded off the edges of using GMPCs and are well practiced with them. Many folks continue to threadcrap the discussion of this thread but I for one am glad it happened because of hearing about others perspectives like this.

-Cheers


The alternating GM's within the same game is the primary purpose I would use GMPC's for. In practice though, I would still want them to take a largely backseat during one's GM time. I would probably give my character something else to do while I was GMing and not play him at all during that time, bringing him back in right at the end of my last session, then hand off the GM-baton.

One of my core concepts with GM'ing is to "always be a fan of the PCs". That just feels awkward when I'm including myself in that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Well, without getting too deep into your post; part of continuity for me includes the voice of the game. Unless you and your friends and very skilled voice actors I would have to presume that you aren't achieving that. I could be wrong.

I'm actually known for switching voices constantly with my NPCs. I'll change accents back and forth when two or more of them are conversing.

(Slightly off topic: I recall a supers game in which I'd employed DC's Etrigan, and made the tactical error of initially speaking in rhyme, as he so often does. My players then tormented me by focusing attention and directing conversation almost exclusively at him in a playful attempt to have me return to standard narrative ... and were delighted when I continued finding a good rhyme in my relevant responses. It was actually kinda nerve-wracking, though. They didn't see him too often after that.)

I take it you're not much of a Martin fan, with different characters holding the floor each chapter?

I do understand the desire for a prevailing voice. I don't always share it, obviously.


Irontruth wrote:
The alternating GM's within the same game is the primary purpose I would use GMPC's for. In practice though, I would still want them to take a largely backseat during one's GM time.

If you're focused on your DMPC while you yourself are DMing, something's wrong.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Fair, fair, I see where you are coming from. A frog in a deep well knows nothing of the ocean. There is no ocean, there can't be an ocean, because there is the well and only the well, and it "always is like that and it never is different".

Thank you for briefly sharing your own foray into it. You have clearly communicated that you did it badly once upon a time. There is no shame in mistakes far in the past. I would like to encourage you to message me if you would like to try the ocean, be helped to get to the ocean or hear what it was like.

George Carlin should be taught and discussed in schools, but not deified.

Thank you for the offer, but I must politely decline. I've seen the ocean, I've smelled the ocean and it was full of crude oil and seaweed. I have no need to see it again.

Furthermore, our previous exchange in this very thread has led me to believe that our differences are so significant that no good thing can come from a private conversation about them.

Also, you are still reading what I am writing with blinders on. I am specifically pointing out, repeatedly in fact, that others may have positive experiences with GMPCs but that my experiences are so negative that I no longer believe it is possible to have a good experience with them.

So you may have found a beach without crude oil and seaweed. Good for you. For goodness sake, -enjoy it-. However, I have utterly no need to move there because frankly, every time I've been told about such a beach and I go to visit it, I end up with crude oil on my feet and seaweed in my hair.


Jaelithe wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
I think George Carlin should be deified.
George would not have approved.

He probably wouldn't. However, I am pretty sure he knew what metaphors were, and consequently he wouldn't read it quite as literal as what I wrote.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Well, without getting too deep into your post; part of continuity for me includes the voice of the game. Unless you and your friends and very skilled voice actors I would have to presume that you aren't achieving that. I could be wrong.

I'm actually known for switching voices constantly with my NPCs. I'll change accents back and forth when two or more of them are conversing.

(Slightly off topic: I recall a supers game in which I'd employed DC's Etrigan, and made the tactical error of initially speaking in rhyme, as he so often does. My players then tormented me by focusing attention and directing conversation almost exclusively at him in a playful attempt to have me return to standard narrative ... and were delighted when I continued finding a good rhyme in my relevant responses. It was actually kinda nerve-wracking, though. They didn't see him too often after that.)

I take it you're not much of a Martin fan, with different characters holding the floor each chapter?

I do understand the desire for a prevailing voice. I don't always share it, obviously.

I salute you for your dedication to our vocation, Sir.

[doglatin]
Nos adjudicati te salutamus!
[/doglatin]

I've actually found myself in similar situations when a party organizes a moot or a conversation between two opposing groups.

And I find myself sitting there arguing with myself until the PCs intercede.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

To stay with the frog-metaphors, I think it's more accurate to think of The Alkenstarian as a frog who repeatedly tried to swim in the ocean, and after nearly dying, realized it was a freshwater frog.

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
I think George Carlin should be deified.
George would not have approved.
He probably wouldn't. However, I am pretty sure he knew what metaphors were, and consequently he wouldn't read it quite as literal as what I wrote.

Neither did I. It was meant to amuse.


The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Fair, fair, I see where you are coming from. A frog in a deep well knows nothing of the ocean. There is no ocean, there can't be an ocean, because there is the well and only the well, and it "always is like that and it never is different".

