How do you feel about GMPCs?


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,134 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:

So, you can tell someone to play a martial, divine, nature-focused, or scoundrel (as examples, including but not limited to). In your example, Sarah could literally interpret any of those as a ranger, but that ranger might have a different focus from her typical one.

Certainly it's reasonable for a DM to say, "These are the parameters for this campaign, within which you're free to do as you like," but said bounds must be the same for each and every player.

Now I don't think there's anything wrong with saying to someone who always plays the same character and/or personality type, "Hey, why don't you expand your horizons? I'd love to see what you'd do with a monk/cavalier/wizard/whatever, if that's something that would interest you."

But in my opinion it's wholly unacceptable to point at one player in particular and say, "Look, I'm the DM and I'm a little tired of you specifically playing a paladin/ninja/sorcerer/whatever. Those are off limits to you for this game/campaign." If the ref tried that with me, I'd likely laugh in his or her face and walk out.

I'm not there to play what someone else would think is cool for me. I'm there to play what I think is cool. In short: Gentle suggestion is perfectly fine. Anything more than a nudge is "bad form, Peter."

Having character classes assigned by your fellows could, indeed, be fun, too—if you weren't pressured into it. In my case, I'd likely say, "I'm certainly willing to try, so long as if I learn after giving it what I think is a fair chance that I'm not enjoying myself, I get a replacement character of my choice who's equally powerful and well-equipped." Otherwise, I think resentment might well set in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
pres man wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.

I personally agree with DrDeth on this one. It's not about forcing players to have certain classes but forcing them to learn. They will typically learn to be less reckless or how to adapt and do without. The campaign I'm currently running has a very martial and/or gish-centric group. There are no dedicated full casters in the party (healers or otherwise) so the party has had to learn to make do with what they have, even in situations where a sweeper would be really useful.

It helps to learn more about the game. Some classes bring new options to the table and learning how to use those options or make do without them is part of the experience.

I also agree. You have to learn to do two things, first you have to learn to build your group strategy around what people are playing... yes that can mean adapting to a different game style without a cleric. Secondly you should learn to appreciate people willing to play support roles. Support roles are BIG game changers who can make everyone else shine like gold. But if you don't have the kind of player who enjoys doing that then it's definitely time to learn how to manage without.

It is NEVER good to force someone to play a character they don't want.

Team building is a solid skill but it only works if people are ALL having fun in their roles.


Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

So, you can tell someone to play a martial, divine, nature-focused, or scoundrel (as examples, including but not limited to). In your example, Sarah could literally interpret any of those as a ranger, but that ranger might have a different focus from her typical one.

Certainly it's reasonable for a DM to say, "These are the parameters for this campaign, within which you're free to do as you like," but said bounds must be the same for each and every player.

Now I don't think there's anything wrong with saying to someone who always plays the same character and/or personality type, "Hey, why don't you expand your horizons? I'd love to see what you'd do with a monk/cavalier/wizard/whatever, if that's something that would interest you."

But in my opinion it's wholly unacceptable to point at one player in particular and say, "Look, I'm the DM and I'm a little tired of you specifically playing a paladin/ninja/sorcerer/whatever. Those are off limits to you for this game/campaign." If the ref tried that with me, I'd likely laugh in his or her face and walk out.

I'm not there to play what someone else would think is cool for me. I'm there to play what I think is cool. In short: Gentle suggestion is perfectly fine. Anything more than a nudge is "bad form, Peter."

Having character classes assigned by your fellows could, indeed, be fun, too—if you weren't pressured into it. In my case, I'd likely say, "I'm certainly willing to try, so long as if I learn after giving it what I think is a fair chance that I'm not enjoying myself, I get a replacement character of my choice who's equally powerful and well-equipped." Otherwise, I think resentment might well set in.

Why are you quoting my post and talking about things that have nothing to do with my post? Seriously, it's like you're TRYING to take things out of context and cherry pick things to disagree with.

Literally everything you said you disagree with about this method is already addressed in the context that you didn't quote.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Hama wrote:
It's their job. I don't congratulate the fighter on being good at killing things, or the wizard of being good at blowing things up and other wizardy stuff. It's expected.
Except they do. People appreciate killing and blowing stuff up, but there's a reason that "new guy to the group has to be the healer/trapspringer" is a cultural thing among gamers. They're built into the system as...Well, not strictly speaking necessary, but highly valuable...yet nobody gives a crap about them compared to raw damage or save or die.

