How do you feel about GMPCs?


Gamer Life General Discussion

801 to 850 of 1,134 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Kalindlara wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. I still disagree with the way you've characterized my posts

I dont understand what you think I am mischaracterizing.

You say that I am being accusatory. I state that I am not.

You say that I am being binary. I show how my statement has nuance.

You say that I call people dumb. I have done no such thing.

You say that I call people wrong. I have done no such thing.

None of this characterizes your posts in anyway. I am simply responding to the accusations you are making against me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Somebody is itching for a fight, calm down there big guy :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
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

Full credit anyway. I trust you.

What a novel idea.


captain yesterday wrote:
Somebody is itching for a fight, calm down there big guy :-)

I'm trying to be polite, and explain my position using examples and address one-off concerns as they are asked.

In return I'm being told that I am being accusatory of specific people because of a generic example I gave. That I'm only allowing for binary logic because a reply to specific concern was taken out-of-context and a general statement. And on top of that I've been accused of calling people stupid and accused of telling people they are having bad-wrong-fun.

Please excuse me if my defense of those accusations have my hackles up. Particularly when the person making the accusations is additionally stating that my defense is mischaracterizing THEM!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Somebody is itching for a fight, calm down there big guy :-)

I'm trying to be polite, and explain my position using examples and address one-off concerns as they are asked.

In return I'm being told that I am being accusatory of specific people because of a generic example I gave. That I'm only allowing for binary logic because a reply to specific concern was taken out-of-context and a general statement. And on top of that I've been accused of calling people stupid and accused of telling people they are having bad-wrong-fun.

Please excuse me if my defense of those accusations have my hackles up. Particularly when the person making the accusations is additionally stating that my defense is mischaracterizing THEM!

I heard you the first time, still waiting for you to calm down, seems like you're taking it entirely too personally, and taking your anger too far, chill out :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Alken, should you look back in there was a real error you made:

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get back into this debate. As I said, I am going to back away from discussing this with you, in no small measure because I feel that what I had said was being misread and misinterpreted. The tone used is still accusatory and hostile, and for this reason, I have no wish to involve myself in further debates with you.

It seems to me like neither of us would gain anything whatsoever from such an exercise in futility.


captain yesterday wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Somebody is itching for a fight, calm down there big guy :-)

I'm trying to be polite, and explain my position using examples and address one-off concerns as they are asked.

In return I'm being told that I am being accusatory of specific people because of a generic example I gave. That I'm only allowing for binary logic because a reply to specific concern was taken out-of-context and a general statement. And on top of that I've been accused of calling people stupid and accused of telling people they are having bad-wrong-fun.

Please excuse me if my defense of those accusations have my hackles up. Particularly when the person making the accusations is additionally stating that my defense is mischaracterizing THEM!

I heard you the first time, still waiting for you to calm down, seems like you're taking it entirely too personally, and taking your anger too far, chill out :-)

I don't believe I've taken anything "too far." I have allowed my displeasure to surface in my tone, as well as using all-caps in emphasis in my previous post. That barely qualifies as expressing anger, certainly no need to ask me to calm down. I understand that it makes it easier to ignore a perspective when you can falsely characterize the people who espouse that perspective as "Angry, unlistening and unruly" folk who just won't calm down, but I think you're better than that.

In any event, I think this thread has run its course. I'll take some time and put together another post on this topic and that address the questions that tacticslion had and start a new thread with it later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In the end, people have their reasons why they don't want GMPCs, or why they do. What seems perfectly logical to me doesn't always translate to others, and vice versa.

There isn't a "right" and "wrong" in any of this. It boils down to what you and your table are interested in doing, and the rest of it doesn't really matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
There is however, a very large difference between being well versed in lore and knowing the things I detailed above.

I'm not really sure there is? At least I'm not seeing the great distinction between Player metagame and GM metagame... If the GM plays the character... according to his STATS, personality, and by the rules... there shouldn't be a problem.

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.

I've seen before the same situation... but it wasn't the DM doing it. In Scene B another player would point out someone who was a low level guard (fighter type = low will saves)... The DM knowing the exact Will save number isn't any more broken then anyone picking out a warrior for their will saves OR aiming for the healer first or any other bazillion metagamey things. The Dice still play a part in the game. Just because Scene B knows the exact save... the dice still determine if it works or not.

Same with anything else really. It takes a special group who'll admit at low levels that their characters do NOT know to switch to blunt weapons against skeletons or use a stake against a vampire or Fire against a troll.

The whole thing seems a disconnect between player knowledge and CHARACTER knowledge. If the DM plays his character correctly. Only knowing what his CHARACTER would know and only doing what his CHARACTER would do... then the game can progress just fine.

