How do you feel about GMPCs?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 1,134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I've noticed that a lot of GMs (especially new ones) feel the need to include an 'NPC' that tags along with the party and levels up with them. I have rarely seen this done well and often the GM either plays favorites with their own character or tries to overcompensate and basically makes their character's life hell to the point that it feels like the game is a tragedy with the GMPC at the centre. I understand why people want to do this, I mean being a player can seem a lot more fun for some people (me included). I did once pretend to have an over leveled GMPC who was an obvious Mary Sue that my players hated, but was used as a plot device to show how dangerous the world was with his death. I don't think I would ever actually use one though, it seems much to unfair to the players.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, it is kind of important to define what a GMPC is.

Some define it as pretty much any NPC that tags along with the party on a regular or semi-regular basis.

Others define it as the GM trying to act like a player while they are being a GM.

Personally, I think the first is fine (so long as it doesn't turn into the second).

The second is a problem, because if the GM is a part of their own story they are going to tend to play favorites and make a lot of the game about them. This understandably isn't very fun for the other players.


Not a fan, personally.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It can be done well but needs to be done very, very carefully.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


The second is a problem, because if the GM is a part of their own story they are going to tend to play favorites and make a lot of the game about them. This understandably isn't very fun for the other players.

This could be an over-exaggeration.

I've played with a couple of DM's who have had GMPCs and only one DM actually fell into that trap. That one time was very frustrating and kind of ruined the game a bit for me, but all the rest of the times, there wasn't a problem.

Frankly, it's a fine line between DMPC and 'any random npc.' In most of the actual APs we've played now there are npcs that are more prominent or that we find in unusual places and they join in the group for a while. This doesn't even count cohorts or Leadership companions... A good GM can keep character knowledge and DM knowledge separate and keep the focus on the actual players.

The last game 'I' DM'ed I actually got a little bored. There were a couple nights of all discussion and Roleplaying (which as a player I love...) but they did it all in their player's house and I didn't really get to contribute much. Just sitting there watching everyone else roleplay...

I don't begrudge a DM if he/she wants to have a voice in the game ;)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It is really an advanced GMing technique and requires quite a bit of experience to pull off effectively, but when done right can add quite a bit to the story. The problem is that GMPCs are used far more often by inexperienced GMs that screw it up than by experienced GMs than it is by experienced GMs trying to tell a compelling story.

While you can run a game with a single GMPC effectively, romantic stories and stories of betrayal have a lot to gain from this, I find GMPCs tend to work far better when there is a cast if them that accompany the players at different plot appropriate times so that the whole process feal more natural. Varying the level and competences of GMPCS helps a lot too in keeping things feeling more natural.

GMPCs can also help to set the tone for a game. I once range a very high action off the walls kind of game and had a group more accustomed to cautious down to earth adventureing. A GMPC helped for me to demonstrate what kind of action I was expecting from them. It eventually evolved in something of a challenge of who can be the most awesome with a cast of off the walls characters continually pushing the limits keeping the players from slowing down and becoming comfortable.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just say no to GMPCs.


To quote Fujin from FFVIII: RAGE!

That said, though the proponents of GMPCs try all they can to confuse the terminology, it is critical to understand that what is wrong with GMPCs is just in the ways they are not NPCs: By having the GM as a player, including his/her emotional investment. Having NPCs tag along with the party is fine.


Many times the GM wants to play, but can't. I understand, but still do not agree with that reason.

They are not inherently bad however. I have used them when a player was a surprise no show, but then they suddenly had a reason to leave the party. I typically only use them as support types.

I really don't see them a lot though so if you see them with a lot of GM's I think it is more bad luck than an actual consistent things.


Hark wrote:


While you can run a game with a single GMPC effectively, romantic stories and stories of betrayal have a lot to gain from this, I find GMPCs tend to work far better when there is a cast if them that accompany the players at different plot appropriate times so that the whole process feal more natural. Varying the level and competences of GMPCS helps a lot too in keeping things feeling more natural.