Thank you for briefly sharing your own foray into it. You have clearly communicated that you did it badly once upon a time. There is no shame in mistakes far in the past. I would like to encourage you to message me if you would like to try the ocean, be helped to get to the ocean or hear what it was like.

George Carlin should be taught and discussed in schools, but not deified.

Thank you for the offer, but I must politely decline. I've seen the ocean, I've smelled the ocean and it was full of crude oil and seaweed. I have no need to see it again.

Furthermore, our previous exchange in this very thread has led me to believe that our differences are so significant that no good thing can come from a private conversation about them.

Also, you are still reading what I am writing with blinders on. I am specifically pointing out, repeatedly in fact, that others may have positive experiences with GMPCs but that my experiences are so negative that I no longer believe it is possible to have a good experience with them.

So you may have found a beach without crude oil and seaweed. Good for you. For goodness sake, -enjoy it-. However, I have utterly no need to move there because frankly, every time I've been told about such a beach and I go to visit it, I end up with crude oil on my feet and seaweed in my hair.

I haven't worn blinders since I was a dmpc sentient horse. :)

Thanks for the best wishes, yeah I'll continue to have a good time.


Nearyn wrote:

To stay with the frog-metaphors, I think it's more accurate to think of The Alkenstarian as a frog who repeatedly tried to swim in the ocean, and after nearly dying, realized it was a freshwater frog.

-Nearyn

And concluded the ocean was terrible, and that no one should swim in it.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Nearyn wrote:

To stay with the frog-metaphors, I think it's more accurate to think of The Alkenstarian as a frog who repeatedly tried to swim in the ocean, and after nearly dying, realized it was a freshwater frog.

-Nearyn

And concluded the ocean was terrible, and that no one should swim in it.

You can read and reread what I've written above and I say, and I quote:

The Alkenstarian wrote:
Let me start by once more underscoring that if someone else is okay with this, then it's entirely up to them to use GMPCs ... but for me, it's a dealbreaker that would result in me leaving that game first and the group entirely subsequently.

I have also written:

The Alkenstarian wrote:
Alright, you've had good experiences with it. Awesome. Good for you. And good for everyone else who's had those good experiences. All I can say is that despite every promise that "it's not going to be like that" or "this time it'll be different", it always is like that and it never is different, as far as I'm concerned, and that by now, the negative experiences are so massive, so overwhelming and so destructive for my wish to play this game that it is an absolute, diamond-hard, unquestioning and complete deal-breaker for me as a player. Any GM I play with that introduces a GMPC will lose a player. Instantly.

Now, kindly tell me where I am saying that others are not allowed to swim in the ocean, to continue the use of your own metaphor?

I'm saying -I- refuse to swim in the ocean. I couldn't care less if you do so. If you want to run a solo-campaign for yourself, made up exclusively of GMPCs why on -earth- would I want to interfere with that?

I have posted how I felt about this. I have posted how I would react to a GM who wanted to introduce a GMPC to a group I was a part of.

I am not some kind of half-crazed RP-fascist who wants to tell everyone how they can run their games, despite the fact that you seem to think that's the case. I'm saying that no game I am a part of will include GMPCs, because if there ARE GMPCs involved, I won't be a part of it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Nearyn wrote:

To stay with the frog-metaphors, I think it's more accurate to think of The Alkenstarian as a frog who repeatedly tried to swim in the ocean, and after nearly dying, realized it was a freshwater frog.

-Nearyn

And concluded the ocean was terrible, and that no one should swim in it.

That seems like a big *snicker* leap *end of snicker* in logic, you're making there. :P

Reading back through The Alkenstarian's posts, it appears quite clear that she's arguing her own opinion, and sharing her personal point of view - not telling others that they're obligated to share it :)

Surely there is no more point to chasing this conversation. Instead, why don't we leave room for others to share their opinion? I don't think anyone has any doubts as to your, or The Alkenstarian's opinion on the topic, any longer ^__^

-Nearyn


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What an excellent suggestion, Nearyn.

I'd be perfectly happy to walk away from this at this point. I'm somewhat aghast that what I've written has been read in that way, and I'd be more than happy to leave well enough alone.

DM Under The Bridge, what say you? Shall we back away from one another at this point and agree to disagree civilly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Post amended.]

Let's just go with, "People play this game to have fun. If some aspect isn't fun, they should avoid it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More importantly how does everyone feel about Smurfs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pappy Smurf wrote:
More importantly how does everyone feel about Smurfs?

Never trust anything that can turn lead to gold.... AND be eaten. Way to versatile.


Jaelithe wrote:

[Post amended.]