THAT said, I do believe that not ALL characters are suitable for DMPCs. As a player I had planned on a Sherlock Holmes type investigator who was going to know everything he could... Which is fine for a player. That would be SUPER ANNOYING as a DMPC. Merlin/Gandalf type characters who are just hanging around to hand out answers... would suck. Gimli? Pippin? Nothing wrong with having another sword/axe in the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brodert Quink, Lady's Man, esq. wrote:
I personally go for the obvious analogies between ancient ruins and my genitals, but whatever works for you :-)

WELP. FINALLY GOT IT. o.o

#excusemymeI'malittleslow


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.

Yeah I think it can come down to that. Trust is important, especially in games with a lot of investment.


BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Not only is compartmentalising not hard, it is a very important skill as a dm.

If you dm, do all of your npcs know everything and act in ways that suggest or reveal that they do?

If not, that is how you run dmpcs. They are just another npc with a limited amount of knowledge and understanding of events. It is also really how you can run low int or low wis npcs - the type that may need the pcs to explain what is actually going on after the big reveal.

Traitorous Villain: ha ha ha! Foolish adventurers you have played right into my hands and helped the forces of darkness pierce this plane and invade. The land is doomed. It was most amusing deceiving you.
PCs simultaneously: bast***! (and other expletives)
DMPC that is a bit slow: what? So he isn't on our side?


BigDTBone wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.
So long as you realize that means it's a trust issue for you, not that no one is capable of doing it.

Moreover, do you trust the GM not to use the information they have on the characters at the table in a fair manner and not use the meta-knowledge to target people unfairly knowing their weak scores, poor saves, gear choices, current buffs and so on?

Trust is a big deal in games, as in life. If you cannot trust the GM not to screw you over then you probably shouldn't play with them.

Indeed. But it isn't what I'm talking about. Jaelithe selectively edited my post in the quote to remove my full context. I included the full context to avoid just such a comment.

But you also ignore part of my comment that is quoted, so I will go into it.

I'm not saying that I don't trust GM's, I'm saying that the task you lay out to accomplish by playing a full-on party member character in a game you are running cannot be achieved by any human person.

As a GM part of your job is to create puzzles. (Just to be clear, I mean this in the most disambiguated sense possible. Ie, a "puzzle" is everything from a story plot to a hidden switch in scope) In order to do that you have to know the answer.

As a player part of your job is to solve the puzzles the GM gives you. IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER then you can't solve the puzzle. Your choices are to (1) say the answer, or (2) not say the answer. Both of those choices have issues as stated in my previous post.

Easy. The DMPC doesn't solve the puzzles, those are for the "real" players to solve. If the players can't, maybe the DMPC can if they pass a relevant check.


pres man wrote:
Those of us who have tutored in areas of study like mathematics often know the best way to get someone to find an answer isn't (1) to tell them the answer outright or (2) say nothing. And I would hardly say that tutors are "deadweight". I think you might be holding all players and PCs to a specific standard that isn't valid when you say, "full-on party members". Certainly different players are active in different amounts when different aspects of the game are in play. Not everyone has to be Sherlock for them to be contributing members.

Yes, as a tutor (that has just finished a long shift) you help them to find the answer, you don't just give it to them or they won't encode and remember how to find it, or really care much about the answer - after all it didn't come from them and their abilities, it is just another bit of information they heard.

Now how could a DMPC help the players in this? Well if the players are stuck the dmpc could partially work it out, but need the players to finish up the puzzle. They are working their way through it, but the pcs are the ones to solve it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Apparently I'm just superhuman at this whole NPC/DMPC thing. ^_^

We should form a league or something.

I'm just surprised it was so easy to be superhuman. It only took a few years from running games.


Spook205 wrote:

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.

Very nice examples. One of my hobgoblin dmpcs, although he comes from the same tribe/clan that invaded Isger, actually started off knowing very little about the place, because his political refugee parents had him in Andoran, where he grew up.

So in Isger, he kind of knows as much as Jon Snow. His parents ran by the policy "don't mention the war", and so apart from that he needs to keep his true identity hidden and that goblins and hobgoblins invaded Isger and ruined it, he is an Andoranean in thought and deed here to do good.


The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Alken, should you look back in there was a real error you made:

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get back into this debate. As I said, I am going to back away from discussing this with you, in no small measure because I feel that what I had said was being misread and misinterpreted. The tone used is still accusatory and hostile, and for this reason, I have no wish to involve myself in further debates with you.

It seems to me like neither of us would gain anything whatsoever from such an exercise in futility.

I am not hostile and I have not misinterpreted you. You claimed your opinions on dmpcs as facts. I've quoted and responded to what you said. The argument has now moved on, but I would like to thank you for sharing your claims - they just weren't facts if we take an even cursory look at them. I hope you will fully read my points and realise the errors in judgement you made on the facts of dmpcs.

Cheers Alkenstarian. Good gaming to you.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

I hope you will fully read my points and realise the errors in judgement you made on the facts of dmpcs.

Cheers Alkenstarian. Good gaming to you.

