|
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
Tried it once. Wasn't digging it so I killed my character off after a few adventures.
I don't do it.
It's far too easy to become too invested in that character and it becomes a Mary Sue. (ie Drizzt/Elminster)
As a DM, I have an entire cast of NPCs and monsters that I can flesh out and become attached to. Recurring villains, NPC love interests, the shadowy stalker that always manages to avoid the PCs perception rolls, the lovable but useless kobold porter...
If I ever need to fill out a party, I either have the players control a second character that is somehow attached to the story or character, or include some throwaway NPCs.
That said, I know DMs that do it, and personally, as long as everyone is having fun, I could really care less.
I've done it a few times. It's a great way to inject some RP flavor or gently guide the characters towards a certain tone you want to foster. There's also a reason the "fallen party member" trope is a highly cliched way to introduce recurring villains -- players eat it up, as long as you don't overplay your hand. They make good Mr. Expositions or hint machines if the party is stuck, and even better butt monkeys. The short of it is they're the hands-down the way to keep a game from going off the rails, if that's a possibility with your group.
The drawbacks are that you shouldn't use them in large parties. The more players, the less limelight time each player is getting and anything you do as a GM will reduce that. Keep the GM footprint light, the character should never be a "full" PC in power level, mechanical flamboyance, complexity, attention or prestige. At best, they should have one or two notable traits to make them memorable to the PC's. And above all, do not make a damn Mary Sue. In essence, you're making an NPC that interacts with the party more often than anyone else.
In the end, it comes down to Rule of Fun. If it's fun and working, go for it. If not, don't. In the end, it's just another piece of the DM toolbox.
+1
Pretty much the same. Mine don't tend to live very long, however. Usually if my (occasional) small parties do something that would get themselves killed, it's usually the (n)PC that bites it, making it a great way, at low levels, to avoid costly resurrections and/or new characters.
I'd echo what others have said here, from the limitation of its use to a small party only right down to Eacaraxe's Rule of Fun.
Personally, I find I have plenty enough to do as a GM to have a PC very often.
Playing here in the Antipodes, it can sometimes be difficult to have a large enough group of players for some adventures. Rather than have players split focus between multiple characters, I'll throw in an NPC that acts as an extra member of the party, until such time as a new player can come in and take them over (which has worked well in the past) or the adventure brings about the need for someone to throw themselves on the grenade.
They're always more than a henchment, but something less than a fully thinking member of the party!
Reggie
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1
Pretty much the same. Mine don't tend to live very long, however. Usually if my (occasional) small parties do something that would get themselves killed, it's usually the (n)PC that bites it, making it a great way, at low levels, to avoid costly resurrections and/or new characters.
I support a DM-PC that will jump in front of arrows for me.
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
i do in fact i enjoy it but it takes tact and you have to be stand-off-ish and there are few other point to play like that, like never be the center of the spot lite but still having fun
No GM PC. I do have a GM NPC: Plina the Kool, a halfling expert/adept, who functions as the party's cook and loyal friend.
Sometimes I got nocs traveling with the party for a short while, sometimes even team up for mutual benefit as if it was a party member. This makes for interesting encounters/plots down the line, one of their former allies might betray them, get into trouble, grant them a favor for old time's sake, team up once more initiating a new quest or introduce new npcs that are somehow related in a good or bad way to their former ally. It all helps making the game more immersive and helps shore up the party's weaknesses at some times.
have a WW (yeah d10) storyteller that has not 1 but 2 characters in our game and those CHEESY bastards are always stealing the light! it makes everyone else feel useless.
with that being said, for smaller groups the gm could always bump the level of the party or lower the mobs a little to make it less OMG challenging. or play the pally's squire!
I have one in our groups shackled city game. I introduced her in the first session to give the party (three players at the time) some muscle at lower levels. The existing characters were a rogue, cleric and ranger though only the cleric had every played before. As they leveled up I have kept her 2 levels behind the group.
On the first night they all gave a bit of backstory info on why they were going to Cauldron (though not much, secrets seem to be adding to the intrigue in this game). I dropped in that Gissell(GMPC) is from Borovia (she stumbled through a storm and has no idea she has left Ravenloft) though she didn't say why she was going to cauldron she is actually looking for help to save the village from Straad. She thinks the PC's will be the ones but they are not strong enough yet, nor is she, so she has tagged along until they are figuring that if she helps them they will help her.
