How do you feel about GMPCs?


Gamer Life General Discussion

751 to 800 of 1,134 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Sure. That's what happened.
Saying a GM can learn about a scenario while playing it is like saying an architect can learn about a building he designed by driving by the outside.

He can. He only imagined what it looked like until it was built.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing part of the hang-up is that BigDTBone's part of the "It's only a GMPC when its being done wrong" group?

So any example presented of a GM handling the issue fine isn't going to count, because by that logic it's not actually a GMPC when the character in question is being run right.

Heh.


Zhangar wrote:
... any example presented of a GM handling the issue fine isn't going to count, because by that logic it's not actually a GMPC if the character in question is being run right.

Yep, which is why so many posts in this thread have set off my bu!!sh|t detector.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, as far as I can tell (he can correct me if I'm misrepresenting him)... to BigDTBone, it's only a GMPC if it's expected to be 100% identical to a PC. So what most of us have described are just NPCs. ^_^

Then again, he did seem to claim that NPCs shouldn't accompany the party at all - that Knowledge checks should be used instead, etc. Not sure where that fits in.


pres man wrote:
Your emphasis is on "player" while mine is on "character". This is where the disconnect is. I am not saying the GM can be a fully realized player, you can't "solve" your own riddle for example.

I'm glad we can agree on this.

Quote:
Let me clear though, as a player only, if I already know the answer to a riddle, I do not give the answer.

That is wonderful, and appropriate. Sometimes you have meta-knowledge and should act upon it. That is different from having ALL the meta-knowledge BECAUSE you created it.

Quote:
If as a player I am already familiar with a module/AP and I don't tell everyone where to go, what to get, who to trust and not trust, etc., does that make me dead weight?

This gets a bunch closer to the issue I see. And I will note that replay and pre-reading is widely considered to be taboo and in some circles cheating, even if you dont act on the knowledge.

As a player I would find sharing character spot-light time with someone who can't help me (intellectually) solve the challenge of the scenario (because they *quite literally* know where the bodies are) to be annoying.

It comes back down to you (as the GMPC) have two options:

(1) Tell me stuff
(2) Dont tell me stuff.

You dont have the option of "Help me figure out stuff"

When I play (which isn't often, I GM mostly) I want to play with a group who collectively figures out the challenge. If you aren't invovled in figuring out the challenge, then you shouldn't be in the spot-light. And A GM, by definition, can't be part of the group that solves the riddle that he wrote.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

(3) Use hints to help a frustrated and dispirited party get back in the game. (Do not use if this would make party annoyed.)

^_^

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In *KNOWING* I have become stronger...

Seriously though, NPCs, or GMPCs or whatever (we still lack a consistent definition) know nothing.

They don't learn jack. They're characters. Not some sort of bizarre mentally created ansible for one to interact with a game world, they're just character's, set pieces if you were.

They provide the world with the idea that its a living, breathing, interactive object for the players.

Consistent characterization plays into this.

As an example (I like real-life table examples):

A group I run with recently picked up a kobold ranger in a sewer. The guy knows about the sewers. he knows his way down there. When they ask him to ID a big scary monster running around (an ecorche) he just knows to run from it. If they asked him what one the villains of the campaign was up to, he'd shrug and say he had never heard of him.

Conversely, if they talk to someone else, he might know the bad guy, but not the layout of the city's sewer system.

Characters know different stuff. There's no 'learning' or 'puzzles' for the Non-Player Character.

That being said...

A Game Master is still playing the game even if he's not a "player." We might use terms like 'referee' or the like, but he sidles up to the table like everyone else does, and plays with his friends. To imply otherwise is an insult to those screen-monkeys like me everywhere.

I've been playing DnD and Pathfinder for a while, blisteringly little of my time has been spent on the other side of the shield.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What happens if the PCs charm or befriend an enemy lieutenant? Can she share information? Or does she forget it all upon being questioned?

After all, she is the GM, and thus knows everything. ^_^


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
You dont have the option of "Help me figure out stuff"

Why not? You have yet to clarify what is wrong with that position.

Again, have you ever tutored someone before? This is the common practice, you don't tell them the answer and you don't just sit silently. There are other options.

Again, if a player is just plain ignorant or the GM is being willfully ignorant, how is the party more harmed in the latter case than the former?


pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You dont have the option of "Help me figure out stuff"

Why not? You have yet to clarify what is wrong with that position.