Once again, I'm not going to take the bait. My apologies, but our opinions on what "facts" are, are clearly polar opposites and consequently, further debate on the topic is pointless. What I see as facts, you claim can't stand up to scrutiny and vice versa.

There is no point in continuing to flog this horse, which is not only dead but has been reduced to meatless bonemeal already.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

In the end, people have their reasons why they don't want GMPCs, or why they do. What seems perfectly logical to me doesn't always translate to others, and vice versa.

There isn't a "right" and "wrong" in any of this. It boils down to what you and your table are interested in doing, and the rest of it doesn't really matter.

I think you may have just explained the whole thing better than anyone else so far on this thread. Kudos for that.

The thread's name is "How do you feel about GMPCs?", not "Why are GMPCs great?" or "Why do GMPCs suck?"

It's a thread where people can, and do, explain their opinions on the topic and why they feel it is either a good or a bad idea, usually based on past experience. And because opinions vary greatly from person to person, and because our individual experiences or lack thereof with GMPCs being used in campaigns we have previously been a part of, it is entirely likely that out of a group of six players and one GM, two players have never experienced a GMPC being used, two have experienced it and loved every second of it, and two have experienced it and grown so disgusted with it that they can't accept the use of them any longer.

And none of them are right and wrong. The facts for each person are completely different, because the facts are based on personal experience. In the end, the two players who can't accept the use of GMPCs are then left with the simple choice when the GM then introduces one into the ongoing campaign, of biting back their bile and soldiering on despite probably seething inwardly, or getting up and politely excusing themselves from the game.

There's no absolute truth in this, except to each of us as individuals. My absolute truth is clearly not the absolute truth for a lot of other people involved in this debate, and their absolute truth makes no sense whatsoever to me or others with similar, bad experiences.

What remains is that if there is no consensus within each game group on the topic, it's up to each group to find some sort of amiable solution, even if that involves people leaving the group over the issue.

We can't force people to like or dislike this. And if this entire discussion up to now has shown anything, it is that there is absolutely no way of convincing each other that we should learn to love GMPCs or that we should all universally loathe them.

Again, the title of the thread springs to mind.


Glad to have you back.

In regards to this: "There's no absolute truth in this, except to each of us as individuals."

If there is no absolute truth and it is all just opinion, then there aren't "facts" - your claimed facts aren't factual, they are beliefs not the cold hard truth. The absolute truth doesn't even exist, now by your own admittance.

That your facts weren't the facts, that there are different experiences that can go a variety of ways was the point I was trying to make. A purely negative view on DMPCs always being terrible excludes all contrary experiences and ways of running them. DMPCs can be run much better than the picture you painted as "irrefutable, incontestible fact."

Great to have you back Alken, with your last post we are now much closer to agreeing totally. That deserves a like.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Glad to have you back.

In regards to this: "There's no absolute truth in this, except to each of us as individuals."

If there is no absolute truth and it is all just opinion, then there aren't "facts" - your claimed facts aren't factual, they are beliefs not the cold hard truth. The absolute truth doesn't even exist, now by your own admittance.

That your facts weren't the facts, that there are different experiences that can go a variety of ways was the point I was trying to make. A purely negative view on DMPCs always being terrible excludes all contrary experiences and ways of running them. DMPCs can be run much better than the picture you painted as "irrefutable, incontestible fact."

Great to have you back Alken, with your last post we are now much closer to agreeing totally. That deserves a like.

I must regretfully maintain that I am still not taking the bait. However, it may be prudent of me to explain that what I meant earlier by "backing away" was not a matter of backing away from the debate, but backing away from one another. I have no interest in further comments on your views, and while you may wish to comment on what I write, and while that is entirely your perogative, I have no wish to respond to such comments either, except to continue to explain that I am not taking the bait dangled in front of me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

When we're not even agreeing on the meaning of "truth," we're not likely to get anywhere.

"In my experience, this does not work. My experiences were so bad I don't even want to try it again," is an entirely valid stance, and the position of a person who's had enough and has in their mind bigger fish to fry. In the case of DMPCs, I'd wish them well and hope they hooked up with a like-minded gaming group, or (if I really liked them as a person and player), I might say, "As a personal favor to me, give it a chance. Bail if you still hate it."

On the other hand ...

"In my experience, this does not work. Thus, it cannot work, because my opinion is the be-all and end-all (and my logic is unimpeachable) and the people who believe it can work, and even those who claim to have seen it work, are just deluding themselves," is the position of someone whose mind has closed to anything with which they don't agree, at least on this point. Don't beat your head against a brick wall. Back away slowly and let them think what they want to think. They're going to do so anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A problem with these forums is that it is plagued with posts that shoves other people's opinions down other people's throats.

If this thread had a list of ways for GM's to make GMPCs function well in campaigns (for people who wanted to use GMPCs in their campaign), we would actually gain something from reading posts in this thread.