That's because of the perceived manliness in killing things and blasting them apart. Whereas many guys still do a double take if they find out one of them works in real life as a nurse. Groups like these, tend to be hopeless in roleplaying scenarios, relying more on the ability to munchkin the social skill modifiers, than actually interacting with NPC's other than to take their heads off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Why are you quoting my post and talking about things that have nothing to do with my post? Seriously, it's like you're TRYING to take things out of context and cherry pick things to disagree with.

I was just continuing the conversation. I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong or challenge your post. Sorry if that was unclear. I'm doing five things at once.

I clearly rub you the wrong way. I'm not overly concerned about it, but I'm not looking to antagonize you, either.


pres man wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.

Ok, but he has to learn to stand up for himself someday.

You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
pres man wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.

Ok, but he has to learn to stand up for himself someday.

You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.

This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play it doesn't matter if it's the players forcing you or a die you will still have no fun and the game should remain fun for everyone. They can be big boys and buy a silly wand if they NEED healing...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.
This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play...

Precisely.

If it comes down to something like this, well ... a GMPC/allied NPC is self-evidently a better solution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No choice for me as a GM, with an especially lethal campaign.
If someone plays a bard, with wands of healing, there's no problem.
One of my best friends played a bard at conventions. No one ever took him for granted.
There seems to be a misconception about Pathfinder being a battle simulation. If some players ignore the sections on traps, skills, and world building, that's on them. I don't want to be the killer GM who TPKs the party because a trap weakened them, the goblins cost them lots of hit points, then the giant spider finished them off.
My sister quit FRPGs because her first character died from the first encounter. I think a bard or cleric would have made a big difference there.

In closing, I didn't say there was no choice because I'm a troll. I'm not a troll. If anything I'm a grognard.


There are so many better options out there, that don't require forcing a player to play a class they don't want.

-You could make potions a more common reward for the group (Maybe even providing a few that don't count against treasure wealth)
-You could allow another magic user research a healing spell.
-Make healing services plentifull and possibly cheaper.
-Let them pay a npc healer to tag along with the group
-And much more!

A Cleric should never be a necesity for a group with a good GM. They should just be the class everyone likes in the group because they heal, buff and help deal with those pesky undead infestations. :)

Sovereign Court

Jaelithe wrote:
Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.
This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play...

Precisely.

If it comes down to something like this, well ... a GMPC/allied NPC is self-evidently a better solution.

Except when it becomes expected of a GM to fill in any role the players dont want to. I find it tiresome thinking that I have to create the game world, run encounters, roleplay the NPCs, and fill in for party roles because the players refuse to shore up a weakness. No the players have to meet me in the middle and cover the bases which I find entirely possible without a rogue/cleric in PF. As GM ill consider encounter design and strengthen/weaken or ban monster types as required.


Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
pres man wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
2. No Cleric*? Let them play without one and LEARN. You gotta take the training wheels off the bike someday.
And the lesson they will learn is bend the arm of the most passive player until they give in and play a character they don't want to. I don't value lessons like that.

Ok, but he has to learn to stand up for himself someday.

You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.

This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play it doesn't matter if it's the players forcing you or a die you will still have no fun and the game should remain fun for everyone. They can be big boys and buy a silly wand if they NEED healing...

Like I said, no one should be forced to play an class they dont want to. But *IF* the group has decided someone has to play a healer, and they are pressuring the newb or the low key guy into it, then have them roll a die instead.


Jaelithe wrote:
Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.
This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play...

Precisely.

If it comes down to something like this, well ... a GMPC/allied NPC is self-evidently a better solution.

Nope, just let them not have a healer then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
No the players have to meet me in the middle and cover the bases ...

I don't agree ... but, then, I've never cared one whit for party balance. If the players decide they want to run four paladins and a ninja, then I'll be happy to fill needs with allied NPCs or GMPCs as necessary and desired, as well as designing adventures that appeal to four paladins and a ninja.

I absolutely think it's a GM's responsibility to fill any role the players don't want to—assuming that doing so is even necessary. After all, if the GM is creating the scenarios, they can be tailored to either avoid the PCs' weaknesses or nudge them towards remedying them. In that sense, DrDeth's comment about just letting them not have a healer is spot on.

The goal is fun, in my opinion, not concern over mathematical synergy designed to create an elite and balanced strike force.