Again, have you ever tutored someone before? This is the common practice, you don't tell them the answer and you don't just sit silently. There are other options.

Again, if a player is just plain ignorant or the GM is being willfully ignorant, how is the party more harmed in the latter case than the former?

I have. And I'm not interested in a tutor or mentor relationship. I am with a group of friends and we are working together to figure out something no of us has a clear solution for.

You cant participate in the "figuring it out" process because you already know the answer.

You could lead us through it.

You could distract us from it.

But you cannot help us solve it.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You dont have the option of "Help me figure out stuff"

Why not? You have yet to clarify what is wrong with that position.

Again, have you ever tutored someone before? This is the common practice, you don't tell them the answer and you don't just sit silently. There are other options.

Again, if a player is just plain ignorant or the GM is being willfully ignorant, how is the party more harmed in the latter case than the former?

I have. And I'm not interested in a tutor or mentor relationship. I am with a group of friends and we are working together to figure out something no of us has a clear solution for.

You cant participate in the "figuring it out" process because you already know the answer.

You could lead us through it.

You could distract us from it.

But you cannot help us solve it.

You are incorrect.

Unless the "us" in your post exclusively refers to you (and any other members of your group who have expressed a similar sentiment. ^_^


Kalindlara wrote:

What happens if the PCs charm or befriend an enemy lieutenant? Can she share information? Or does she forget it all upon being questioned?

After all, she is the GM, and thus knows everything. ^_^

Your example will greatly help me to illustrate.

Scene A -

Group says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Scene B -

The person who knows exactly what information is needed and is available in what locations, and the exact will save of the information holder says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Basically, in scene A the party doesn't know if it will work. They are being creative and trying stuff to solve a problem.

In scene B the person knows exactly what information is needed and where to get it and the best way to get it. They suggest an action that they know has a high chance of success. They are leading the party to the solution.

I have fun by solving problems.

I dont have fun by being lead to an answer.

I understand that the distinction is lost on some, and I further understand that some who appreciate the distinction dont care.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're starting to get accusatory, and that's not helpful or conducive to conversation.

Please consider how you frame others' GMing more carefully. ^_^


Kalindlara wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You dont have the option of "Help me figure out stuff"

Why not? You have yet to clarify what is wrong with that position.

Again, have you ever tutored someone before? This is the common practice, you don't tell them the answer and you don't just sit silently. There are other options.

Again, if a player is just plain ignorant or the GM is being willfully ignorant, how is the party more harmed in the latter case than the former?

I have. And I'm not interested in a tutor or mentor relationship. I am with a group of friends and we are working together to figure out something none of us has a clear solution for.

You cant participate in the "figuring it out" process because you already know the answer.

You could lead us through it.

You could distract us from it.

But you cannot help us solve it.

You are incorrect.

Unless the "us" in your post exclusively refers to you (and any other members of your group who have expressed a similar sentiment. ^_^

The only variable sentiment in my statement was *MY* desire to not have a tutor/mentor relationship. All the the *US* and *WE* statements were regarding a collective of individuals who *lack knowledge*. As the GM *has knowledge* they cannot belong to the collective of individuals who *lack knowledge*.

Ie, you cannot solve your own riddle.


Kalindlara wrote:

You're starting to get accusatory, and that's not helpful or conducive to conversation.

Please consider how you frame others' GMing more carefully. ^_^

Not at all, I gave a pointed example. There was absolutely no accusation of any kind. Please dont read into my posts what isn't there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I figured out the problem, and the problem is language.

You say, "you cannot help us solve it" and yet you acknowledge the (undesirable to you) possibility of a mentor or tutor relationship, which as I am sure we all realize do help people to solve problems. The key there is that it is the people, and not the tutor/mentor that are solving the problems.

What you mean to say is not, "you cannot help us solve it", but instead "you cannot solve the problem WITH us." You want someone that gets equal enjoyment at the specific problem being solved as you do instead of vicarious enjoyment.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

What happens if the PCs charm or befriend an enemy lieutenant? Can she share information? Or does she forget it all upon being questioned?

After all, she is the GM, and thus knows everything. ^_^

Your example will greatly help me to illustrate.