Otherwise all we are doing is flexing our debating skills, which is fun to a certain degree just not very productive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.

Don't metagame. Problem solved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
If this thread had a list of ways for GM's to make GMPCs function well in campaigns (for people who wanted to use GMPCs in their campaign), we would actually gain something from reading posts in this thread.

But it does have just that (well, maybe not literally a list, but IIRC some posters described how they use DMPCs in their games), so either you didn't actually read the posts in this thread or you didn't gain anything from reading them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

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.

The problem is there's still a will save involved so it has just as much chance of not working for the GMPC as it does for any other player who suggests doing such a thing. What does seem suspect to me is that such a commonplace suggestion would even cause someone to bat an eyelash.

I wrecked an entire encounter with giants with grease because I knew that Giants tend to have poor Reflex saves, what with them being really big and all. They could have made their saves, but they didn't. I was a player...how is this any different?


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
If this thread had a list of ways for GM's to make GMPCs function well in campaigns (for people who wanted to use GMPCs in their campaign), we would actually gain something from reading posts in this thread.
But it does have just that (well, maybe not literally a list, but IIRC some posters described how they use DMPCs in their games), so either you didn't actually read the posts in this thread or you didn't gain anything from reading them.

lol,

Condescending comments sure, lots of 'you are a bad gm/good gm' or 'GMPCs are always a problem' or "GMPCs are never a problem' type of comments.

Something like 10% of the posts offered helpful solutions that didn't push for an agenda of for or against.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
If this thread had a list of ways for GM's to make GMPCs function well in campaigns (for people who wanted to use GMPCs in their campaign), we would actually gain something from reading posts in this thread.
But it does have just that (well, maybe not literally a list, but IIRC some posters described how they use DMPCs in their games), so either you didn't actually read the posts in this thread or you didn't gain anything from reading them.

It has, but not for hundreds of posts now. You have to go pretty far back.


Ashiel wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.
Don't metagame. Problem solved.

Oh boy ... this is going to be a long reply. I apologize in advance, but please bear with me, because I'm getting to the point where I think I need to try to get to the bottom of all this.

Firstly, Ashiel ... yes, not metagaming would solve the problem. It's a perfect solution.

Except for two issues (both drawn from experience):

1: It can be practically impossible to completely avoid that for some people. I'm not saying there aren't people who can't do it, but certainly not every GM using GMPCs is actually capable of not metagaming. In fact, a lot of them ... 100% of those I have played under who tried, in fact ... can't actually avoid it, despite all their good intentions. Your own experience clearly differs. I acknowledge that. No skin off my nose. But it is simply not the experience I have had with this, not even with very, very good GMs running the games.

2: Even if you don't metagame, we're back to one of my previous points, namely that you have to dumb down your GMPC, to avoid using the knowledge you have access to as the GM. Unless you're somehow capable of discombobulating your brain into two separate entities (and never shall the twain meet), where one half runs the GMPC and the other half runs the game, then there's going to be overlapping knowledge and if you want to avoid metagaming, you're going to have to avoid doing things that may be logical or desirable, from an IC point of view. Not in every situation, I absolutely acknowledge that, but certainly occasionally.

So yes, it looks that simple. In actuality, however, it rarely if ever is that simple.

Anyway, I've been giving all of this a fair bit of thought by now, and the more I read back over the comments, it just seems less and less like people are even having the same conversation, across the Pro/Con-divide. What to the pro-side seems a perfectly simple set of solutions and methods, are to the con-side completely unrealistic and never actually implemented successfully. What to the con-side is completely rational and logical, is to the pro-side nothing heavyhanded bias and unreasonable prejudice.

Both sides have, if we go back over this entire thread, accused each other of lack of skill as players and most especially as GMs, and neither side is likely correct in their statements. We're just talking about different experiences and frankly, both sides are valid.

However, the starting points are too far apart and words have completely different meanings for the two sides. What is "factual" to the con-side is blatantly incorrect and demonstrably false to the pro-side, and what is "factual" to the pro-side is hopelessly naïve and a recipe for disaster for the con-side. And both sides are correct within the sphere of their experiences.

For example, the point Ashiel made: "Don't metagame".

In order to make such a statement, I have to assume that Ashiel personally seen this accomplished in one of three ways. Either Ashiel was the GM, and didn't metagame a GMPC, Ashiel was a player who witnessed one or more GMs avoiding metagaming, or both at different times.

Fair kop. I absolutely accept the possibility of this happening.

But to those of us on the other side of this great chasm of disagreement, it's just not that simple. Because our collective experiences show that metagaming will inevitably happen, or the GMPC becomes a pointless liability when the GM refuses to play the character in a logical, sensible manner so as to avoid metagaming.

So here we are ... back at the starting point yet again, where your solution isn't one that holds any weight in my experience, and where my example is painfully simple to solve in your world.

And we haven't actually approached any kind of common ground, because of a mutual inability to accept the other side's premise as valid.