Let's just go with, "People play this game to have fun. If some aspect isn't fun, they should avoid it."

Yeah I wonder about that in this hobby. Challenges can be not at all fun: parts of dungeons, recurring features, traps, quests, but overcoming them (if you can pull it off) can lead to immense enjoyment and satisfaction. The truth of fun is in the pudding but first you have to make and cook it to get to the fun.

It is also a tall ask for everything to be fun all the time, I've never managed it (as there are highs and lows) and if you avoid and delete anything once it is no fun I wonder how much of the game would be left over time, as there are a lot of components of the game that could be lost, e.g. some players find shopping fun, others find it incredibly dull and quite far from fun. The reaction to shopping will vary but jettisoning it entirely from the game to make it more of the fun and less of the dreariness does cut a part of the game out (I've experimented with trying this but removing some of the bland didn't add more of the real fun, because that came from other sources and was built up with setting, challenges, npc relationships).

As to Alken, civil sounds good and isn't a problem over here. I won't walk away because I'm still curious about this thread and its course, and I have some posts to read.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

[Post amended.]

Let's just go with, "People play this game to have fun. If some aspect isn't fun, they should avoid it."

Yeah I wonder about that in this hobby.

[Brief essay on the nature of "fun."]

You're not differentiating between "challenging and somewhat off-putting as it occurs, but ultimately enjoyable for having succeeded" and "irritating to me by its very nature or as a result of my experiences."

For example, anyone who wanted to hit Ye Olde Magick Shoppe for the stuff they wanted, I'd laugh out of the room and, if they insisted such must be implemented as the only right way to play, cast out of my game. I find the concept absurd and practically offensive. I despise/loathe/revile/abhor the "magic is so common as to be a mass-produced commodity" kind of game, and would run from that even faster than The Alkenstarian would a GMPC. Magic is to be won, earned, captured, bartered, found, created, scrounged, stolen or purchased at great, almost tragic price. It is most emphatically not to be taken off a shelf and rung up.

But that doesn't mean I don't want others to enjoy grabbing a few long swords +2 at Magic Mart if that's how they want to play. Just let me get out of eye and earshot before it commences.


Alken, should you look back in there was a real error you made:

"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.

Which is just for starters."

1) DMPCs can be played ignorant of the full details of the main quest, hidden reveals, the plot and its course, and can be quite ignorant of periods of time or what led on to what. DMPCs do not have to know everything, and can be played ignorant of important information just as one may run an npc that doesn't know the full details, e.g. the mayor wants you to stop the wild animal attacks. They have no clue what is causing them, and if you want to clue them in, they need to come across the information with the pcs help and persuasion.

2) DMPCs can bumble into traps, be run as unaware of their placement, and most crucially, can fail to detect them by the rules of the game. If a DMPC thinks they should be cautious and check, and if they can't reach the required number, then by the rules they simply do not know. The DMPC leads, or follows, the pcs and everyone has a great time. Thanks DMPC! Why don't you know everything?

3) Every weakness of every monster. The problem with this is that even if a DMPC did know the weakness of every monster, no class can exploit all of those weaknesses, i.e. you could set up a lycanthrope hunting dmpc with silver weapons aplenty, but that doesn't mean they have the tools to deal demons, aboleths or dragons. A dm could cheat and make them the ranger with favored enemy all, but a dm could also simply rig-up their dmpc to fight certain enemies and be ignorant and unprepared for others. Can't prepare for everything after all, it is a part of the very system and the classes.

4) Every secret door. The problem like traps, is if they can actually even detect it, and whether they are even looking at that time. DMPCs can be also played as unable to detect secret doors mechanically, or simply not very diligent or determined to find every secret door. That is a part of fleshing out the character of the DMPC. Of course, if the pcs motivated and asked the DMPC, maybe they could help the party?

5) Seeing through NPC subterfuge. While it would be great to have an ally with this ability, it depends how the dmpc is played - are they suspicious, paranoid, has the dm shown they can be wrong before? Is the DMPC actually incorrect in their assessment of someone? Yes, you could set up a DMPC who cried spy situation to show the DMPC doesn't know all, but I think it would be best to simply leave these investigations and discoveries for the players, I certainly have. Others have suggested DMPCs don't engage in crucial parts of the plot, and don't make the big moves or decisions. This seems like a good bet for avoiding this problem you claim as an "irrefutable, incontestable facts".