Scene A -

Group says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Scene B -

The person who knows exactly what information is needed and is available in what locations, and the exact will save of the information holder says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Basically, in scene A the party doesn't know if it will work. They are being creative and trying stuff to solve a problem.

In scene B the person knows exactly what information is needed and where to get it and the best way to get it. They suggest an action that they know has a high chance of success. They are leading the party to the solution.

I have fun by solving problems.

I dont have fun by being lead to an answer.

I understand that the distinction is lost on some, and I further understand that some who appreciate the distinction dont care.

Let me try a counterpoint back to you to explain this a bit more.

You keep bringing up 'puzzles.'

Lets take as an example (just an example, so lets not get pedantic), a logic puzzle.

When I create a logic puzzle I will say stuff like..

Who lives in what color house and in what order?

I then provide information like..

Bill says he lives in the blue house.
Al says he lives in the green house and knows Bill's not his neighbor.
And Koshak's a kobold who's colorblind but knows he lives next to Sally.

That's not enough to solve our puzzle, but what's happening? Each one of those fellows, who could be an NPC, is providing bits and pieces of information that the solver (in your analogy) utilizes to reach his solution.

A DMPC with you who upon capturing the lieutenant says 'Lets charm him' doesn't know his will save bonuses, or his stats, even if the DM does. The character just knows 'charm usually makes people more compliant.'

If the DMPC from your example knew that the Lt. in question was Grofel the Steadfast with a rep for resisting charm spells, he'd probably be disinclined to suggest a charm. He might know that, even if the PCs don't. He just imparted his knowledge to the party.

I had a NPC with a party once when they encountered a towers of hanoi test, he suggested that they just cut the damn thing because he couldn't keep the switching mechanic straight.

The DMPC/NPC gives input or information that enters into the overall knowledge pool utilized by the players to come to a conclusion.

There's more then just
'I give you nothing.' and 'I solve it for you.'

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding accusatory or insulting language:

BigDTBone wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

What happens if the PCs charm or befriend an enemy lieutenant? Can she share information? Or does she forget it all upon being questioned?

After all, she is the GM, and thus knows everything. ^_^

Your example will greatly help me to illustrate.

Scene A -

Group says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Scene B -

The person who knows exactly what information is needed and is available in what locations, and the exact will save of the information holder says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Basically, in scene A the party doesn't know if it will work. They are being creative and trying stuff to solve a problem.

In scene B the person knows exactly what information is needed and where to get it and the best way to get it. They suggest an action that they know has a high chance of success. They are leading the party to the solution.

Here, you have accused me and others of running NPCs this way. I do not. Compartmentalization, I believe, is the word that someone upthread used.

BigDTBone wrote:

I have fun by solving problems.

I dont have fun by being lead to an answer.

If you see it as being led 100% of the time, with no gray areas, we will have to disagree. Please clarify if I'm misrepresenting your position.

BigDTBone wrote:
I understand that the distinction is lost on some, and I further understand that some who appreciate the distinction dont care.

This is what I was commenting on. If someone disagrees with your position, they're either too dense to know how wrong they are, or are knowingly doing wrong. (The possibility that it's not black-or-white does not appear in your post.)

So... you've called those you disagree with either (a) stupid, or (b) uncaring. I don't appreciate being implied to be either of those things.

Could you clarify what I've misunderstood about this post, please?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I think I may be able to be more clear about this point, so let me try,

A *PLAYER* has the task of *LEARNING* about the world in order to complete a challenge in the game.

The way that a *PLAYER* learns about the world is via their *PLAYER CHARACTER*

A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.

So the GM necessarily cannot employ a *PLAYER CHARACTER* to complete the task of learning on his/her behalf.

All the GM's *PLAYER CHARACTER* can do is go through the motions.

Going through the motions isn't sufficient to warrant full-billing as a party member.

It takes away from the actual *PLAYERS* of the game.

Yeah, but... I disagree. As a player.

Replying here, because I'm about to get up and run errands. I will respond to your well-thought post in the next few hours, but for now I think I can respond to this one quickly.

Do you disagree that going through the motions isn't sufficient, or that all a GMPC can do is to go through the motions?

More to come depending on your responce.

Good luck and God's blessing on your errands!

To clarify: I disagree with your entire premise - each step of it.