Somehow, that just seems wrong ...

Obscenely long-winded attempt to get to the bottom of this debacle:

Given the vitriol of the debates so far ... which I admit to having contributed to ... please, if you disagree with the following example, that's alright with me. I'm absolutely okay with people not agreeing, but this is how it looks from where I'm sitting. Don't shoot me over this, please. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the whole thing by now, because frankly, this train went off the rails back in Chattanooga and is now barrelling across the Atlantic seabed towards Moscow Central, it's so messed up.

Before I do this, please let me make it absolutely clear that while I use the "I"-form in the following, this isn't about "oh-woe-is-me". I'm not trying to garner support or sympathy for my views. It's not about that. It's just me using my own posts as an example, in trying to figure out why this thread went so badly awry.

So here goes:

Obviously, I feel very strongly about this issue. I feel that strongly, because of extensive personal experience, not because I'm simply some blinkered moron who takes an automatic dislike to something. So when I discovered the thread, and I saw the title, I thought "okay, here's a chance to vent".

A chance to really let rip. I genuinely did not have the experience on these boards yet, to realize that somehow, my venting would be seen by some as some kind of personal attack on their preferences.

So I wrote a very, very strongly worded post. I admit that. It's still up there. And people took umbrage with it. People got angry. I was on the receiving end of a rather unexpected backlash, but at least that's a lesson learned, and one to keep in mind for future reference on my part.

My dislike for the concept of GMPCs isn't something grabbed out of thin air. But I still tried repeatedly to make it clear that what I would do if faced with such a ... creature ... in a game I took part in, was to get up, and politely excuse myself from the game and then leave the group rather than play with them again. In other words, I was specifically saying, I would let the group use GMPCs if they wanted, but it would have to be without my participation.

Nonetheless, I was accused of trying to force my views on others, and from reading through the thread, it's pretty clear that this is generally speaking how the con-side is perceived. As somehow wanting to stop the use of GMPCs through the equivalent of an act of congress, divine intervention or brute force.

I can't speak for everyone and there may indeed be some people out there who would like to do that, but somehow I doubt that's what the majority wants to do. I think the majority, like myself, simply react very badly to the concept for our own reasons and that we do not want to be involved in games where GMPCs are used, regardless of assurances given.

I don't think the pro-GMPC GMs in this debate feel this way out of malice or ignorance. I think people genuinely feel like the arguments made by those of us who are against the use of GMPCs are so horrible, so insulting and so obviously incorrect that they can be seen as nothing but an attempt at forcing our way of playing onto others against their will.

But looking at it from the con-side, when I then try to offer as a reason for my utter distaste for the concept, that decades of attempts by literally dozens of GMs, some of them extremely accomplished and extremely well thought of by players far and wide, has never yielded a single positive result for me and that I've long since gotten to a point where I do not want to do this anymore, this isn't accepted either.

And the reactions are of such a nature that it is difficult or even impossible to see them as anything than people saying I'm being stupid, stubborn and pigheadedly unwilling to accept the wonderful, blissful perfection that is the use of GMPCs.

It leaves me with the impression in return, that I must accept that GMPCs are awesome and great and a fantastic idea. I have to accept this, and I must praise them, and I should include them in my games, whether I want to or not.

This is what I mean when I say that the pro- and con-sides are, by now, leading two completely separate debates that really have nothing to do with one another anymore.

Both sides feel like the other side is trying to force them into changing their ways.

What I genuinely think the majority of the con-side is trying to say to the pro-side is "Good for you. If you like it and your players like it, then more power to you for it, but no thank you, I don't want to be involved. I do not mean this as a knock on your abilities, but it is a kind of game that I do not enjoy. Please, have fun, but no thank you".

And what I am guessing that the pro-side is trying to say to the con-side is "Well, it sounds like your experiences suck bigtime. If you want to try again, I'll keep a seat warm for you at the table. And if you don't want to, then hey, no harm, no foul. Please, do have fun playing with your group."

But because both sides have gone into their respective trenches, that message seems to have gotten lost in recriminations and mutual fingerpointing.

Am I completely off my rocker with this?

This is what it is looking like to me, at least. When I rant and rage against GMPCs, and when others do it, it works like a red rag in the face of those who love the practice because they feel they are somehow being told that what they are doing is wrong. And when they start their long explanations of how it works and why it is a good idea, those of us who have heard those explanations dozens of times before, only to be disappointed time and time again, it's equally a red rag.

Maybe it's time to let the rags ... red or otherwise ... go?


"It can be practically impossible to completely avoid that for some people".

First it was a superpower, now it is practically impossible, yet some claim to have been doing it for years. If it was actually practically impossible, people couldn't do it in practice.

Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.

On advice for running dmpcs one thing that I keep in mind is:

Don't be afraid to let them die.

