And by "characters" I don't mean NPCs. I'm talking about one of the main characters of the story - one of the heroes - as well as GM the game. If not, provide me reasons.
You'd really have to watch the bias thing. Putting in goodies your DM-PC can use but not the other PCs, finding ways to capture all the glory. It's a pretty common experience people have with DMs and their own PCs.
Frankly, I think it's really best for the DM to run extra characters as NPCs - taking a supportive role more than a leading role.
I think it's problematic. I've done it for sure and where you don't have enough PCs or there's a major absence (e.g. no healing) it can be useful. However, my experience is that the GM PC largely ends up run as a cypher with limited personality and very limited input into decision making, for obvious reasons. The GM has plenty to do without getting into a role they'll have to keep stepping out of in order to role play the actual npcs, and you could find yourself in the situation of having a conversation with yourself while the players watch. One of my oldest friends managed to carry on a vicious argument between his two PCs in a game of Ars Magica which we still chuckle about, but that kind of ability is rare. So I'd basically say "shouldn't" without saying "can't".
Generally I say no. I see to much of a conflict of interest and temptation involved to effectively have a GMPC. Even the best of us, when playing a beloved character, can be tempted to unfairly reward them. Whether one gives into that temptation or not varies from GM to GM
The other problem becomes the GM then has another character that he has to worry about, making the work load of the game even greater. For me, I always try to give all my PCs a place to really shine every couple of sessions (if not every session) but if I were running a GMPC I would then have to add that character into the moments of awesomeness list, effectively designing a whole encounter around their strengths and not hitting their weaknesses would be the temptation
On top of that it tends to be a problem for the players too. If they see a GMPC getting good stuff and getting those moments where they get to be awesome but they dont feel like theyre getting that same thing it can cause a lot of friction if not outright animosity.
No I think GMPC's are nothing but trouble so I recommend all GMs avoid them like the plague
I think that the GM playing a "full" char as part of the party can be very difficult. When I have played such a char I tend to treat it as another NPC just with a bit more detail and likely more loyalty to the party (maybe more then their alignment and such should indacate). As others have said useful to fill in a gap in the parties needs. I tend to "nerf" my char in these situations to make them less useful outside of the gap they are filling.
The Experance I give is computed as if this char was not in the party at all and it gets 1/2 to 3/4 of the experance. I often use them as a "meat sheild" as well to absorb soem damage.
No
It is so incredibly difficult to overcome even the appearance of favoring the DM-PC that for all practical purposes the answer to this question should be "no" with the one caveat that if your group is extremely mature and level-headed and your GM is super-humanly even-handed and fair, then you might be able to pull it off.
But even then I would recommend not doing it because of the extra effort and time n the spotlight the GM/Player necessarily receives.
We have a GMPC in one of my PbPs on this site, and it's working out fairly well. In PbP it's a lot like WeirdGM66 mentioned above, with them being just a particularly-detailed NPC.
I've rarely seen it work out well in a tabletop game.
|
I tend to agree more with Elinor and WierdGM66 on this. In my experience, it doesn't tend to become that major of a problem since the GMPC usually is there to fill a role gap in a small or unwieldy group. Then again, I usually inform my players up-front that, as I "the GMPC" have somewhat unlimited knowledge of the challenges ahead, said character will be more or less noncommittal on where to go or what to do. Or if the GMPC does offer an opinion (Which is rare) that it should not be considered what they should do, or even a good idea. As long as your players trust you're being fair with the spotlight, exp, and loot distribution, it shouldn't be too major of an issue, and I've never really had one (other than a slightly increased work-load). And as a GM, your players should trust you to be fair, otherwise they wouldn't want you as a GM in the first place. Some of the players even became very emotionally attached to what in the end amounted to a glorified NPC.
So, in the end, it's not so terrible as others make it out to be, at least in my experience. YMMV. You just have to be very up front with your players about what the GMPC is there for (And you should have a good reason for one, not just 'I wanted to make a character too').
|
As a GM, having a helpful NPC in the party who levels with them and gets a share of the treasure is fine. Especially if he or she takes a role nobody wanted (like healer/buffer) and is a quiet sort in RP encounters.
When you start thinking of them as 'your character', then you are doing it wrong. You are the GM, not a player. Everyone is your character. That particular guy no more or less than the barmaids or the main villain. If he becomes more than that to you...well, that's when problems start.
GMPC should not be used or run like any other NPC. IF the party is being a bodygaurd for someone then there can be an npc traveling with the party.
Although if I was GMing I might want to screw over the GMPC more.
Running a hero at the same time as a game is, in my experience, difficult to manage. Maybe with enough GM experience it would become easier, but running a campaign takes a lot of focus and micromanaging as is. Out of the two roles, we, the GMs, have the heavier load. That being said, I completely understand. Sometimes we get stuck GMing all the time even though we want to be a player instead.