So, point-by-point:

BigDTBone wrote:
A *PLAYER* has the task of *LEARNING* about the world in order to complete a challenge in the game.

First fallacy: the character has the task of learning about the world in order to enable the player to act on that learned knowledge to complete a challenge in the game.

Presupposing that a player and a character must know exclusively the same things is presupposing the automatic use of metagame knowledge, which returns to the concept of information compartmentalization. If a character has never heard of a "troll", regardless of how informed the player is, the character should not (by the character's rights or merits) "know" that the correct answer is literally "kill it with fire".

Many groups allow metagame knowledge to color the player's actions, but this is not inherent to the player itself.

BigDTBone wrote:
The way that a *PLAYER* learns about the world is via their *PLAYER CHARACTER*

Often, but not inherently true. Effectively, this means it is exclusive to certain play styles.

As just one example of where this is false, any time you've multiple rotating GMs (something mentioned a few times in this thread) within a singular setting or story, however, this is effectively non-true or even possible, outside of exceedingly difficult (to my way of thinking) limitations on the current GM (and probably requires some sort of meta-GM, or AP guidebook written by a neutral third party).

BigDTBone wrote:
A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.

This is false. As a GM, I learn stuff all the daggum time. Perhaps I didn't think of all the details of the world from all angles and every piece of minutiae.

What does that coffee pot look like?

What kind of embroidery is on the pillow?

What hair color is the barmaid? Really? What's her favorite color? What's her favorite food? Orientation? Is her father a "kill on sight" or is he open to the idea of wooing her? Really?! SCORE!
(And so ends a vigorous sessions of "Spinning things out of thin air.")

Beyond that, there are GMs that roll for things randomly. What's in the treasure horde? Let's find out!

The point is, a GM can't know "everything" about their world before-hand. They can know "everything there is to know" (i.e. everything they've created to date)... but that's not necessarily "everything" that's in the world.

That is what's super-human: the ability to know all details before hand.

What's more, my world changes in response to the characters. Did I plan for the characters to go that way or do that thing? No. But that's okay - they did, and now I've got to scramble and learn new things about the world, taking my current knowledge and making a whole new set of knowledge. This is, in fact, learning about the world.

BigDTBone wrote:
So the GM necessarily cannot employ a *PLAYER CHARACTER* to complete the task of learning on his/her behalf.

Aaaaaaaaaactually untrue. You know those questions above? As both a player watching a GMPC run by another and as a GM with a GMPC, I've seen the GMPC in character ask those kind of questions which creates a learning experience and organically grows the world. The GM, then, must learn new things about the world, and grows, and does so through the GMPC.

But, of course, you mean in the course of an adventure (or at least, that's where most of this would become a problem).

That still doesn't mean that a GM can't learn through their GMPC.

Again, from both sides of the screen, I've watched as a GM learns and realizes a brand new angle to a certain problem. Why? Because they're now at that situation and looks at it through the eyes of their character - a character who does not know what they do, and thus must engage in ingenuity and come up with something new and different to overcome the obstacle in front of them.

This goes back to a GM being a finite creature. Sure, they have "all power" and "all knowledge (that exists)", but the person, the human behind the role, does not. They are not infinite, and thus will, inevitably, overlook things, because, the game, in the end, is an illusion, a story woven by everyone and facilitated (for various definitions of the term "facilitated"*) by the GM to create an effect within the minds of all the players (including the GM): that of creating a piece of interactive entertainment (which may or may not come with other benefits or emotional responses).

* Including, but not limited to: "arbitrated" or "facilitated" or "guided" or "controlled" or "loosely suggested" or any number of other things or combinations of the above. "Facilitated" is really more of a "filler" word than anything else.

All that stuff above means...,

BigDTBone wrote:
All the GM's *PLAYER CHARACTER* can do is go through the motions.

... is true, for the reasons described above.

BigDTBone wrote:
Going through the motions isn't sufficient to warrant full-billing as a party member.

Hah! You've never met some of my fellow gamers or their PCs!

Wooo~! That's what we call a "zing!"

(No, but seriously, some of them are great people, and fun to have around the table, even, but... yeah, they just roll dice and keep quiet.)

BigDTBone wrote:
It takes away from the actual *PLAYERS* of the game.