But, then, I don't consider D&D/Pathfinder a team game to the extent that parties should be created for balance before play begins. I prefer everyone to create the character they wish to play without consulting each other beforehand and then see how things go from there.

Of course, my two campaigns are both homebrews, while modules and APs have vastly different requirements. I don't have the expertise to speak on whether balance is critical in those. The consensus seems to be that it is, and I'll defer to those better qualified to judge.

Sovereign Court

Jaelithe wrote:
Pan wrote:
No the players have to meet me in the middle and cover the bases ...

I don't agree ... but, then, I've never cared one whit for party balance. If the players decide they want to run four paladins and a ninja, then I'll be happy to fill needs with allied NPCs or GMPCs as necessary and desired, as well as designing adventures that appeal to four paladins and a ninja.

I absolutely think it's a GM's responsibility to fill any role the players don't want to—assuming that doing so is even necessary. After all, if the GM is creating the scenarios, they can be tailored to either avoid the PCs' weaknesses or nudge them towards remedying them. In that sense, DrDeth's comment about just letting them not have a healer is spot on.

The goal is fun, in my opinion, not concern over mathematical synergy designed to create an elite and balanced strike force.

But, then, I don't consider D&D/Pathfinder a team game to the extent that parties should be created for balance before play begins. I prefer everyone to create the character they wish to play without consulting each other beforehand and then see how things go from there.

Of course, my two campaigns are both homebrews, while modules and APs have vastly different requirements. I don't have the expertise to speak on whether balance is critical in those. The consensus seems to be that it is, and I'll defer to those better qualified to judge.

I agree completely. Party balance is an outdated concept. Your job as a GM is to tailor encounter to your player's choice of classes.


Jaelithe wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Why are you quoting my post and talking about things that have nothing to do with my post? Seriously, it's like you're TRYING to take things out of context and cherry pick things to disagree with.

I was just continuing the conversation. I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong or challenge your post. Sorry if that was unclear. I'm doing five things at once.

I clearly rub you the wrong way. I'm not overly concerned about it, but I'm not looking to antagonize you, either.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll drop it.

Sovereign Court

Jaelithe wrote:
Pan wrote:
No the players have to meet me in the middle and cover the bases ...

I don't agree ... but, then, I've never cared one whit for party balance. If the players decide they want to run four paladins and a ninja, then I'll be happy to fill needs with allied NPCs or GMPCs as necessary and desired, as well as designing adventures that appeal to four paladins and a ninja.

I absolutely think it's a GM's responsibility to fill any role the players don't want to—assuming that doing so is even necessary. After all, if the GM is creating the scenarios, they can be tailored to either avoid the PCs' weaknesses or nudge them towards remedying them. In that sense, DrDeth's comment about just letting them not have a healer is spot on.

The goal is fun, in my opinion, not concern over mathematical synergy designed to create an elite and balanced strike force.

But, then, I don't consider D&D/Pathfinder a team game to the extent that parties should be created for balance before play begins. I prefer everyone to create the character they wish to play without consulting each other beforehand and then see how things go from there.

Of course, my two campaigns are both homebrews, while modules and APs have vastly different requirements. I don't have the expertise to speak on whether balance is critical in those. The consensus seems to be that it is, and I'll defer to those better qualified to judge.

Obviously you do give many whits about party balance since you are willing to balance them out with a GMPC. Also, you tailor the encounters as GM, just like I said I do in my post. Basically we tackle the same problem in different ways. You use GMPCs, I give my players expectations and a fair shake in game. The players work with the rules options to get it done without the GM having to keep them afloat.


DrDeth wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Aranna wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
You can also have them roll a die, low roll has to play the healer.
This is STILL forcing someone to play a character they don't want to play...

Precisely.

If it comes down to something like this, well ... a GMPC/allied NPC is self-evidently a better solution.

Nope, just let them not have a healer then.

I agree with this, if a party consists of a bunch of glory hounds make them pay the price for it. And they will LEARN the hard way.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Even if it was hero points, gp, an item, or even just kudos, the point is healers are underappreciated even when they save your @$$ and you would've died without them.

Repeat after me:

"Oops, I've accidentally broken my character's Code of Honor, and lost my [healer] powers! I won't be able to do any of my usual [healer] activities, like [healing people], until I feel like I've done enough good for this party to properly atone!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Obviously you do give many whits about party balance since you are willing to balance them out with a GMPC. Also, you tailor the encounters as GM, just like I said I do in my post. Basically we tackle the same problem in different ways. You use GMPCs, I give my players expectations and a fair shake in game. The players work with the rules options to get it done without the GM having to keep them afloat.