Unfortunately, my group is small so I've had to supplement the party with two GMPCs and a 4th level fighter that the wizard managed to draw from the Deck of Many Things. From personal experience, I'll say that if you can avoid it, do so. I am loathe to take away the spotlight from the PCs, so my GMPCs are quite bland (which is totally horrible because we started playing with the Beginner's Box and I'm using Kyra and Merisiel). It puts extra work on the GM and contributes to a quick burn-out. Plus, in my case, if your group grows and the party likes the GMPCs (I don't know why...), you're stuck with a load of paperwork to shuffle through.
SOME GMs can successfully pull it off, but it's tough. It's a balancing act along several dimensions - the character needs to be one that almost never takes the spotlight, especially for any duration, in almost any circumstance, but it also has to be one that the players don't see as a liability. You have to balance the fact that you know everything that's going on with the fact that the character doesn't. Even things like "how often should the character correctly guess where the invisible enemy is?" can be toughies. I've seen GMPCs work out, but it's always a risk, and I think that many GMs and player groups just don't have the makeup. (In particular, in any group that's at all prone to inter-party conflict, I'd rule out the idea instantly.)
When my gaming group is short a person I have played a PC-NPC hybrid. He got experience and a cut of the treasure normally. While he did participate in combat and RP I made sure he did so as a background character so I didnt steal the other player's thunder. - Gauss
It depends on these factors:
- Is the GM capable of running a full PC-type character AND all the monsters in combats AND all the other NPCs AND keeping track of the adventure AND possibly the companions, cohorts, and familiars, etc. etc.?
- Is the GM capable of keeping the GMPC from being all-knowing about the plot and keeping the GMPC from "shining" exclusively in lieu of the players' PCs?
- Is the party in dire need of additional, long-term assistance due to it being very small or without an important skill set that they themselves cannot supply in some other way (e.g., hiring a less important hireling, using a familiar/companion/cohort/follower to fill in the gap)?
An example of "the party in need of assistance" might be something like -- you are halfway through a campaign when some of your players leave due to extenuating circumstances. You can't find other players, but you only have two players left who really want to see the end of the story. The players' PCs are a rogue and a fighter. Since you want to finish and make sure they have some more bases covered, you throw in a GMPC cleric to cover healing and other spellcasting.
- Is there an existing NPC that the party is fond of and would like to take with them? This isn't a necessary factor, but I have had some players try to "adopt" NPCs. If the NPC in question would serve a useful role to the party and you can account for the above issues, then maybe that NPC could be made a GMPC. It's a good situation because the party wants the NPC, they don't feel like the GM is throwing a metagamey toe-stepper into the mix.
|
I've tried it, its unpleasant, difficult, and annoying...
You do this ONLY in an emergency, if you have a 3 person party lacking in some respect, then it's appropriate...but, under normal circumstances, no. If the GM wanted to play a character, he should be a player, not a GM. Besides, with the sheer range of NPCs you can play, why be a PC? Isn't that why you play as a DM, to make hundreds of characters come to life rather than one.
I only GMPC a character if for some reason a PC can't make it to that session. The group I am involved with at the moment is growing like crazy. Currently I am trying to run Carrion Crown with 8-10 PCs. O.o
I believe a GM should never GMPC - unless a character has taken leadership or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMPC! The horror!
Look, bad GMs are bad GMs. A bad GM is going to ruin the game by showing favoritism to their significant other's character or their best friend's character or towards the BBEG, or yes to a party character they are running.
That doesn't mean gaming with one's significant other is a bad idea, or with one's best friend, or having a BBEG in the game, or even running a party character. What it does mean is that if you don't want to ruin everyone's fun, make a conscious effort to keep favoritism to a minimum.
It is going to happen, you and your friend or significant other are going to talk about the characters and the game more than you will talk about it with anyone else, and thus you are going to have a better idea about what would be interesting for them than for the people you just see on game night (and of course the characters you run will be thought about more often than those other player's characters as well). But be conscious of it and try to fight the urge to focus on those characters exclusively. But don't over react and punish the characters you know better either (you hear stories of GMs always targeting their significant other's character with the save or die effects in order to appear "unbiased", which is actually biased in itself).
As mentioned above, it can be very rewarding to a group to have a consistent character for the party to interact with. The GM might think of something humorous for a character say, and have a party character he can do it through is a pleasure for the whole group.
Just try to avoid running Gandalf (This foe is beyond any of you ... but not me [leaps into the abyss]) or River Tam (you hide and I'll kill an entire army of Reavers single-handedly).
Myself, I am running a party character at the moment (evil party, the character I am running is an evil cleric of the goddess of assassins). The character actually was killed 2 sessions ago by a pair of demons the party was fighting. The party actually decided to reincarnate (thanks to the NE druid) the character (she was a human, but came back as a kobold). I would have been fine with her dying off, but I said, if they wanted to bring her back from the dead that would be cool also.
As far as I'm concerned, GMPC is just another tool in my arsenal, like deus ex machina and free-ranged access to the bestiary. It can be used badly, vainly and abused, or it can be used judiciously to serve the game's purpose.
However, I agree that like Deus ex machina, the DMPC should come with a 'warning' tag. Gandalf and the Eagles have their place in the story, but the story is not about them. Besides, the DMPC can also be more like a faithful Sam than an all-powerful Gandalf.
'findel