We have just finished chapter 5 so the group are off to occipitus next. When they teleport back I am going to have Ravenloft snatch them as Straad wants to deal with Gissell before she gets too powerfull. We have aquired another player since the start so I plan to have the GMPC die in ravenloft, probably by Straad to show how tough he is.
I always use her as as an extra pair of hands, she makes no decisions and does pretty much want the PC's want as long as it doesnt put her in harms way too much.
She has been in the group for three years now (we only play once a month at most) so it will be interesting to see the impact on the group when she dies. I might even make her undead?
I was thinking of including an item to help defeat adimarchus in ravenloft. Any ideas?
Elcian
|
It's a tricky thing to pull off. The First Rule of GM-PCs is, Never take lead in decision making. I know this probably seems obvious, but not everyone can do it.
I've seen it done successfully once, where the DM played the party cleric. I also started a campaign once where no one wanted to play a Rouge, and the adventures I wanted to run would have been too much for the party without one. We only played to 2nd or 3rd level though.
In March my wife's migraine problems made her step down as GM of the Adventure Path we have been playing at the local game store for over two years. I took over as GM and immediately retired my character.
My concern was that I have trouble dividing my attention. The enemy NPC's end up a little dull-witted regardless of their Intelligence stat because I am having to set up the map, describe encounters, check rules, and run several NPCs. I want to minimize the separate details that I have to track. The allied NPCs from the Adventure Path end up as quiet, stoic people, speaking only when they have information useful for describing the encounter. If I need an alert NPC, I ask my wife if she is well enough to run that NPC for a day.
I hope to return my character to the campaign for the finale of the Adventure Path. I also hope that my wife will be back running the game.
It's a tricky thing to pull off. The First Rule of GM-PCs is, Never take lead in decision making. I know this probably seems obvious, but not everyone can do it.
Good point. My retired character had been the party leader. I had tried to avoid the leader role at the beginning, instead playing support to the leader, because we experienced players can intimidate inexperienced players. But when that leader died, my character was voted the new leader. His leadership lasted only two months real time and ten days game time <grin>. Now the Loremaster leads the party.
I do this on occassion for a period of the adventure, but never as a permanent addition to the party. Usually its to introduce some new information to the party or to present a new plot point. I have enough on my plate as gm without adding a full time PC to the mix.
One of my DM's used a halfling rogue once since no one wanted to be a rogue.
We had great fun with the overall RP of it and no one ever suspected when -he- was the one who got mind controlled.. I mean c'mon, DMPC's live forver and get all the gold, right?
A random roll determined who it would be and the fact that it fell upon him was really rather perfect. We never saw it coming, and were sad at his eventual passing.
-S
|
I have NPC's join the party all the time. In the past Garavel from LoF, Shalelu from RotR and Aerys from SS have all joined the party.
I only create a character if I only have 3 players and then he is always the same guy: Boris of Loftwick a Fighter with Chainmail, a Mace and a Heavy Steel shield. He's got a slight speech impediment so he doesn't talk much, he's just there to protect his friends.
Then when his work is done a portal opens and he is dumped somewhere else often having suffered level drain and losing his stuff as a result. So far he's turned up in the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Greyhawk and Golarion always waiting for those pesky interdimensional portals to suck him away to another adventure.
Boy it's tough being Boris.
I have to weigh in on this.
I believe GMPCs are almost always a bad thing. When I hear about a campaign with a GMPC I wince. They're often the sign of a new GM, and what this GM is in the process of learning that having a GMPC makes them less attentive to the players and more attentive to their own character. The GM now no longer NEEDS the other players to continue the plot and play the game. I believe this allows GMs to be less responsive and effective. While this "solves" some problems in the campaign, it creates deeper and more fundamental ones in the gaming group, and often ends a campaign and the gaming group.
I am sure there are situations where GMPCs are useful, but I have never experienced one. Some of the GMs in this post have made good cases, for example, if another fighter is needed, or a adventure path NPC joining the group of a time. These seem to be good reasons. Still, If you need another character, I recommend having another player play that character or an NPC hireling.