[Citation Needed]

pres man wrote:
I guess I am confused here. A PC that doesn't know what is going to happen, just because the player doesn't know, is function identical to a GMPC that doesn't know what is going to happen because the GM chooses not to have the character know. In both cases the characters don't know. You don't punish players for being incidentally ignorant, I fail to see the issue for a GM being willfully ignorant. The party is no worse off in either case.

Or, you know, I could just copy/paste knightday's and pres man's posts, as they tend to be far more eloquent and cover things far more succinctly than I.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Sure. That's what happened.
Saying a GM can learn about a scenario while playing it is like saying an architect can learn about a building he designed by driving by the outside.
He can. He only imagined what it looked like until it was built.

Dang it, Jaelithe! Beat me to it! :D

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But your posts are so much longer, TL. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Tactical map versus describe/assume which is better...discuss amongst yourselves.

As a player and GM, I tend to like the latter better, though the latter plus lots of clarifying questions tends to be best. But I know many who prefer the former, so that's good, too.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Tactical map versus describe/assume which is better...discuss amongst yourselves.
As a player and GM, I tend to like the latter better, though the latter plus lots of clarifying questions tends to be best. But I know many who prefer the former, so that's good, too.

I have too many minis to prefer the latter too much. But I occasionally toy with the idea. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
But your posts are so much longer, TL. ^_^

Very true!

(Most of the time.)

((Hence "TL" being wwwwaaaaaayyyyyy too apt a nick-name...)) >.>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
I have too many minis to prefer the latter too much. But I occasionally toy with the idea. ^_^

Related: Heroscape (the boardgame) is an awesome game... >.>


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have used GMPCS on several ocassions and I will admit that I've found that they can really add to the experience. However I have made myself a few rules which govern how I play these npcs.

1) They are not the heroes of the story.
They are never recognized as such. They assistants, guides and support for the players.

2) Their role must not overlap with a player character.
If the group has an arcane caster then they don't need me throwing a second one in. This is the mechanical corollary to point 1.

3) They cannot be the face of the party.
In the unlikely event that they have social skills they do not use them, I am not here to play with myself.

4)They guide but do not steer.
With a gmpc I have a voice in the party whom the party trust. Through this I can make suggestions providing it is in character. The dmnpc will never object to whatever the party majority decides to do. EVER.

5)They consume no resources.
They will not take treasure rewards nor will they require purchase of consumables. If the party has stretched resources the gmpc shall be poor, if everyone is fully stocked on consumables so are they. A pc should never give nor receive significant amounts of gold from this character.

6)They have a place and a purpose and then they leave.
Normally a GMPC is deployed by me into groups of less than 4 in order to shore up the numbers. When the 4th seat is filled the GMPC becomes an NPC and steps back. The GMPC always has a story reason to exist and a clearly defined goal, once fulfilled they retire and a new gmpc will emerge if still required.

7)They are optional and at players request.
I always ask smaller groups if they'd like to have a gmpc in order to give the group access to a more rounded set of tools. This allows players to be what they want without fear that their lack of a divine caster will be their doom.

8)They act as the players require in combat.
Whilst I dont normally pass the sheet over to the players the gmpc will follow direction in combat. This lets the players, as a team, strategize and plan without fear that I will have the gmpc misbehave for no real reason.

An example: In a certain AP my party had released an evil outsider from imprisonment in exchange for information. This information was provided as the outsider wanted the adventurers to succeed in order to vanquish those who imprisoned it.
Shortly after the party got TPK'd. Now this wasn't their fault entirely as we'd recently lost the 4th seat and they'd decided to soldier on without them. They didn't want a gmpc as...well... they got a lot of the npcs around them killed.
So I decided that this outsider would arrange their ressurection so they could continue playing. The players were having fun and we wanted the game to progress, but they needed a frontline figher.
Enter the DMPC.
I supplied the party with a dmpc figher whose life was sworn to the outsider for mysterious and unexplained reasons. The fighter explained they were now bound to ensure the parties success and follow every reasonable order given to them.
My players immensely enjoyed this as now they had a moral quandry and their debt to this outsider hanging over their head. Meanwhile I got to create and experience mid-level fighter play and very slowly develop this unique slice of story alongside the players.

DMPC's are wonderful things. Just remember that the focus should ALWAYS be your players and their characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did... did someone named "Gendif" just post and then delete said post?