I actually am currently planning a D&D 5th campaign in which the players will gather a cast of true souls (basically the only people not twisted by a planet wide evil-alignment shift). But I am going to give the players the option to take extra characters with them on missions/quests and give them some control over the actions of those characters. So I do really like the idea of a cast of characters that can join the party, and I think it would help against playing favorites too.

Grand Lodge

27 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A useful tool that can be abused like any other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because I play an original sandbox setting, there are literally dozens of NPCs, and the players are free to invite any of them to join various parts of the adventure, and I will sometimes run them in game as a semi GMPC. In these cases though I try to get other players to manage their dice rolls). More commonly though the players themselves will run them (often as an alternate character if their's has become separated from the plot thread being played).

I don't like it if that NPC becomes too integral to the action in a gaming session (not the plot- that's fine, but in the plot resolution over and above the PCs), and if I feel it is going that way I'll look for ways to withdraw that character.


It always surprises me just how bad GMPCs, by which I mean characters the GM plays as if they were their PC, are for a campaign.

I can well see it is bad, but its much worse than you would expect.

Maybe it is that GMs who don't know that GMPCs are a very bad idea tend not to know what they are doing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, I don't like them. It makes me have to interact when it's player's interaction time. Like when they're making a plan or just talking to each other, the GMPC has to participate or they're being suspicious. In general, combat as well as out of combat, they either need to pull their weight or be worthless. Pull their weigth a bit too much and you steal the light from the party (and only because it's my character with extra meta-game information), be worthless and the party will hate the GMPC because it doesn't do anything worth keeping around.
If I ever use one, I make sure it's only for a short time.

As a player I'm okay as long as they're not an obstacle for anything and follow the same rules as I have when I'm the GM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:

As a GM, I don't like them. It makes me have to interact when it's player's interaction time. Like when they're making a plan or just talking to each other, the GMPC has to participate or they're being suspicious. In general, combat as well as out of combat, they either need to pull their weight or be worthless. Pull their weigth a bit too much and you steal the light from the party (and only because it's my character with extra meta-game information), be worthless and the party will hate the GMPC because it doesn't do anything worth keeping around.

If I ever use one, I make sure it's only for a short time.

As a player I'm okay as long as they're not an obstacle for anything and follow the same rules as I have when I'm the GM.

I don't have my GMPC's participate in the planning of anything. At best I might have him drop hints, if the party gets stuck, but my players tend to know his purpose, and let it go. It is just like how they accept a new PC/player into the party without giving him a hard time so they can keep the game moving.

PS: I also don't normally give the GMPC any of the treasure. That makes him more likable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one time I ran a GMPC, he did participate in planning, but never gave the best strategy and never placed any kind of "vote".

If they were stuck on how to approach something, he would propose an option. And it would work, but it wouldn't work as well as something else.

For example: there was a hostage situation; a group of hostiles barricaded themselves in a room with the prisoners that were part of the objective of the mission, with the hostiles demanding escape or they'd shoot the prisoners. His plan was "Tell them that we don't care if they shoot the prisoners, because once they do that we have no reason not to just blow them up".

Would that have worked? Yeah, it would have let them clear out the hostiles (and, yanno, left part of the mission objectives unfulfilled, even setting aside the moral concerns). Was it the best way to go about things? Very intentionally not. But it was in character for the guy, he never pushed it beyond it being an option on the table, and he went along with the plan that was pitched.

He was also strictly short-term and only happened because we were low on players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel they are a controversial topic.


I try not to use them at all,but if there's only two PC's and no support I may throw in a Cleric,Bard or other support character.
Bringing in a frontliner is bad taste because the PC's should be the primary protagonists..no one wants to cling the DMPC's skirt tails as he smites the BBEG on their behalf.
Honestly I find it more of a chore than anything and have a bad habit of forgetting about the DMPC character during initiative,and other inopportune times.
Better not to bring one at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They've worked good (with a good GM) to fill a critical party role that our group wasn't interested in playing. In Savage Tide none of us wanted to play a healer so our GM stepped in and GMPC'd a Favored Soul, which worked great.