Sure you like them, sure you think their abilities are cool, but don't protect them from harm or death. If their death comes, let it be - just as you would for other npcs. That means the pcs can kill them (perhaps if they tire of them or need to as part of the plot or due to accident), the monsters can kill them, the traps can kill them and yes, even other npcs can kill them. Make them just as vulnerable as the players, moreso because you may fudge the dice to save a player but you would not fudge the dice to save your dmpc - then you are doing it right. Following this, I've had dmpcs suffer and die in the games I've run. The dmpcs are not immune to harm and can die. Run it by the rules, no lying or cheating to save the dmpc and all will be well.

After all, if this one dies the pcs can always pick up another one. A DM I know had a whole roster of them in kingmaker, allowing the party to adjust their composition and capabilities as they wished. This idea too, that of multiple dmpcs that can be swapped out isn't a bad idea. It can also prevent the dm from getting too attached to any of the dmpcs and lessen fixation on preservation. Thank you for reading.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.

Still not taking the bait.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.
Still not taking the bait.

Well...I mean...the fact that I can quote this kinda disagrees...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.
Still not taking the bait.

But you're nibblin'! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.
Still not taking the bait.
Well...I mean...the fact that I can quote this kinda disagrees...

Nahh ... I'm not taking the bait as in I'm not willing to get into a renewed discussion with DM Under The Bridge about this issue, or any other issue. I'm simply reminding him that his attempts at insults are being ignored because frankly, I can't be bothered with them or with him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.
Still not taking the bait.
But you're nibblin'! ;)

Not even that, though I appreciate the jest. I have no interest in any discussion with him on this or any other topic. I do not believe it is possible for him and I to have a civil conversation about whether puppies are cute or water is wet at this point. So why bother trying?


The Alkenstarian wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Ashiel and I can do the impossible. This makes me laugh, because clearly it isn't actually impossible. The impossibility of not metagaming is just another spurious claim you have made.
Still not taking the bait.
But you're nibblin'! ;)
Not even that, though I appreciate the jest.

And that's all it was, so ... :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You do realize that even responding with that much is still reinforcing the action and probably indirectly encouraging it to continue, right, Alkie? (I can call you Alkie, right? Your name is a thumb-full to type!) I was just trying to be funny in my last post, but if you actually want to discontinue your addressal, you should totally and completely ignore any mention by those you want to stop.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The sad part about metagaming is that it happens on both sides of the screen. There are players that know the various bestiaries like the back of their hand and have to all but turn off their brains not to exploit what they know without the appropriate in game knowledge.

The same can be said for APs, modules, and so on. Those who peruse the various optimization threads are almost trained to find areas that are cloudy to dance in and make magic with.

Players are quite capable, I believe, to avoid metagaming. I believe a GM could do the same thing. I've done it on both sides of the screen and while I am many things, I am not exceptional in this regard I do not believe.

Some people don't enjoy GMPCs. Some people don't enjoy Pink Floyd, and while you can explain how cool it is and how the Wall is a blah and so forth, they still don't like them. (That'd be me, by the way.)

As long as your table is on the same page and people can have fun no matter what the preferences at the table are, then all is well.


Ashiel wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.
Don't metagame. Problem solved.

Ashiel it's a bit more complicated than that.

Once you know the information you can't delete it from your mind, it will always influence a GMPCs actions, negatively or positively.

Its always taken into consideration.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

But people seem to be able to do that as players just fine.
Why is it a problem for a DM running a PC?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
"GMPCs are never a problem'

[Citation needed]

Quote:
Something like 10% of the posts offered helpful solutions that didn't push for an agenda of for or against.

10% is still more than "not at all", so my point stands.

Morzadian wrote:

Once you know the information you can't delete it from your mind, it will always influence a GMPCs actions, negatively or positively.

Its always taken into consideration.

Lol, that's, like, your opinion man.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.
Don't metagame. Problem solved.
2: Even if you don't metagame, we're back to one of my previous points, namely that you have to dumb down your GMPC, to avoid using the knowledge you have access to as the GM.
Pssst, Players aren't supposed to metagame either. Or at least at my tables.
Quote:
Unless you're somehow capable of discombobulating your brain into two separate entities (and never shall the twain meet)
I did this all the time as a roleplayer long before I ever GM'd
Quote:

For example, the point Ashiel made: "Don't metagame".

In order to make such a statement, I have to assume that Ashiel personally seen this accomplished in one of three ways. Either Ashiel was the GM, and didn't metagame a GMPC, Ashiel was a player who witnessed one or more GMs avoiding metagaming, or both at different times.

Fair kop. I absolutely accept the possibility of this happening.

But to those of us on the other side of this great chasm of disagreement, it's just not that simple. Because our collective experiences show that metagaming will inevitably happen, or the GMPC becomes a pointless liability when the GM refuses to play the character in a logical, sensible manner so as to avoid metagaming.

Uh... that's still metagaming. The GM refusing to play the character in a logical, sensible manner so as to avoid metagaming is metagaming. He's gaming according to meta-information [in this case the deliberate attempt to avoid doing so.]