Sincerely,
Lava Child
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
As a GM I hate this. Not because it is an extra body to track or something else to take care of, but instead it is because when I run a game the point is to focus on the players. If I create a DMPC then I am taking away from the light that should be on them, and that is not fun or fair for them.
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
I don't toss in my own characters, but if the party is 3 or less, or missing something critical (like healing), I allow them to recruit an NPC to help. As I always include extra NPCs in my games that are recruitable and are there for RP value as well.
In my home brew games I define and stat about 16-32 NPCs per village onto 4-8, 4-NPC sheets, with about 2-8 being recruitable by the party. If a NPC is recruited and used a lot, I transfer there data to a regular character sheet.
I let the die fall as they are with NPCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
I don't add GMPCs ever, even with only a couple of players. I'd much rather let players control build and play more than 1 character simultaneously than add in my own if I didn't want to scale down the adventure. I already get to have the fun of building and playing every NPC in the game- I'd rather let the players have the entirety of the spotlight.
I've only ever seen this done twice, personally. The first was pretty bad, as the GM had no qualms about making his character super-powerful (among many other flaws as a GM). From that I would conclude the idea isn't inherently bad, but was poorly executed due to lack of skill/finesse. The other was a game I participated in where three of the players (including myself) were taking turns GMing each week, to spread out the necessary building and plotting load. It worked surprisingly well, but I think that it helped that we all knew each other fairly well and thus could due the whole "group writing" thing, trust each other with our NPCs, etc.
Overall though I kind of feel this is unnecessary as a GM. You have a whole world of characters to play with, some of whom will be encountered frequently by the PCs over the course of the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term DMPC is a contradiction in terms. The correct term is NPC, specifically recurring NPC. This is of absolutely central importance. When a character run by the DM tags along with the party for a long time, it's such a character. However, DMPC implies a few things that are simply not done:
* That the DM sees his/her job as doing good for that character.
* That the character can be trusted as much as any other PC.
* That that character is as important as the other PCs.
All of these are game-breakers, at least to me. Someone pulled that on me, I'd leave. As a DM, I have had recurring NPCs, even quite long-term ones, but always firmly understood to be precisely NON-player characters. Usually, to help me establish this, they are clearly weaker/useless compared to the PCs.
The term DMPC is a contradiction in terms. The correct term is NPC, specifically recurring NPC. This is of absolutely central importance. When a character run by the DM tags along with the party for a long time, it's such a character. However, DMPC implies a few things that are simply not done:
* That the DM sees his/her job as doing good for that character.
* That the character can be trusted as much as any other PC.
* That that character is as important as the other PCs.All of these are game-breakers, at least to me. Someone pulled that on me, I'd leave. As a DM, I have had recurring NPCs, even quite long-term ones, but always firmly understood to be precisely NON-player characters. Usually, to help me establish this, they are clearly weaker/useless compared to the PCs.
+1
Over the course of the past two years I've played something like 3 or 4 GMPCs in my current campaign, including one cohort. Basically, I have a stable of NPCs that have class levels roughly equal to APL -1 or 2. These are all contacts and allies that the party has met over the course of the campaign. When ever the party is short (3 or less), they tend to go recruit one of these NPCs. I never play them for more than one or two adventures, and only when they need the extra help. These NPCs are also good for when we have a guest player. For example, whenever my brother comes out from NYC, he plays the bard/duelist ally. Now we're in the endgame of the campaign, so all these NPCs are showing for the final showdown.
I guess they don't really fall under the classification of a true GMPC, but they give me some fun getting to play different characters, even if they're backseat types.
How many GMs out there have made their own character to use along with the rest of the party? For instance, if the party consists of one or two actual players, and most adventures are for 4 or more, the adventure has to be scaled down or hirelings hired. Granted, players control hirelings, but who, as GM, uses a character?
Obviously this could pose problems, as the Gm has all the info and will naturally be biased in the actions of that character no matter what he does, but it certainly seems plausible.
What does everyone think?
I do it, but I don't really play the character when it comes to decision making. If the party decides to roll a perception check then my GMPC will roll one. If there is a fight I will use him to the best of my ability. He is mostly just a walking statblock.