The GM has to be careful and not make their PC the star of the show, but more of just background support, and my opinion is that special revelation about anything should pretty much never come from the GMPC (except maybe knowledge check help).

The other problem to watch for is the GMPC being too much of a distraction to the GM, who is otherwise trying to flush out the story and run combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen GMPC done well. Having said that I've much more often seen it done poorly. And EVERY SINGLE ONE of the GM's that did it poorly thought they were doing it well. So be very careful it you want to consider trying it.

I have used them when necessary. But only with serious limitations.
- Try to find a different option first.
- Much less powerful than the worst PC or cohort in the group. I will use NPC classes like expert or warrior, lower point buy for abilities, lower level, or whatever to make sure there is no way the GMPC will overshadow the PC's.
- Clearly defined, limited, non central role. Never make a GMPC that is the face character. If it is, the players get to watch while the GM talks to himself. Yeah, that's fun. Same with scout. Just barely possible someone that can disarm traps that the PC's find, but not someone that will sneak ahead and/or find them for the group.
- Very simple build that requires nearly no time, decision, expertise, or attention to operate.
- If at all possible, I let one of the more capable players run the GMPC and only intervene if they are having it do something wildly out of character.
- Retire said GMPC as soon as reasonably convenient.

For example:
Group's lost a player due to work. His character was the only melee presence in the group.
First, I checked if the group wanted to try continuing without a melee presence. They did not.
Second, I asked if anyone was interested in making a new character that could operate in melee. They were not. They were all having fun with the characters they had been playing.
Third, I asked if anyone wanted to take leadership to get a melee cohort. Nope, one was considering leadership but he a different path planned already.
They suggested I just run the PC. A TWF cavalier/tactician. A moderately well built complex class. No way. Like 6+ rolls on a full attack with several damage dice and high crit range. Way too much and too likely to outshine some of the PC's.
I let them rescue Mr Meat. A human warrior 1 level lower than the party, 5 pts lower point buy, feats were the toughness/iron will/lightning reflexes/great fortitude variety, used a greatsword and had a lot of hit points. No knowledge skills, no social skills, and low perception. He wasn't doing anything but getting in the way of bad guys and doing a moderate amount of damage. Also he was so simple to operate that any of the players could easily run him along with their own PC and not feel overloaded.
As soon as it looked like we had another player joining the group, Mr Meat fell in love with a different NPC and ran off with her.
.
.

Snowblind wrote:

...

Some define it as pretty much any NPC that tags along with the party on a regular or semi-regular basis.

Others define it as the GM trying to act like a player while they are being a GM.
...

That is actually a pretty good point. I've always used the first definition which includes within it the second definition.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

NPCs who follow the PCs around, hang out with them, and interact with them in a friendly way are fine. Even to the point where they're a member of the party and receive a share of the treasure. They can be very useful in some situations, even helping the GM to roleplay with the PCs in more private interaction scenes.

But as soon as the GM starts viewing that character as 'theirs' or, indeed, as anything more than another NPC (if an important one)...then they become a problem. Because that's not the GM's role in the game, and in fact detracts from the kind of impartiality every GM should have to some degree.


Yeah, the worst cases I've seen were with rotating GMs, where the new GMs previous character continued with the party. In at least one case with a ton of plot strings tied to him.

Don't do that.


The group I'm running now started out melee heavy with no healer so I created a cleric to tag along. I played him up as a coward so during combat he would hang in the back and come up and channel when needed. Most of my spells were buffs that I used on the frontliners, I only had a couple of offensive spells that he would use only as a last resort. I would only have him do a skill check when asked by another party member again usually as a last resort. Basically I did everything I could to keep him in the background and not take any focus away from the players. Eventually a new player came in and wanted to play druid so we loaded her up with cure wands and I wrote the GMPC out. I'll use them when necessary but I'd really raher just focus on GMing and not mess with them.


thejeff wrote:

Yeah, the worst cases I've seen were with rotating GMs, where the new GMs previous character continued with the party. In at least one case with a ton of plot strings tied to him.