Not metagaming means playing the character precisely according to the character's own knowledge/experience/background/personality/style. It means playing the character as itself without regard for what you know or don't know.

It's a simple concept, but admittedly one that's challenging to master.


Kryzbyn wrote:

But people seem to be able to do that as players just fine.

Why is it a problem for a DM running a PC?

A player hasn't read the Adventure Path, published adventure or self-authored adventure. But the DM has read it and knows exactly what's going to happen.

So meta-gaming comes it play (with DMPCs) by default.

I'm not saying you can't have a successful DMPC (you can, I don't think Jaelithe and Ashiel and others are being disingenuous on that front) but it is a more problematic task than running regular NPCs as they usually don't join the adventuring party.

Its also a matter of play style, I'm an old-school grognard and I prefer the Players vs. DM dynamic and I'm definitely not a fan of GMPCs.

But I have no problem with other people who like GMPCs.


Morzadian wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

But people seem to be able to do that as players just fine.

Why is it a problem for a DM running a PC?
A player hasn't read the Adventure Path, published adventure or self-authored adventure. But the DM has read it and knows exactly what's going to happen.

There are legitimate reasons a player may have read the AP as well. [Perhaps they GMd it in the past, as one example.]

Quote:
So meta-gaming comes it play (with DMPCs) by default.

Metagaming always comes by default in any form of gaming. Roleplaying a character is a conscious choice in all cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
You do realize that even responding with that much is still reinforcing the action and probably indirectly encouraging it to continue, right, Alkie? (I can call you Alkie, right? Your name is a thumb-full to type!) I was just trying to be funny in my last post, but if you actually want to discontinue your addressal, you should totally and completely ignore any mention by those you want to stop.

I realize that is probably the case. Still, not saying anything at all, leaves his accusations and apparently deliberate misreadings as the last word and that doesn't sit right with me either.

I know that what you're basically telling me is to not feed the troll, and I agree with that. I'm working my way towards ignoring it completely. With what you're saying and two people privately warning me against getting into a conversation with this particular person, I suppose I should read the writing on the wall now.

Thanks for the advice. I'll heed it.


Ashiel wrote:
I wrecked an entire encounter with giants with grease because I knew that Giants tend to have poor Reflex saves, what with them being really big and all. They could have made their saves, but they didn't. I was a player...how is this any different?

It isn't any different, but this does lend itself towards my point, that "not metagaming" is extremely difficult for some people. In fact, probably for most people.

So, alright, you knew that giants have poor reflex saves. As a GM, I could actually justify that knowledge in character, since I must assume that your characters weren't exactly level 1, if you were going up against giants int he first place. Ergo, your adventurer is reasonably experienced and has learned to think on his or her feet. You see a bunch of humongous creatures coming towards you, and you could probably, in character, justify knowing that something that large was unlikely to be particularly nimble based on previous experience and what you had picked up "off-screen" in villages, taverns and other social settings.

So yes, it's metagaming, and it proves how hard it is to avoid, but it could be considered acceptable in character.

However, the problem with the GM running a character is that, given the example above as evidence of how difficult it is to avoid metagaming, the GM still possesses a lot of knowledge that the players simply cannot have, about the adventure as a whole.

If we're talking about a published Adventure Path, the players may have bought the books and read them, which means they'd know the adventure as well ... but then why run it for them in the first place? If it's a home-made campaign, whether it's a path or a sandbox-campaign, the GM is the only person to know what lies ahead. That knowledge is going to be in the GMs head. I don't see how it cannot be the case. I mean, the GM is still the GM, and consequently still knows the story ahead.

So based on your grease-example, how can the GM be expected not to use this knowledge?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.
Don't metagame. Problem solved.

Oh boy ... this is going to be a long reply. I apologize in advance, but please bear with me, because I'm getting to the point where I think I need to try to get to the bottom of all this.

Firstly, Ashiel ... yes, not metagaming would solve the problem. It's a perfect solution.

Except for two issues (both drawn from experience):

1: It can be practically impossible to completely avoid that for some people. I'm not saying there aren't people who can't do it, but certainly not every GM using GMPCs is actually capable of not metagaming. In fact, a lot of them ... 100% of those I have played under who tried, in fact ... can't actually avoid it, despite all their good intentions. Your own experience clearly differs. I acknowledge that. No skin off my nose. But it is simply not the experience I have had with this, not even with very, very good GMs running the games.

The problem is it's 100% required just to be a competent GM. I mean, if you can't not metagame or at least curb your metagaming, you really don't need to be GMing. Because NPCs aren't supposed to know all that you know. You know all of the PCs' weaknesses, motivations, etc. Most of the villains shouldn't. You shouldn't use metagame knowledge to craft PC-specific encounters. You shouldn't have NPCs act on knowledge that they wouldn't have.