Thank you for telling me what I think. I always appreciate a good thread telepath.

Using GMPCs doesn't preclude giving "players expectations and a fair shake in game". It's not a 'one or the other' situation. I happen to do all three, as applicable and necessary.

"Fill the needs" and "balance the party" are not synonymous. I'm also willing to not do so, as evidenced by my post, if carefully read.

The GM always has to keep the players afloat. It's his or her universe, and he or she could destroy them in an instant. I'm far less concerned with a chimerical floatation than I am an enjoyable afternoon or evening for all concerned.

I have little issue with how you run your game, so long as everyone's having a good time. If so, you're obviously an effective DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps "New Guy gets first choice of characters" should be a house rule at every table.

Why should Players with the most experience and the best grasp on the rules being given the chance to sit on the easiest classes to play, and force the newbies to scrape something out of the leftovers?

And, for a group of thoroughly experienced players, just let them play whatever characters they want to play - any decent lower-level modern module, scenario, or competent home-brew adventure will have multiple ways of solving each problem built into it, ranging from "Kill 'em all and steal their stuff", to "sneak or fast-talk or think your way around them". (A group of Higher-level characters can be expected to find alternative ways around problems, whether you build them into the adventure or not, so they should be fine doing whatever they want to do.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suddenly this thread becomes which is worse a DMPC Or making someone be the healbot......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Suddenly this thread becomes which is worse a DMPC Or making someone be the healbot......

That's not even remotely a question to me.

Neither are bad things. (I love healing magic, and I love GMPCs... as a player, I'd opt for both in a game!) :D

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm being a bit facetious with the above. Glib, as it were. If the option is "force someone into something they don't want, or provide a GMPC" to me the option is always "provide a GMPC".

I don't expect a GM to feel obligated to provide a GMPC if they don't want to, just as I don't expect a player to be forced into a class they don't want. Both forms of obligations are not nice and not fun.

Similarly, if a GM is going to railroad via GMPC or the players are going to purposefully derail by bad character choices, I consider both things bad form. Effectively, this is a group game that's a group activity. Sometimes someone will have different wants or needs than another - that's fine. Try and work around those, as best you can.

(It doesn't always succeed - sometimes people are whiny, overbearing, or just have play-style or personality clashes. That happens. But try as best you can, for everyone to enjoy.)

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:
I agree with this, if a party consists of a bunch of glory hounds make them pay the price for it. And they will LEARN the hard way.

Or maybe the GM learns the hard way that parties don't need a healer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
I agree with this, if a party consists of a bunch of glory hounds make them pay the price for it. And they will LEARN the hard way.
Or maybe the GM learns the hard way that parties don't need a healer.

I was wondering when somebody would point this out.

Seriously, someone who can use CLW wands covers the healer role well enough. You don't need a life oracle in every party, just *some* way of topping up the party's HP out of combat.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
I agree with this, if a party consists of a bunch of glory hounds make them pay the price for it. And they will LEARN the hard way.
Or maybe the GM learns the hard way that parties don't need a healer.

A lack of a healer often means lack of teamwork. This is not about the GM it is about players and play style. Many people agree that Pathfinder is a teamwork game.

I have two healers (a cleric and a druid) in my party and they love the supportive roles they play. I play a Fighter and I often remind them their actions were crucial to our party's success.

Respect goes a long way in mitigating different types of characters and the roles that they play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Healing is necessary for a party to continue through many encounters, but it's not a necessary role for a character to dedicate themselves to. It's almost always does more harm to the party than good for someone to focus on healing exclusively, since it reduces the amount of available battlefield control and buffing that could be used to prevent damage from happening in the first place and reduce the risk of surprise deaths.

In Pathfinder (not including DSP Psionics- the Vitalist shakes this up a bit), the best heals come out of a wand (because it doesn't burn spell slots that are far more valuable than the healing they otherwise provide), or the spell heal (because it heals a lot of hitpoints quickly and also removes nasty status effects at the same time). Spending rounds casting cure critical wounds and whatnot is more likely to kill your party than to save them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:
A lack of a healer often means lack of teamwork.

It also often means a great deal of teamwork, which removes the need for a healer role.