I try not to think of my NPC as my character for all the reasons stated by others. When I make an NPC, and bring it into the game, I always think of them as disposable. They can die anytime and I am OK with that.
These days I find I just don't have the bandwidth to effectively play the NPC anyway.
However, if I find that I must bring in an NPC. Like because there is no cleric or rogue in the party - as is the case now. I go out of my way to make sure the NPC has a strong personality. That way I feel like I am getting something out of the the NPC other than just filling in some gaps for the PC's.
By the way - can someone tell me where the term "Mary Sue" came from? I can sort of tell what it means, but I have never heard of this term before - and I have been playing a long time.
Also. Not to threadjack, but has anyone built a Pathfinder Elminster, Dritzz, or any other major "Mary Sue" from the Forgotten Realms? Some days I am looking forward to building them, and other days I wish I had some help.
I try not to think of my NPC as my character for all the reasons stated by others. When I make an NPC, and bring it into the game, I always think of them as disposable. They can die anytime and I am OK with that.
These days I find I just don't have the bandwidth to effectively play the NPC anyway.
However, if I find that I must bring in an NPC. Like because there is no cleric or rogue in the party - as is the case now. I go out of my way to make sure the NPC has a strong personality. That way I feel like I am getting something out of the the NPC other than just filling in some gaps for the PC's.
....
I posted the same thing above, but I can pull off any NPC, because I keep a few personality notes on that NPC's sheet.
And the PC's can pick any NPC out of 2 to 8 that are recruitable in any town that I have.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
I've had a GM-PC my entire life (except for GMing PFS now). 33 years of roleplaying.
It's effectively an repeating NPC I like to play. It made adventure paths fun for me. If I didn't have a GM-PC, I would have needed someone else to GM after awhile.
It also allowed me to have a PC, if one of the players wanted to GM for awhile.
I've never had a problem with metagaming the GM-PC. With a GM-PC, you never decide the parties actions. It's like an NPC! lol. Hopefully a GM can separate in his head the difference between what a character knows and what he knows.
Also, you never make a GM-PC better than everyone else, and the spotlight is rarely on them. If the party TPKs, so does your precious GM-PC. As GM, you check your ego at the door (well, at least good ones do).
Oh there is one reason I use gmpc's or recurring npcs that I forgot to mention. Playtesting. As a dm, I like to playtest new things as villains, but I also want to see it from the PC side. Obviously if I am dming the game, and the pc's are established that wont happen any time soon. But I can introduce an NPC to see how the new rules operate as a party member with far less disruption then a player switching characters.
One instance of a good job of GMpcs, i was playing a solo game and the gm was playing the rogue. we were playing an eastern game that 'ported us everywhere and it was just the 2 of us. we tried to add another player, but he kept dying (at his own fault) so we sent him home. those characters got to 21 in 3.5
|
|
In my first Shackled City game, no one wanted the healer role. Thus I rolled a VoP Miniatures Handbook Healer NPC. She took nothing from the party, offered healing, and sometimes left to handle other duties around town. Never had a problem with it, was a useful voice to remind the party of certain things in character. Also helped pull the party out of trouble a few times. So I don't mind characters like that when I game.
|
|
In my first Shackled City game, no one wanted the healer role. Thus I rolled a VoP Miniatures Handbook Healer NPC. She took nothing from the party, offered healing, and sometimes left to handle other duties around town. Never had a problem with it, was a useful voice to remind the party of certain things in character. Also helped pull the party out of trouble a few times. So I don't mind characters like that when I game.
That sums it up nicely for me. An NPC accompanying the party should be a background character for the group not the GM's pet.
An NPC should never outshine the PC's or take the focus from them, it's the PC's story after all.
Geh, had a GM who was absolutely enamored of his GMPC who was the freaking Batman at level 1, taking on armies of Chelish slavers alone. He was a multi-class rogue/ranger/gunslinger and poor at everything, except the things he was sooo much better at than all the rest of the party.
GMPCs greatest employment, however? Negating player choice in a subtle manner. Come up against a challenge, well, GMPC knows two solutions. And guess what? You get to vote on which of GMPCs solutions sounds better to you.
Did I mention that GM had two pet players who essentially diddled his ego? So... with GMPC + 2 pet players... I can assume the bright crayons in the box can guess how things typically went.