EDIT: NOPE! It's right there! So weird! I saw that he posted, clicked "(1 new post)" and it... didn't show up until I posted! Sorry, man. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I... have no idea what just happened.


Gendif wrote:
I... have no idea what just happened.

NOTHING! I CERTAINLY DIDN'T RIP A HOLE IN THE UNIVERSE JUST TO EAT MY SANDWICH BEFORE I MADE IT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE IMPLYING. >.>

OH, LOOK, A DISTRACTION.

Gendif wrote:

3) They cannot be the face of the party.

In the unlikely event that they have social skills they do not use them, I am not here to play with myself.

HAHAH~! YOU SAID IT!

Whew! I think they bought it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cool list!

Gendif wrote:

4)They guide but do not steer.

With a gmpc I have a voice in the party whom the party trust. Through this I can make suggestions providing it is in character. The dmnpc will never object to whatever the party majority decides to do. EVER.

This is the only real guideline of these that I generally consider "super important", however I find this is generally important for a collective group working together to do anyway, unless the GM is comfortable splitting the party.

(And, while that is a trope, it's also not a bad way to play. In my experience, however, it usually takes lots of time, energy, effort, and vigor on the part of the GM to split their attention and playtime between the different groups... which is much more difficult to do with a regular game-night set up than a "come as you can" game set-up.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
But your posts are so much longer, TL. ^_^

Very true!

(Most of the time.)

((Hence "TL" being wwwwaaaaaayyyyyy too apt a nick-name...)) >.>

You know, I think that went right over his head.

Or maybe it didn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the current conversation, BigDTBone should read the Darths & Droids webcomic. In that comic, which is about a group playing d20 Star Wars or something like that, there's this player who pretty much creates the world for the GM on ocassions. Yeah, the GM fills in all the details later, but he allows for the players to expand on the world, and that one player sometimes surprises him with her great imagination. Here are the pages I'm talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
You know, I think that went right over his head.

It... it's very likely...

<.<

EDIT: Man, it took way too long to find a version of that which wasn't either labelled "you" or wasn't really dirty... :/

EDIT 2: Yay! I found two more! *goes into profile, as they will be useful later...*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Regarding the current conversation, BigDTBone should read the Darths & Droids webcomic. In that comic, which is about a group playing d20 Star Wars or something like that, there's this player who pretty much creates the world for the GM on ocassions. Yeah, the GM fills in all the details later, but he allows for the players to expand on the world, and that one player sometimes surprises him with her great imagination. Here are the pages I'm talking about.

Also an excellent example!


Ouch a ball to the old smurf berries......

Anyone have any conclusion to how to wrap it up. I still think it is a trust and communication issues between the DM and players in the confines of their own game.

I also find it strange that we have not seen moer/different people adding to our "facts" with their experiences.

Maybe most people have never seen the issue arise or possibly it was done so well that it was a non-issue that no one noticed.

A side question is what about with new players...that adjusts what the DM does and doesn't do, and how much "help" is given, doesn't it?

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've thought about gushing out my full DMPC history, but I'm not that invested. Yet. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
I've thought about gushing out my full DMPC history, but I'm not that invested. Yet. ^_^

Feel free to private message me!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gendif wrote:


1) They are not the heroes of the story.
They are never recognized as such. They assistants, guides and support for the players.

Almost all your GMPC rules were broken in this classic comic strip.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

...

Someone should tell James Jacobs he can't contribute to a game played in Golarion any more.

He's playing in Mummy's Mask, which he (at least to some extent) worked on.

Not in any significant sense, if I read correctly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've thought about gushing out my full DMPC history, but I'm not that invested. Yet. ^_^
Feel free to private message me!

I bet you say that to all the girls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally go for the obvious analogies between ancient ruins and my genitals, but whatever works for you :-)

Just remember, Sandpoint is Smooth B Quink's turf :-)


pres man wrote:

I think I figured out the problem, and the problem is language.

You say, "you cannot help us solve it" and yet you acknowledge the (undesirable to you) possibility of a mentor or tutor relationship, which as I am sure we all realize do help people to solve problems. The key there is that it is the people, and not the tutor/mentor that are solving the problems.