Aratrok wrote:

Healing is necessary for a party to continue through many encounters, but it's not a necessary role for a character to dedicate themselves to. It's almost always does more harm to the party than good for someone to focus on healing exclusively, since it reduces the amount of available battlefield control and buffing that could be used to prevent damage from happening in the first place and reduce the risk of surprise deaths.

In Pathfinder (not including DSP Psionics- the Vitalist shakes this up a bit), the best heals come out of a wand (because it doesn't burn spell slots that are far more valuable than the healing they otherwise provide), or the spell heal (because it heals a lot of hitpoints quickly and also removes nasty status effects at the same time). Spending rounds casting cure critical wounds and whatnot is more likely to kill your party than to save them.

The two healers in my party are not exclusively healers but they can fulfil that role when needed.

In Pathfinder I don't think characters are defined by a primary role they are often very diverse in nature.

I would find it very hard to near impossible to categorise Pathfinder characters in the same way D&D 4e did: Striker, Blaster, Controller.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

Healing is necessary for a party to continue through many encounters, but it's not a necessary role for a character to dedicate themselves to. It's almost always does more harm to the party than good for someone to focus on healing exclusively, since it reduces the amount of available battlefield control and buffing that could be used to prevent damage from happening in the first place and reduce the risk of surprise deaths.

In Pathfinder (not including DSP Psionics- the Vitalist shakes this up a bit), the best heals come out of a wand (because it doesn't burn spell slots that are far more valuable than the healing they otherwise provide), or the spell heal (because it heals a lot of hitpoints quickly and also removes nasty status effects at the same time). Spending rounds casting cure critical wounds and whatnot is more likely to kill your party than to save them.

The two healers in my party are not exclusively healers but they can fulfil that role when needed.

In Pathfinder I don't think characters are defined by a primary role they are often very diverse in nature.

I would find it very hard to near impossible to categorise Pathfinder characters in the same way D&D 4e did: Striker, Blaster, Controller.

*cough*non-casters*cough*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Healing is not just damage repair.

Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.

That's a lot of bloody wands, and some of those require CL checks, which aren't really gonna pass with a potion or scroll.

Contrary to popular belief, a wand doesn't cut it as "cleric on a stick"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Healing is not just damage repair.

Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.

That's a lot of bloody wands, and some of those require CL checks, which aren't really gonna pass with a potion or scroll.

Contrary to popular belief, a wand doesn't cut it as "cleric on a stick"

Yes, the mortal representatives of the deities of the world cannot be replaced by a magic piece of wood!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Healing is not just damage repair.

Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.

That's a lot of bloody wands, and some of those require CL checks, which aren't really gonna pass with a potion or scroll.

Contrary to popular belief, a wand doesn't cut it as "cleric on a stick"

Unfortunately, before heal comes online status removal doesn't happen much in combat.

Also, some of that stuff (restoration, break enchantment) is out of combat casting. Out of combat stuff is usually best handled by just leaving slots open. There is little reason to prepare it before hand.

Most PCs that would describe their role as "healers" cast cure X wounds in combat and little else. Note that I do not describe a cleric as a healer just because they can heal through spontaneous cures. They can *act* as a healer when necessary, but I would only describe them as a healer if they made healing their primary or one of their primary roles, which would only happen if they cast heal spells constantly inside of combat. Compared to a person doing that, CLW sticks are far better "healers", because they save party resources while discouraging people from trying to waste actions in combat because of their slow heal rate.

Besides, CLW wands plus a lesser restoration wand plus a couple of scrolls for each important status removal spell covers a lot of ground. PCs can be taken to NPC casters when necessary as well. It isn't as good as having someone that just casts these things, but on the other hand unlike consumables don't run out of spell slots because they spent most of them on combat spells so once you buy them you always have them available when you need them. You certainly don't *need* someone whose primary role is to cast this stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Healing is not just damage repair.

Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.

That's a lot of bloody wands, and some of those require CL checks, which aren't really gonna pass with a potion or scroll.

Contrary to popular belief, a wand doesn't cut it as "cleric on a stick"

Also, some of that stuff (restoration, break enchantment) is out of combat casting. Out of combat stuff is usually best handled by just leaving slots open. There is little reason to prepare it before hand.

...

Besides, CLW wands plus a lesser restoration wand plus a couple of scrolls for each important status removal spell covers a lot of ground. PCs can be taken to NPC casters when necessary as well. It isn't as good as having someone that just casts these things, but on the other hand unlike consumables don't run out of spell slots because they spent most of them on combat spells so once you buy them you always have them available when you need them. You certainly don't *need* someone whose primary role is to cast this stuff.