Oh yeah, and GMPC was never wrong. Even when he leveled his guns at an unarmed cleric while she was healing a party member, because she impinged on his honor, threatening her with weapons was an appropriate response. Oh, and saying things like "I'd probably kill you in your sleep if I wanted to" doesn't mean that he's thought of killing my character in my sleep. Oh no. Perish the thought.
I will never ever GMPC. I reserve the right to change NPCs published in APs to fit my character's interests, however. Because I'm there to facilitate their fun. For example, I've made Kesten Garess bisexual and couldn't for the life of me figure why he would be "morose" after being so almost royally shafted for something young dudes do, and switched out Bokken with a female adept dedicated to Pharasma who has a goat familiar named Lyle.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have a GM PC, or even a player controlled NPC, just because the number of PCs is below that for which the adventure is written - I would instead change the adventure. This is why I tend to write my own scenarios and campaigns as then I can tailor them to the particular PCs (both number and type).
If the PCs don't have a healer amongst them, I ramp down the foes a bit. if the PCs don't have a trap finder, I reduce the number of trap and the lethality of those that remain. If the PCs don't have someone who can pick locks, I make daman sure there are ways to get the keys, or get around another way (or that getting past the locked door isn't essential to the plot).
This is the only nit I have to pick, I think that there should be NPC's the players trust implicitly, if you don't have NPC's that you can truel trust, maybe even more than some of the PC's, then the PC's will never truely trust anyone, and that is not good.
* That the character can be trusted as much as any other PC.
There may well be NPCs that the players come to trust implicitly, due to their experience of that character. However, players put their trust in fellow PCs in a different way. If you want examples, think about how trustworthy every replacement PC seems to be when they come to join the party, even if they have no reason to trust the character at all. THAT way to trust is reserved for PCs, at least to my thinking, and that's a very good reason not to call any character a DMPC.
I'm using a PC-quality NPC in the party that I'm running right now. It's only two players, and I didn't know if they were ready for dealing with multiple characters or not. Neither was interested in Arcane magic, so I made an NPC wizard to accompany them.
Mostly, he sticks to himself, doesn't say much (low CHA) and (when I remember to use him) throws Ray of Frost in combat. He's mainly there because the AP that I'm running seems to really require an arcane presence in order to be effective.
Fortunately, one of the PCs is multi-classing into a Sorcerer (blending the new Wisdom-driven Sorcerer and 3.5 Arcane Hierophant, with some Natural Spell for increased goodness), and the other (a Monk), is taking the Leadership feat for a dedicated healer... so that NPC might be retiring fairly soon.
I have found that having a player that is experienced enough to share key parts of the DMing is more useful than having a character as a DM. I co-DM a campaign with someone and we often trade rolls, even in the middle of the session. The other players get a kick out of the slightly different personality quirks that we each bring to the player character that we use, but we get the best of both worlds - a full PC that the other characters know is part of their party, and the ability to gently lead the party in certain directions when we need them to move.
The one thing I would caution is to make sure that a character played in this way is NEVER the leader of the group. They might occasionally insist upon a course of action, or even act on their own, but they should not be dragging the group around by the nose.
First of all, I assume we are talking about characters that, well, have a character, not some extended hireling for a party who needs additional members (like introducing a quiet, dumb brute fighter or a healbot cleric to a party of 3)
Usually, a party plans stuff. This planing can be massive. And is based on a lack of information, which is the problem - the DM just knows everything.
If you think about tactics, it's a huge advantage to know the tactics of the enemy and the DM does. Even the mentioned dumb brute fighter could have a big advantage by knowing the tactics - for such a character, the DM should lay out his tactics in advancve (like say "rush to the first in line and smash him")
It could work if you play a game in which the "mystery behind" is not known yet but that is well a quite different style than most games. There are systems based on that like Inspectres but in my opinion, they are one-shots or systems for in between (for example when the DM hasn't fully prepared for the new campaign)
|
I've done it a few times. It's a great way to inject some RP flavor or gently guide the characters towards a certain tone you want to foster. There's also a reason the "fallen party member" trope is a highly cliched way to introduce recurring villains -- players eat it up, as long as you don't overplay your hand. They make good Mr. Expositions or hint machines if the party is stuck, and even better butt monkeys. The short of it is they're the hands-down the way to keep a game from going off the rails, if that's a possibility with your group.