Don't do that.

While he is GM, the GM's PC is off bailing out hise maiden great aunt from a mean landlord (or arrested for disorderly conduct or whatever). Coincidentally he gets back in time for the next GM switch, manages to get almost as many XP's as the players, and about breaks even on wealth.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
A useful tool that can be abused like any other.

A useful tool that more easily slips down the slippery slope of abuse, the longer it's employed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Whether GMPC or NPC the most important thing is: Don't overshadow the PCs. If there is a knowledge check to be made only roll it if nobody has that skill unless the players ask. Same with other skills. Offer to aid another but let the PCs make the main roll (if they can)

My last GMPC:
In my latest campaign the PCs rescued a kobold slave from other kobolds when they were level 2. They took him with them because he knew the dungeon they were exploring. They started to like the little bugger and gave him stuff looted from the other kobolds. First an armor, later a weapon and at the end of that dungeon a small human-bane weapon. The group was all humans.
So the kobold slave became their henchman and I started giving him levels. When the party reached level 3 he got his first level, and after that ever time they leveled he did, too.
I gave him a mix of abilities from skald and rogue but no spellcasting. That way he could use raging song to buff the party and was koboldlike without shining be clever skill usage.
The players loved him and sometimes risked their lifes to save him (he was 2 levels down and rather squishy) without seeing him as a liability.
He on the other side did what he could for his big friends because they made him a powerful warrior where first he had been a lowly slave.

When gold was shared they mostly divided so that he got a small share (when they found 125GP they got 40 each and he got 5) and everytime they found small sized loot he could take what he wanted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I presently had to run 2 GMNPCs for my current game, because we are 20+level (mythic) and it gets a little ridiculous at those levels.

I am playing the party's primary casters, an Exploiter Wizard and an Ecclesitheurge Healer.

The point is to still let the players run the show, and let the players decide what to do.

I also purposely run the characters in ways that they don't try to steal the show, I only use buffs and utility magic. And Dispel/Counter wars since the party lacks it. The wizard is there solely for the purpose of making the party stronger and giving them options.

As long as the DMPC is something like a utility mage, bard, or something else that lets the party enjoy what they do more, then most players won't feel overshadowed.

Don't overshadow the players.

Grand Lodge

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

I presently had to run 2 GMNPCs for my current game, because we are 20+level (mythic) and it gets a little ridiculous at those levels.

I am playing the party's primary casters, an Exploiter Wizard and an Ecclesitheurge Healer.

The point is to still let the players run the show, and let the players decide what to do.

I also purposely run the characters in ways that they don't try to steal the show, I only use buffs and utility magic. And Dispel/Counter wars since the party lacks it. The wizard is there solely for the purpose of making the party stronger and giving them options.

As long as the DMPC is something like a utility mage, bard, or something else that lets the party enjoy what they do more, then most players won't feel overshadowed.

Don't overshadow the players.

Have you considered the concept of retooling the campaign so that the GMPC's aren't needed instead? When you get to midlevel mythic, recovery is practically a snap. What is it that they need from these two casters? And have you considered replacing them with one who does what's needed, or perhaps just a few magic items?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I presently had to run 2 GMNPCs for my current game, because we are 20+level (mythic) and it gets a little ridiculous at those levels.

I am playing the party's primary casters, an Exploiter Wizard and an Ecclesitheurge Healer.

The point is to still let the players run the show, and let the players decide what to do.

I also purposely run the characters in ways that they don't try to steal the show, I only use buffs and utility magic. And Dispel/Counter wars since the party lacks it. The wizard is there solely for the purpose of making the party stronger and giving them options.

As long as the DMPC is something like a utility mage, bard, or something else that lets the party enjoy what they do more, then most players won't feel overshadowed.

Don't overshadow the players.

Have you considered the concept of retooling the campaign so that the GMPC's aren't needed instead? When you get to midlevel mythic, recovery is practically a snap.