1.) "Leaving slots open" is indicative that said slots can be filled by those types of spells, therefore reinforces the idea that a healer type is necessary, even if it's not mid-combat.

2.) I don't know about you, but I never see NPC healers in dungeons, the wilderness, caves, deserted islands, or 70-90% of the locations the game takes place. Until high levels (which, remember, most of the game isn't) just teleporting to where you can find a NPC of sufficient levels to fix your ailing buddy is not an option.

3.) As I stated, many status ailments require caster level checks to overcome, to which an item will fail every single time.

4.) Furthermore, until high levels (again, which most of the game is not...how do people keep forgetting this everywhere on the boards? Not you per se, but in general...) UMD is not a guarantee, so you need someone, again, who could cast those spells to use those items, yet again reinforcing the idea that a healer is necessary, even if he's not preparing healing spells.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The whole argument breaks down into 2 sides: People that are good at running or have DMs who are good at running DMPCs and People who are not good at running or have DMs who are bad at running DMPCs.
There is no absolute "DMPCs are BAD/WRONG" or "DMPCs are TEH AWESOME" because their usage is based on the DM doing a good job at running them. If the DM can't do this, whether due to inability to not metagame, desire to play the Lord of the PCs, lack of time and effort to put into the roll, lack of fairly applying the rules across the whole table including his own PC, then a DMPC is gonna be a failure.
Mine are successes and my groups have agreed to the point that several people who were skeptics to the idea have switched sides on the issue. Long story short: DMs define whether the DMPC is going to be a success in the party or a failure by their ability to DM impartially and fairly without metagaming.
If you can't do that that doesn't mean everyone else can't also. No absolutes. I can do it as can many others on this thread. If you can't perhaps you should look to improve your skills and see this as a chance to broaden your skills or accept that there is some shortcoming in this area that effects your ability to play a DMPC but doesn't make you a bad DM.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
The whole argument breaks down into 2 sides: People that are good at running or have DMs who are good at running DMPCs and People who are not good at running or have DMs who are bad at running DMPCs.

Actually, there is a third side that doesn't like GMPCs on a concept level.

Fake Healer wrote:


There is no absolute "DMPCs are BAD/WRONG" or "DMPCs are TEH AWESOME" because their usage is based on the DM doing a good job at running them. If the DM can't do this, whether due to inability to not metagame, desire to play the Lord of the PCs, lack of time and effort to put into the roll, lack of fairly applying the rules across the whole table including his own PC, then a DMPC is gonna be a failure.
Mine are successes and my groups have agreed to the point that several people who were skeptics to the idea have switched sides on the issue. Long story short: DMs define whether the DMPC is going to be a success in the party or a failure by their ability to DM impartially and fairly without metagaming.

It is not entirely about running a GMPC well and impartial for some groups. Mine for instance likes the party to be a self contained system. It is important for them to face the challenges with their own skill and abilities. Perhaps this concept of the divided screen has a lot to do with our old school roots. In any event, it is a preference not to have GMPCs with the party because it violates a sense of a complete party. Completely subjective to certain groups such as my own, so yes GMPCs are not badwrongfun nor are they a necessity, but they certainly are a preference.

Fake Healer wrote:


If you can't do that that doesn't mean everyone else can't also. No absolutes. I can do it as can many others on this thread. If you can't perhaps you should look to improve your skills and see this as a chance to broaden your skills or accept that there is some shortcoming in this area that effects your ability to play a DMPC but doesn't make you a bad DM.

Isnt it possible to dislike GMPCs and not have shortcomings? I guess I wouldn't accuse folks who use prewritten adventures as lacking skill or having shortcomings for not writing their own adventures. It could simply be their preference. This post claims there is no badwrongfun when it comes to GMPCs but it does say you are lacking and/or have a shortcoming as a GM if you dont use them. So apparently it is a badwrongfun issue; at least for you.


If the GM can remain impartial regarding the GMPC, though, then it is an NPC and not a GMPC.

The only difference between the types of character is that a GMPC has a GM who actively roots for it and tries to get a player experience through it, while an NPC does not. This is contentious, many try to make GMPC mean merely NPC. I am uncertain why they do this. Notably, they are also very vocal on this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using items as a means to deal with missing a certain role seems to be at least as dangerous as using GMPC. The GM has to constantly be giving the group access to supplies either through the items directly or through extra wealth and access to markets and time to purchase them.