The drawbacks are that you shouldn't use them in large parties. The more players, the less limelight time each player is getting and anything you do as a GM will reduce that. Keep the GM footprint light, the character should never be a "full" PC in power level, mechanical flamboyance, complexity, attention or prestige. At best, they should have one or two notable traits to make them memorable to the PC's. And above all, do not make a damn Mary Sue. In essence, you're making an NPC that interacts with the party more often than anyone else.
In the end, it comes down to Rule of Fun. If it's fun and working, go for it. If not, don't. In the end, it's just another piece of the DM toolbox.
-1 I hate DMPCs, hate hate hate hate hate. No quicker way to make me say that's it, I'm done, than for a DM to introduce a DMPC. Because that hint machine you mention, I see it as a this is what we have to do button. DM telling the party what they think should be done. Keeping players on the rails, you shouldn't be trying to do that anyways, either you've given the party enough reason to be invested in the story, or you haven't. If they aren't invested in the story, use NPCs and plot to invest them, don't just throw in a character you control which forces the players to take your advice even if they wouldn't if it war coming from another player because they know you're the DM, and then my favorite, there aren't enough players, so I'm filling in a missing role rather than letting the players figure out how to make up for that lack.
Maybe you're the one magical DM who is different and who if I gave it a chance would be glad you included it, but you know what, you're killing my fun by throwing him in there, so even if you are, I have to play through all of these sessions resentful of it until I finally realize that hey you aren't like the others, and that means lots of sessions of not having fun before i finally start having fun
Say no to DMPCs.
|
|
I am sure there are situations where GMPCs are useful, but I have never experienced one. Some of the GMs in this post have made good cases, for example, if another fighter is needed, or a adventure path NPC joining the group of a time. These seem to be good reasons. Still, If you need another character, I recommend having another player play that character or an NPC hireling.
I honestly think that's the worst possible reason to add a DMPC. but the Bolded part isn't a DMPC i need to make that clear, that is %100 valid and acceptable, but the joining should be temporary for whatever reason the NPC would have to join, not just a NPC decides to become part of the adventuring party.
I support a DM-PC that will jump in front of arrows for me.
Oh, MAN, am I there for ya! Remember, vote Tacticslion! When you think "DM-PC that will jump in front of arrows for me", think "Tacticslion"!
Also, I've seen a great number of comments that claim that it's "simple" to give the players "another PC". I've tried that on several occasions. It doesn't usually go so well for us (though I recognize that everyone has a different play style), especially since I have a few dedicated RPers and it makes it really difficult and/or annoying for them to have to RP the interactions with themselves. They aren't the GMs after all!
And, referencing the thought of GM-PCs stealing the spotlight: Ew. Why would we want to? Can it happen? Yeah. I've even done it! Once. "Boring conversation anyway." Playing D&D (and by extension, I presume, Pathfinder) by yourself is really no fun at all. While I have used them to make decisions when my players are having a lot of problems, I try to shy away from this, and usually they come out of the background long enough to point to potential ways past the choke points or other stupid, poor design decisions that I (as a GM) have stupidly placed somewhere (ergo the statement about my PCs tendencies toward death, as mentioned above), then fade to the background again as the PCs take it from there. I basically play them as NPCs who end up in the party. BUT! I can easily see the potential problems with this. As I said, I've taken over, once. It was terrible. I won't make that mistake again.
Personally, I'd say they (like most things in the game) come with many benefits and flaws. How they're handled tends to display either their benefits or flaws more. And your first introduction to them probably tends to pretty firmly cement how you feel about them (though Lilivati seems to be a notable and excellent exception!). I, personally, was introduced to it well, with a GM who had one... because it was only me and her husband playing. Over-all, however, I lean toward a heavy agreement with Elthbert. I believe, however, some who are "firmly against it" have, ultimately, semantic (connotative) reasons, like Syssil described). As Jason S said, "check your ego at the door".
One nice thing about GM-PC death? It actually increases the tension. By a lot. Because someone in the party died!