6) Loot. Ah loot. I have mentioned you can arrange the loot to not really be for the dmpc, but for the players. They can then decide how much they share, but you can also play it that the loot far more suits the pcs, and not the dmpc e.g. loot to help specific classes like druids, when the dmpc is not a druid; if the party has a lot of melee then plenty of armour and weapons for them and not much to power up the diviner. I've mentioned dmpcs not having the skills to find all things, and they can also be played without the tremendous greed to always be on the lookout and as engaging in fool's errands (I am sure there is loot behind this wall... except there isn't). DMPCs can also be stuck on rear guard or ranged support so they aren't the skirmishers/scouts or frontline encountering the loot first.

These are important aspects of running a DMPC that you are missing. They are not omnipotent or omniscient unless a dm makes the poor choice of running them that way. How dms play dmpcs and their capacities varies, preventing simply explanations of this is how it is all the time. Your "irrefutable, incontestable facts" are actually... not facts. They are more guidelines to running a superpowered dmpc specifically to overshadow whole parties. There is a far less radical course to using them in games.


Jaelithe wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:

[Post amended.]

Let's just go with, "People play this game to have fun. If some aspect isn't fun, they should avoid it."

Yeah I wonder about that in this hobby.

[Brief essay on the nature of "fun."]

You're not differentiating between "challenging and somewhat off-putting as it occurs, but ultimately enjoyable for having succeeded" and "irritating to me by its very nature or as a result of my experiences."

For example, anyone who wanted to hit Ye Olde Magick Shoppe for the stuff they wanted, I'd laugh out of the room and, if they insisted such must be implemented as the only right way to play, cast out of my game. I find the concept absurd and practically offensive. I despise/loathe/revile/abhor the "magic is so common as to be a mass-produced commodity" kind of game, and would run from that even faster than The Alkenstarian would a GMPC. Magic is to be won, earned, captured, bartered, found, created, scrounged, stolen or purchased at great, almost tragic price. It is most emphatically not to be taken off a shelf and rung up.

But that doesn't mean I don't want others to enjoy grabbing a few long swords +2 at Magic Mart if that's how they want to play. Just let me get out of eye and earshot before it commences.

And I agree with you. I don't like what magic marts do to the game (p.s. what tragic cost do you mean? That isn't in the rules. :P). My point is more that a player may really hate losing a character to a pit and spikes and declare it unfun and unenjoyable. Does that mean we remove pits and spikes from the game? Such a reflex-like adjustment of deleting the unfun would alter the game a lot. Fun and delete the non-fun: the campaign.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
My point is more that a player may really hate losing a character to a pit and spikes and declare it unfun and unenjoyable. Does that mean we remove pits and spikes from the game? Such a reflex-like adjustment of deleting the unfun would alter the game a lot. Fun and delete the non-fun: the campaign.

If I lost a throwaway 1st level character to a pit and spikes, I'd laugh about it and roll up another one. If I lost a 4th level character I'd been playing for some time and into whom I'd poured a lot of creativity and emotional investment to a pit and spikes, I'd absolutely think the DM was a bit of a jerk.

I prefer my characters to have significant plot immunity. They don't need to be bulletproof, but they do need to not die in some meaningless fashion twelve minutes into the evening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was so wrong...this thread boils down to a single question.

Do you trust your DM to be fair and impartial?

Very much like a spouse with a friend whom he/she might cheat with, you will always have the suspicion, yet hope that your spouse will just avoid the temptation completely.

Some people see the DMPC as a "threat" or temptation that will in the end be impossible for the DM to resist investing in.

Without trust you have no game.


KenderKin wrote:

I was so wrong...this thread boils down to a single question.

Do you trust your DM to be fair and impartial?

Very much like a spouse with a friend whom he/she might cheat with, you will always have the suspicion, yet hope that your spouse will just avoid the temptation completely.

Some people see the DMPC as a "threat" or temptation that will in the end be impossible for the DM to resist investing in.

Without trust you have no game.

No, it doesn't boil down to that.

I trust most people to run a fair game. I have no concerns that they are trying to dupe me (beyond what a DM should be, story secrets, mystery, etc)

I don't trust ANYONE (including me) to mentally compartmentalize information in front of them in the module / on the stat block, and not use that knowledge while at the same time actively engaging the module and being a fully-realized party member contributing equally to the scenario.

The requirements involved in that balancing act far exceed the capabilities of humans. It isn't about trust.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember having a conversation about DMPCs (it was on Wizards' site, back during the height of 3.5 days) and this fellow poster said that DMPCs knew everything that the DM knew. In fact, he went further and said that every single NPC knew everything that the DM knew by default. It was up to the DM to remove certain knowledge from the NPC, and that it was very likely the DM would forget to remove some knowledge from the DMPC and that is why they couldn't work. I mentioned that it seemed more logical to approach NPCs as knowing nothing and then adding what knowledge they should have. That way if you forget to add in something, there is little harm.

651 to 700 of 1,134 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you feel about GMPCs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.