Sissyl wrote:

If the GM can remain impartial regarding the GMPC, though, then it is an NPC and not a GMPC.

The only difference between the types of character is that a GMPC has a GM who actively roots for it and tries to get a player experience through it, while an NPC does not. This is contentious, many try to make GMPC mean merely NPC. I am uncertain why they do this. Notably, they are also very vocal on this.

There seems to be a lot of subjective assumptions here. I have no idea what you mean by "a player experience". When I run a PC, I don't go all Blackleaf with it. If the character dies, gosh darn. Oh well, time to roll up a new one.


A player experience: At some level, you are the protagonist of the story. You are one of the central actors of the game world, one of the spotlight-people. You root for your character and want him or her to get better, solve mysteries, fight the unknown and discover new things! You wish to meet interesting characters! Be a hero!

If you are the GM, you can't play a PC at all. It is a GMPC, unless you manage to remain impartial to it, at which point it is an NPC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

A player experience: At some level, you are the protagonist of the story. You are one of the central actors of the game world, one of the spotlight-people. You root for your character and want him or her to get better, solve mysteries, fight the unknown and discover new things! You wish to meet interesting characters! Be a hero!

If you are the GM, you can't play a PC at all. It is a GMPC, unless you manage to remain impartial to it, at which point it is an NPC.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it a bad thing: the Avengers can still appreciate when Nick Fury shows up, even if he's not the star.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Perhaps this concept of the divided screen has a lot to do with our old school roots.

That's possible, but ... I've been playing and DMing off and on for 35+ years, so I can't be easily dismissed as a newb.

Early on, though, I employed them in that nightmarish manner many of those opposed to it dread, so I certainly see why some are gun-shy.

Quote:
Isn't it possible to dislike GMPCs and not have shortcomings?

Absolutely it is ... and you need not justify it. Your dislike is more than sufficient to avoid their use, and rightly so. "I just don't like them" works.

It does not work, though, as a player coming into a game and saying, "I just don't like them; eliminate the one(s) herein." The response to that should be amused laughter and an invitation to either give it a fair try or simply GTFO.

It's only when the tone becomes hostile and dismissive, or the undertone contains, "Yeah, but not using them is a little better," that you're going to provoke a reaction ... and, again, rightly so.

The person who called it a tool in the toolbox had the right of it, at least in in part.

I do think many a DM can sufficiently compartmentalize his or her thinking to actively root for their DMPC with the right hand all while looking to off said DMPC with the left. Many can't.

I've had NPCs I enjoyed die on me. I've characters intended as DMPCs bite it in the first or second adventure. I've had NPCs evolve into DMPCs. All part of the DM experience, in my opinion.


pres man wrote:
There seems to be a lot of subjective assumptions here. I have no idea what you mean by "a player experience". When I run a PC, I don't go all Blackleaf with it. If the character dies, gosh darn. Oh well, time to roll up a new one.

The player experience that the GM with a GMPC can't have is the part of play that relies on lack of knowledge; suspense, and the challenge of trying to figure things out. What's around the next corner? Is there anything nasty lurking in that muddy pool? Can this mysterious stranger be trusted? This is an obvious trap trigger, but is it safe to set it off from over here? What are this monsters' special abilities? Will casting Protection from Energy: Fire before I go into this mystery dungeon be a good use of my resources? Is this a safe place to sleep? How many more battles will we have to fight if we don't turn back now?

There are also aspects of the player experience that the GM might be able to have but probably shouldn't: Woohoo! I found the exact item I need!

The GM might be able to mitigate this by randomising things so they genuinely don't know what's coming up, but this may be to the detriment of the experience for the rest of the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The player experience that the GM with a GMPC can't have is the part of play that relies on lack of knowledge...

Yep. That's absolutely and undeniably true.

Of course, if you're DMing one week, and your buddy picks up the reins the next, it's a DMPC and a PC, respectively. You get the thrill of uncertainty regularly, just not constantly.

It's an imperfect world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

EDIT:

Jaelithe wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The player experience that the GM with a GMPC can't have is the part of play that relies on lack of knowledge...
Yep. That's absolutely and undeniably true.

I, uh... I totes denied it, below...