I have, but it turns every encounter into the same kind of situation and takes away from the diversity of the game.

A team of fully optimized martial characters will end an encounter in one or two rounds if they don't have some kind of magical defense, which isn't fun for me or the party if nothing can challenge them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
LazarX wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I presently had to run 2 GMNPCs for my current game, because we are 20+level (mythic) and it gets a little ridiculous at those levels.

I am playing the party's primary casters, an Exploiter Wizard and an Ecclesitheurge Healer.

The point is to still let the players run the show, and let the players decide what to do.

I also purposely run the characters in ways that they don't try to steal the show, I only use buffs and utility magic. And Dispel/Counter wars since the party lacks it. The wizard is there solely for the purpose of making the party stronger and giving them options.

As long as the DMPC is something like a utility mage, bard, or something else that lets the party enjoy what they do more, then most players won't feel overshadowed.

Don't overshadow the players.

Have you considered the concept of retooling the campaign so that the GMPC's aren't needed instead? When you get to midlevel mythic, recovery is practically a snap.

I have, but it turns every encounter into the same kind of situation and takes away from the diversity of the game.

A team of fully optimized martial characters will end an encounter in one or two rounds if they don't have some kind of magical defense, which isn't fun for me or the party if nothing can challenge them.

It sounds like your party doesn't need it's GMPC's. What purpose do they serve then, Boy and Girl Hostage?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
It can be done well but needs to be done very, very carefully.

This. I've seen a lot of bad GMPCs. I've run bad GMPCs (thankfully not recently, been over 20 years at least).

The last time I ran one was for an old-school BECMI style game where no one wanted to be a cleric(a failing of older systems). In order to let the party have level-appropriate healing I made a GMPC cleric. She was pretty much just a healbot who was there to treat wounds and donate her share of the treasure to her temple. She interacted with the PCs but didn't participate in planning and mostly hung back in combat.

The real danger is the GMPC that overshadows the party and takes every effort to show how cool he is. These guys ruin it for everyone else. If you are playing in a game and the GM can't stop talking about how awesome one of the NPCs is it's a danger sign.

Though, if you have the right group, it can be fun to play with metagame expectations around GMPCs. I once had an NPC who everyone in town talked about. No one could shut up about how awesome this guy was, and when the party met him he insisted on inviting himself along. But really he was like that one professor/author from Harry Potter - all talk, no skill. So the players got the pleasure of watching him fail and die in the first serious situation. In a way his death was a stand-in for all the times that players have wished the GMPC would just die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
LazarX wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I presently had to run 2 GMNPCs for my current game, because we are 20+level (mythic) and it gets a little ridiculous at those levels.

I am playing the party's primary casters, an Exploiter Wizard and an Ecclesitheurge Healer.

The point is to still let the players run the show, and let the players decide what to do.

I also purposely run the characters in ways that they don't try to steal the show, I only use buffs and utility magic. And Dispel/Counter wars since the party lacks it. The wizard is there solely for the purpose of making the party stronger and giving them options.

As long as the DMPC is something like a utility mage, bard, or something else that lets the party enjoy what they do more, then most players won't feel overshadowed.

Don't overshadow the players.

Have you considered the concept of retooling the campaign so that the GMPC's aren't needed instead? When you get to midlevel mythic, recovery is practically a snap.

I have, but it turns every encounter into the same kind of situation and takes away from the diversity of the game.

A team of fully optimized martial characters will end an encounter in one or two rounds if they don't have some kind of magical defense, which isn't fun for me or the party if nothing can challenge them.

It sounds like your party doesn't need it's GMPC's. What purpose do they serve then, Boy and Girl Hostage?

It lets me create more interesting and engaging encounters.

Sovereign Court

It's generally a bad idea. If the party needs more oomph for lack of players - I'd strongly suggest gesalting them instead.

An NPC who helps for a short time is different - but a long-term party member is usually bad.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Don't do it unless the party straight up asks an NPC to come with them on the quest. Expect the NPC to leave after the quest is over, and maybe let a player run them in combat/roll the skills for them.