What you mean to say is not, "you cannot help us solve it", but instead "you cannot solve the problem WITH us." You want someone that gets equal enjoyment at the specific problem being solved as you do instead of vicarious enjoyment.

This is an accurate (and better) depiction of what I was trying to say with lead/help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Sure. That's what happened.
Saying a GM can learn about a scenario while playing it is like saying an architect can learn about a building he designed by driving by the outside.

Agreeing with that premise is ludicrous.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I've thought about gushing out my full DMPC history, but I'm not that invested. Yet. ^_^
Feel free to private message me!

The problem isn't my willingness to share... it's recapping campaigns, in great detail, all the way back to 2006. It's a big undertaking, is what I'm describing. ^_^

Still, I'm increasingly considering it.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

...

Someone should tell James Jacobs he can't contribute to a game played in Golarion any more.

He's playing in Mummy's Mask, which he (at least to some extent) worked on.

Not in any significant sense, if I read correctly.

Correct - I have since gathered that he only did development work on parts of The Slave Trenches of Hakotep. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
This thread makes me wonder how anyone runs cohorts. ^_^

The player runs their own cohorts, how else? I guess the DM can step in if the player has the cohort do something crazy suicidal and of course the DM can have the cohort make a comment once in a while, but the cohort is part of the PC.


Kalindlara wrote:

Regarding accusatory or insulting language:

BigDTBone wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

What happens if the PCs charm or befriend an enemy lieutenant? Can she share information? Or does she forget it all upon being questioned?

After all, she is the GM, and thus knows everything. ^_^

Your example will greatly help me to illustrate.

Scene A -

Group says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Scene B -

The person who knows exactly what information is needed and is available in what locations, and the exact will save of the information holder says, "Hey! Lets charm that enemy lieutenant and get them to tell us the stuff they know!"

Basically, in scene A the party doesn't know if it will work. They are being creative and trying stuff to solve a problem.

In scene B the person knows exactly what information is needed and where to get it and the best way to get it. They suggest an action that they know has a high chance of success. They are leading the party to the solution.

Here, you have accused me and others of running NPCs this way. I do not. Compartmentalization, I believe, is the word that someone upthread used.

I have made no such acusations. I gave a specific example of a possible permutation in order to help illustrate my point. I never sad that you did this. I never said that any specific person did this. I simply used your scenario as the basis in an example. Don't read things in my posts that aren't there.

Quote:


BigDTBone wrote:

I have fun by solving problems.

I dont have fun by being lead to an answer.

If you see it as being led 100% of the time, with no gray areas, we will have to disagree. Please clarify if I'm misrepresenting your position.

You misrepresent me. I'm saying that in the case of the GM-run character there are a limited number of ways that the GM *as a player* can contribute to the game. They can (1) lead the players, (2) distract the players, (3) do nothing. They cannot solve the challenge *with* the players, because they already have the solution to the challenge.

Quote:
BigDTBone wrote:
I understand that the distinction is lost on some, and I further understand that some who appreciate the distinction dont care.

This is what I was commenting on. If someone disagrees with your position, they're either too dense to know how wrong they are, or are knowingly doing wrong. (The possibility that it's not black-or-white does not appear in your post.)

So... you've called those you disagree with either (a) stupid, or (b) uncaring. I don't appreciate being implied to be either of those things....

Well, some people have indicated that they dont see the distinction in those positions in this thread. You are the one that used the word "dense" not me.

I also didn't say they were "wrong," only that their view is different from my own. Please dont read more into my post than what is there. As far as what you appreciate, well, if me saying that my view is different from yours is upsetting to you then you are welcome to change your views to match mine. I won't shy away from stating my opinion just because you find it upsetting that I disagree with you.


I personally have never allowed Leadership in my games :-)

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for the clarification. I still disagree with the way you've characterized my posts, but I appreciate that you seem to be trying to clarify. ^_^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Gendif wrote:


1) They are not the heroes of the story.
They are never recognized as such. They assistants, guides and support for the players.

Almost all your GMPC rules were broken in this classic comic strip.

That strip has always been pure comic gold, and every DM should read it- and then never, ever do that stuff. ;-)

Thanks for sharing!

Folks, we're getting a little bit too serious and personal here, so let's turn down the GRRR a bit? Please? Do this old grognard a solid, eh?

751 to 800 of 1,134 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you feel about GMPCs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.