>.>

Matthew Downie wrote:
The player experience that the GM with a GMPC can't have is the part of play that relies on lack of knowledge; suspense, and the challenge of trying to figure things out. What's around the next corner? Is there anything nasty lurking in that muddy pool? Can this mysterious stranger be trusted? This is an obvious trap trigger, but is it safe to set it off from over here? What are this monsters' special abilities? Will casting Protection from Energy: Fire before I go into this mystery dungeon be a good use of my resources? Is this a safe place to sleep? How many more battles will we have to fight if we don't turn back now?

So... all the grognards who played the old modules multiple times weren't getting the player experience?

Or what about those groups who TPK'd and come back to either restart the module or pick up right where the other left off? Totally lacking a player experience? Or maybe someone who was planning on GMing something, but then, due to life, had the opportunity to play it later instead, but were partially spoiler'd? Or were spoiler'd on accident by people on the internet?

Again, this is a very, very specific view of what "the player experience" is.

There is a similar disconnect in people who don't mind being spoiled for books or movies (me) and those who are violently against it.

I genuinely don't mind if I get spoilers or information before I pursue a movie, series, or book. It's fine, and doesn't ruin the experience for me (and often, I find I appreciate the story and what's going on far more if I've been what is so-called "spoiled"). I generally avoid it, but this is mostly for others' sakes (GMs and similar who's views and desires are different than mine).

There are others who (understandably) hate and loath "spoilers" for anything. I find it kind of weird, but not in a "you're weird" but "I am different, hence it's a weird idea" but one I understand as just "not me".

Matthew Downie wrote:
There are also aspects of the player experience that the GM might be able to have but probably shouldn't: Woohoo! I found the exact item I need!

What? What does this have to do with "the player experience"? At all?

Either it's just normal bad GMing (in which case the problem is bad GMing), or it's solid GMing, treating the character as any other.

This is literally down to playstyles (and, in fact, in 4E you are expected to give a wishlist, as an example of folk who are expected to explicitly prefer that kind of play, though, naturally, some will differ in how they feel about it).

Matthew Downie wrote:
The GM might be able to mitigate this by randomising things so they genuinely don't know what's coming up, but this may be to the detriment of the experience for the rest of the group.

Or, alternately, you just go and buy stuff in town. It's not that hard. Most of the things you need are in town.

Or, you know, alternately, only randomize a GMPC-portion of things. Or just don't worry about it - you know, separating in-character and out of character knowledge (like a GM should do for any other character they ever run).

You bring up some potential issues, but they are not definitive issues, nor are they against "the Player experience", based entirely on who's playing. It's just a different style.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

A player experience: At some level, you are the protagonist of the story. You are one of the central actors of the game world, one of the spotlight-people. You root for your character and want him or her to get better, solve mysteries, fight the unknown and discover new things! You wish to meet interesting characters! Be a hero!

If you are the GM, you can't play a PC at all. It is a GMPC, unless you manage to remain impartial to it, at which point it is an NPC.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it a bad thing: the Avengers can still appreciate when Nick Fury shows up, even if he's not the star.

But he's not a member of the party. He's an encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought he was the giver of plot hooks :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
But he's not a member of the party. He's an encounter.

Sure, let's go with that. (I disagree, but I'll roll.)

But you know, the more terrible version of a GMPC would be much more like someone who has some inside information and uses it to help gather and assist the rest of the group in doing what they should or recruit some of them in the first place. Like the Black Widow. Or Iron Man. Heeeyyyy...


Tacticslion wrote:

So... all the grognards who played the old modules multiple times weren't getting the player experience?

Not the player experience that I know. A very different player experience. Either the experience of using the things you learned with the last group to survive what killed you last time (making use of metagame knowledge was less frowned on in the old days when there were no Knowledge rolls to find out about enemies), or the experience of pretending you don't know what's coming up - for example, casting spells you know will be useless, on the grounds that your character doesn't know.

Neither of these particularly appeals to me, but each to their own...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as impartial; it is an ideal that can never truly be attained. Some people can come closer than others but no GM is impartial. The trick is to find a GM who's partiality is one you like. I find GMPCs if done poorly are just another trap to fail as a GM, if done well they either stay out of the way or cater to some want of the players. The trap is insidious of course nearly every GM who is doing it poorly think they are doing it well. And, depending on the players, often they are never called on it as long as the players can get some enjoyment from the game.


Exactly, Aranna.

151 to 200 of 1,134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you feel about GMPCs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.