GMPC implies to me that the DM considers it his PC, which I heavily discourage. It is just one of the NPCs you control.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I play in an exceptionally small group... it's just 3 of us, so even if 2 of us double up on characters, a fifth group member is very handy. We're accustomed to the GMPC, but I think it's because we're very mindful of our roles in the group. Most often, the GMPC ends up as someone like the cleric, rogue, or bard - an important character to the group, but who isn't the direct impact player of a warrior or wizard. They contribute, without taking the lead.

In the storytelling aspect of GMing, they can be handy as the "mouthpiece" character. They're the rogue who knows a few rumors to help direct the action, the cleric who has received a message from their deity, or the bard who knows of a legend relating to the topic at hand. Done subtly, it can guide the players without making them feel as though the story is railroading them in a direction.

They can also provide a good flavor element for a group that gives them something the other personalities are absent of - because you're the GM, and you should be more motivated towards the objective point of view of the story rather than the personal motivation of the lone character you're playing. So into a group of eager novice adventurers, you can include the snarky and moping gloomy gus. Or if the party is too grim, they can be the colorful gnome with an impish sense of humor. Perhaps someone you might not run if you were focused exclusively on your characters, and provide a bit of fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have the years and years of vast gaming experience many of the people on these boards do (so take my response for what it's worth), but I've seen it go both ways.

I've seen absolutely TERRIBLE, story-hogging, Mary-Sue beat-downs of GMPC's.

But I've also run in a game (on these boards, in fact) where we had a GMPC who filled a role in the party that rounded out our skills nicely, he contributed to the social aspect of the game in a refreshing way, and he was intentional about not stealing the limelight from the other players. I thought it was really well-done.

Now, you'd also have to poll the other players to see if they agreed, but i'd be surprised if they thought that specific GMPC was anything but helpful and nice to have along.


I tried using a couple GMPCs in my campaign (first time DMing, as well) to give the players more intimate insight into how the people of the world felt about the events going on. The party may not have wanted to speak to each and every nameless person on the streets, but if they had a person with them who was from the area, they may be more willing to turn and say "Hey, wait, you're from here. What's been going on?" The other idea was to use them as party size buffers in case 1 or 2 players couldn't show.

What ended up happening was that the players seemed to forget that the GMPC was there at all, which sort of broke the immersion if I suddenly had them either disappear because they didn't matter or participate in a fight because they would suddenly say "Oh right, s/he was here!"

This could very well be partially due to this campaign being my first time GMing, and partially due to the lack of focus a couple of my players have sometimes (that leads to a whole other issue), but I dropped GMPCs pretty quickly. They're still around, staying in some of the towns that the players use as safe places, but they're not with the party.


I used to do it, because it would be the only way I would get playtime in (no one wants to GM around here). However, there's enough bookworm for a GM to do, so as soon as I parted ways with the thought, I was much better off.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a DM who runs games for two people, I always end up with a GMNPC.
One of my players who is fairly experienced with RPGs usually runs two characters, while my other less experienced player runs one character. My GMNPC allows us to fill out a classic "4 character party".
My GMNPC is no different to me than the other NPCs in the game. He/she has their own motives and desires. They voice their opinions, and give ideas, some of which are good and some are bad. I do not "favor" the GMNPC, nor do I think of it as "my character".
As TriOmegaZero said, they are just like every other tool. Useful, but in the wrong hands, can ruin the fun.


I've done it - often - but to round out the party. I try not to, but the last time I got sucked into it because my players loved my NPC cleric too much to let me go! (He was to be a "one-time only GMPC," but I was using Peter Lorre as my voice/inspiration, and the cleric was a cleric of Shyka, which they found just too strange to pass up.)

I wound up leaving the party because: 1) I often forgot to use his actions when I was running combat; and 2) he was "the party healer", and I found that incredibly boring, and taking away from the party's need to approach combat more wisely.