* EXAMPLE IN PLAY: "That's your friend who's bled out over there! Go avenge him! But be careful: that might not be the last death-trap/uber-monster/whatever!"
One not-so-nice thing about GM-PCs is having to think about them all the time. It can get kind of annoying when I'm running the bad guys, and a party member at the same time.
* EXAMPLE IN PLAY: Hah! Natural 20! I crit... on myself! "Why're you hitting yourself! Why're you hitting yourself! Why're hitting yourself!"
So yeah. Also, FallofCamelot - my wife and I love your idea. Its hilarious.
EDIT:
* That the character can be trusted as much as any other PC.
This is the only nit I have to pick, I think that there should be NPC's the players trust implicitly, if you don't have NPC's that you can truel trust, maybe even more than some of the PC's, then the PC's will never truely trust anyone, and that is not good.
There may well be NPCs that the players come to trust implicitly, due to their experience of that character. However, players put their trust in fellow PCs in a different way. If you want examples, think about how trustworthy every replacement PC seems to be when they come to join the party, even if they have no reason to trust the character at all. THAT way to trust is reserved for PCs, at least to my thinking, and that's a very good reason not to call any character a DMPC.
Sissyl, I can see what you're saying... but we play in (apparently) very different groups. I've only once had a new player blithely accepted by my party without very good justification before hand. It can be kind of annoying, but my players just don't hand out their characters' trust to anyone: it's got to be earned the hard way, regardless of who you are. I can see your point, however!
<snip>
Usually, a party plans stuff. This planing can be massive. And is based on a lack of information, which is the problem - the DM just knows everything.
If you think about tactics, it's a huge advantage to know the tactics of the enemy and the DM does. Even the mentioned dumb brute fighter could have a big advantage by knowing the tactics - for such a character, the DM should lay out his tactics in advancve (like say "rush to the first in line and smash him")<snip>
Ah! The problem of metagaming. It can be a problem, however I usually handle this by simply, you know, not having the "GM-PCs" know all about the bad guy. Without this knowledge, they can propose several different plans (like any good tactician would - "a good plan can survive anything except first contact with the enemy") and then the party works out the first plan together.
I suppose, ultimately, I don't have a problem with DM-PCs because I've had very different experiences with them - mostly all positive - and, except for one that I've mentioned above where I flubbed up (new at GMing as I was) - I've had no complaints about them.
Really, it boils down to what several people have said: do the players get enough spotlight and enjoyment? If so, there's nothing wrong with it. If not, it seriously needs to be reconsidered.
Bad GM-PCs are, in fact, really bad. Good GM-PCs can be, and, in my experience (on both sides of the table) have been, really good, for the most part.
ALL THAT SAID: over-all, it's better when a GM doesn't have to, because it makes it run so much more smoothly and easily!
We don't have a DMPC as most people see them (I don't like the ones where it becomes the DM's own personal boost of his own ego) but we do have an extra character, purely for one reason...
...otherwise my group would never get healed.
My group don't like playing healers, I can never get any of them to play one, they just don't enjoy it.
My fix for this is to roll an extra character, get the players to play her, and I as DM level her up. She really sits in the background, does her thing and everybody is happy. Even with that, they've determined that their favourite spell is Dismissal.
Currently she's a Cleric/Spherewalker... in our next campaign, she's an Oracle
|
|
Yes as I said, as long as the DM realizes they are an NPC they can be around forever, but if the Dm thinks of them as his PC, that is ere the problem lies.The term DMPC is a contradiction in terms. The correct term is NPC, specifically recurring NPC. This is of absolutely central importance. When a character run by the DM tags along with the party for a long time, it's such a character. However, DMPC implies a few things that are simply not done:
* That the DM sees his/her job as doing good for that character.
* That the character can be trusted as much as any other PC.
* That that character is as important as the other PCs.All of these are game-breakers, at least to me. Someone pulled that on me, I'd leave. As a DM, I have had recurring NPCs, even quite long-term ones, but always firmly understood to be precisely NON-player characters. Usually, to help me establish this, they are clearly weaker/useless compared to the PCs.
I'll add a +1 to this, as I don't mind a NPC the party recruits tagging along, but when as a player I sit down to a table and the DM has a character that's with the party when no-one asked for it, I'll be put out.