Metacognition is a skill that all GMs will need to be successful and/or good GMs. You need to be able to think about why you think something and if when you are evaluating a character's thoughts and motivations, if you recognize that it is stemming not from in-game cognition...knock it off.

What you are describing is no more than an exemplary practice of the very same skill that GMs must use to keep their BBEGs from acting on knowledge about the PCs that they wouldn't rightfully have, such as what spells they have prepared or what feats they have picked or the name of their little sister back at the farm.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. :D

Quote:
2: Even if you don't metagame, we're back to one of my previous points, namely that you have to dumb down your GMPC, to avoid using the knowledge you have access to as the GM. Unless you're somehow capable of discombobulating your brain into two separate entities (and never shall the twain meet), where one half runs the GMPC and the other half runs the game, then there's going to be overlapping knowledge and if you want to avoid metagaming, you're going to have to avoid doing things that may be logical or desirable, from an IC point of view. Not in every situation, I absolutely acknowledge that, but certainly occasionally.

Again, I disagree. You don't have to dumb anyone down, you just don't elevate them. All characters have things that they should rightfully know and/or be able to adapt to. It's no more dumbing down your GMPC to not have all the answers to an adventure when it's inappropriate than it is dumbing down your BBEG by not tailoring his selection of spells explicitly to exploit the party's unique weaknesses and/or to counter their specific strengths.

You simply don't do it. It's not even hard. You just put yourself in their shoes rather than them in yours. For example, if you come to a room that's trapped, you know it's trapped, but when you put yourself in their shoes and forget about what you yourself know and instead assume the knowledge of what they know, they do not know of a trap and are thus trap-bait.

If a role-playing game isn't the perfect place to develop this sort of metacognitive skill, I can't think of a better one. Again, it's practically required to be a good GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The Alkenstarian wrote:
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.
Don't metagame. Problem solved.

Ashiel it's a bit more complicated than that.

Once you know the information you can't delete it from your mind, it will always influence a GMPCs actions, negatively or positively.

Its always taken into consideration.

The fact that the villains in my games don't walk around with *insert party composition*-bane weapons is evidence that it really isn't that complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


The problem is it's 100% required just to be a competent GM. I mean, if you can't not metagame or at least curb your metagaming, you really don't need to be GMing. Because NPCs aren't supposed to know all that you know. You know all of the PCs' weaknesses, motivations, etc. Most of the villains shouldn't. You shouldn't use metagame knowledge to craft PC-specific encounters. You shouldn't have NPCs act on knowledge that they wouldn't have.

Now we're getting somewhere, because I actually happen to agree with you on this.

What I am disputing is not that this is the right thing way to go about this. Because it absolutely and definitely is. Unquestioningly so, in my opinion.

What I am challenging is that this is how it is actually done in many game groups and by many GMs.

I'm not saying GMPCs are a bad idea because bad. Dixit. No further reason required.

What I'm saying is that GMPCs are bad because all my experience with the issue leads me to conclude that the solution you are outlining above is never successfully implemented.

No, this is not an attack on you. Or anyone else. Not in any way. Firstly, I don't think this is done on purpose most of the time (and in those few cases where it IS done purposefully, I think we can agree that those GMs should never have picked up dice and rulebook to begin with), but I am simply saying that while your experience may show you that it CAN be done and that you HAVE done it successfully in the past ... and here we go again ... my experience has shown me the polar opposite, and it has soured me so thoroughly to the concept of GMPCs that I no longer want to see it in any game I'm involved in. And you know what? That may be because I've never been lucky enough to play with you as the GM, because clearly, you seem to know how it should be done. But what I am saying is that even if I were to get a GM today, like yourself, who can do this successfully, the many, many bad experiences I've had with it has left me so thoroughly sick and tired of it that I can't put myself beyond that feeling and enjoy the ride, and I would have to simply, politely and respectfully, excuse myself from the game. It is not a knock on you. It's a knock on the many, many morons I've had to deal with in the past who THOUGHT they could do it and instead turned it into cases of "Look at my awesome GMPC who can do everything, solve everything and generally be perfect, handsome and wonderful throughout the whole thing!"

All I'm asking is that people are willing to accept is that some of us do not wish to play with GMPCs anymore, because of such experiences, without taking it as a personal affront.

I really hope this isn't construed as some kind of blanket negativity towards people, because honestly, if you can make it work then fantastic. Please, continue to do so by all means (not that I had any say in the matter either way, anyway, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say with this).

I think almost every GM who sets out to use GMPCs do so with the best of intentions. But I, personally, me, this one individual behind the screen, has never seen it done in a way that wasn't completely destructive to the game. And because of that, I, aforementioned behind-screen individual, me, doesn't want to try it again.

Does that make sense at least?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
Does that make sense at least?

It makes sense. In short, you're too gun-shy to risk trying again.

801 to 850 of 1,134 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you feel about GMPCs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.