I also have used them as "the example character." Meaning, I'd have him be the one targeted by the BBEG's special attack to demonstrate what could happen. After that, everyone was fair game.

But - yeah - they're problematic. They can be useful - for hints and stuff. But as an actual party member - not so much.


I feel like you just stepped on a landmine by bringing them up :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:


I also have used them as "the example character." Meaning, I'd have him be the one targeted by the BBEG's special attack to demonstrate what could happen. After that, everyone was fair game.

As a player, I've always been a fan of this tactic. There's just something exciting about watching a long term character just brutally killed in front of you. The table's grown attached to him. We feel bad... but no player has to sit out for the rest of the night.

Great combination of screwing over, but not too bad :D

Some of our best funeral/mourning phases our characters went through were for GMPCs.

Grand Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's even better when the PCs raise the GMPC because they like him that much.

Grand Lodge

GMPCs? Too much work for me as a GM to bother with. I have way too much stuff to deal with in the game to be constantly thinking about how my character would react to everything.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You mean you don't do that for all the characters the PCs run into?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the term entirely!

I have found in play by post games that they are a consistent force in occasionly moving the game in a positive direction.

The balance is the DM character, should not be optimized and should fill only a supporting role to all of the PC's.

Examples included.
Erky Timbers an NPC in the Sunless Citadel who can continue with the party after his rescue all the way through the Ashardalon Series.

Mikmek the kobold in Kingmaker....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am dotting this to add more later.

Short version: I use them, for many, many reasons in various situations as a GM, and love them just as much as a player. Can they be abused? Yes.

EDIT: Two quick concerns and "answers" (of a sort)

[Know-it-all] v. [Worthless]: [Limit them to their Skills/Experience]
[GMPC] v. [NPC]: [There is a "difference", but many have different definition points when]

(Also, certain opponents of the idea will do all they can to confuse the issue by attempting to declare only their terminology or methodology is correct. *AHEM* ;P)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think GMPCs are always bad, but then, I also hold a very specific distinction between GMPC and "Recurring NPC".

If the NPC doesn't take the spotlight from the PCs, isn't as (or gods forbid more) powerful than the PCs, and is in general letting the PCs steer the ship, it's just a recurring NPC.

It becomes a GMPC, in my definition, when they are made as important or more important than a PC, which is bad. There may be times when it has to be done (playing a published module that requires 4 players when there are only 3, for instance) but it's still worse than having a 4th player would have been. Then you have those times when the GM wants to be the hero of their own story, and... well, we all know how those games go.

So, sometimes they're really bad, sometimes they're only a little bad, but they're still bad.


Not a real fan myself. NPC's who travel with the party on a very limited basis for story purposes are fine, like a ranger you have hired as a guide through an unknown area or a scholar you have to safeguard to a archeological site, or a saved child you are trying to get to civilization.

But as a permanent part of the party I am not a fan. GM's often, and without realizing, use the character as a know it all to aid the party if they feel it is taking too long to figure something out or make it outshine the PC's in an effort to show how cool they are.

NPC's in the party should never be as well designed as a PC or as well equipped IMO. The PC's are the hero's or usually trying to be. Don't show them up with something they cannot possibly compete with and don't steal the story from them by outshining them with an NPC.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have used a DMPC since I began DMing, we have a very small D&D group of just me and 2 others. So we don't have a lot of options and most of them don't want to play multiple people. And 3 person groups are a little more balanced. We have never had a problem as the others do this too when they DM.

What we have found is sure don't make the DMPC the star of the campaign, but you can have them have prominent roles at points, story lines that revolve around them. Its good for players who like to see where things go, or want to hear and play in a good story overall.

But again you can't forget about your other players, share the time with them as the main characters, the overarcing storyline should be theirs not yours.
Though I tend to not pre-plan to much and come up with a lot of my hooks on the fly with how our RP rolls out, organic RPing with a bit of framework done to start us off and give us a rough ending spot.

Its really how its used, and the players and DM involved.

1 to 50 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.