A definition:
DMPC = Dungeon Master Player Character, is a character, played by the DM, who is a member of the adventuring party.
A question:
Is there ever a circumstance in which the DM should have a character in the party? If so, when is it appropriate?
My opinion:
I don't think it's ever good to have a DMPC. In my experience, at best it disrupts positive party dynamics and divides the attention of the DM. At worst, it robs the players of the spotlight and much of their volition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO a GMPC is good as long as they're a backseat sorta character. They're the character that doesn't take charge and doesn't give clues about where to go. Gives the GM the chance to RP a little too.
I feel it is appropriate in some circumstances. In my group we often find ourselves with just 4 people (3 players and 1 GM) and we all want to be able to play. A GM character is best played as a "Faceman" someone who has the charisma to gather information or to be the party's Diplomat or even the knowledge guy. He should be someone who buffs the party and helps out when need be but never outshines in combat. A GM character can help round out a party without forcing players to have to fill a niche for the group to survive.
Well, it depends on how many players you have,and if you like to try several classes.
I'll explain myself: am currently playing with a party of two,me as DM and a a guy.....the last survivor of my old team.
We are running six char,so he uses three and i run the others.
Sometimes it gets tricky,but you cannot always have all of the players needed :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An NPC that assists the party is perfectly acceptable. A GMPC never is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM character is best played as a "Faceman" someone who has the charisma to gather information or to be the party's Diplomat
I too enjoy watching the GM talk to herself.
We always just explain what the conversation is about between the GM and the NPC's to avoid a silly situation lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it is appropriate in some circumstances. In my group we often find ourselves with just 4 people (3 players and 1 GM) and we all want to be able to play. A GM character is best played as a "Faceman" someone who has the charisma to gather information or to be the party's Diplomat or even the knowledge guy. He should be someone who buffs the party and helps out when need be but never outshines in combat. A GM character can help round out a party without forcing players to have to fill a niche for the group to survive.
I see where you come from, but I disagree on the 'face' part--I feel that the party's face(s) should be the players, unless the party is looking for hack-and-slash gameplay. If the GMPC is the 'face' of the party and does knowledge and diplomacy, then the GMPC is the focus of the out-of-combat diplomacy parts of the game; in the games I'm in, at least, those are fairly plentiful, and I personally would feel rather annoyed if the GM's character handled ALL the knowledge and diplomacy stuff.
Our GM usually plays those rolls because no one else wants to. and it works out for our group. By no means am I saying this is appropriate for every group but it works for us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We always just explain what the conversation is about between the GM and the NPC's to avoid a silly situation lol
I too enjoy having all of my interactions with other characters run through a filter of summary and lack input from the actual party.
By no means am I saying this is appropriate for every group
That's great except that's not what you actually said:
A GM character is best played as a "Faceman" someone who has the charisma to gather information or to be the party's Diplomat or even the knowledge guy.
If you have too few players, it might be a good idea to have one. Now the question is when do you have too few players? That depends entirely on the GM and the players. Some groups just prefer to have four or five characters in game because they feel that they cannot cover certain areas with only three or two characters. In any case, whenever I played a GMPC, I usually played a character who focused on re-active/passive roles in combat (buffing or tanking) and who was not the face of the party but still had a good personality to encourage role-playing with and among the other players. Basically, helping the group in the areas they are not able to cover without taking away the spotlight in and out of combat but still interacting with the characters to create the illusion of there being actually four or five characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I frequently have a GMPC, usually it's due to someone who can't play all the time. So I end up playing a character when the player isn't there, instead of having the mystic traveling player who jumps out of a shadow "poof" i'm here, and just as easily fades away.
That being said, I often use the GMPC for GM Fiat, "look over there! it says 'tortuga'!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM character is best played as a "Faceman" someone who has the charisma to gather information or to be the party's Diplomat or even the knowledge guy. He should be someone who buffs the party and helps out when need be but never outshines in combat. A GM character can help round out a party without forcing players to have to fill a niche for the group to survive.
Disagreed mostly... That's the one situation where I would not like to see a GMPC personally. That's what the players are supposed to be doing a lot of the time, and it makes for an odd mix of player and character knowledge.
That said, I do not think GMPC's are always a bad thing. Especially in situations where groups may switch GM's once in awhile, it's nice to have a character at the ready, and one can generally have them hang out with the party in the meantime.
I actually have an ongoing game where I am GM'ing and playing a character. Now, to be fair, pretty much all of the other players are new to the game, so they aren't going to all yell badwrongfun about it, like I guess some veteran players might? But, from my own experience, playing and GM'ing simultaneously is not that bad.
The party still handles most of the talking and social situations. My character is generally pretty quiet, for the obvious reason that I'm usually running NPC's and taking care of the other stuff. But it's still nice to be able to interact with the party with 'my own voice,' as it were, and to contribute in combat here and there, not to mention engage in the roleplaying when they've got downtime.
At any rate, I don't think a GMPC needs to be a big deal in the game, and a flat 'never have a GMPC' feels like a simple, kind of ignorant, viewpoint.
Of course, this is all assuming that the GM doesn't have God Mode turned on. That is admittedly not likely to end well, but I would hope that the person running a campaign for a group of people can be a bit more mature than that. If not, I think there might be problems regardless.
Whats appropriate for one group isn't always appropriate for another but yes I feel a GMPC is fine if done right for the party and group you are with.
^ Yes, that is certainly something that needs to be considered too. I'm surprised I forgot to actually put that in my post.
At any rate, I don't think a GMPC needs to be a big deal in the game, and a flat 'never have a GMPC' feels like a simple, kind of ignorant, viewpoint.
Please, keep it civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM/DMPC's should be avoided unless there is no alternative.
Where they ARE included, they should be like my kid sister - seen and not heard.
In general though, the need to have such an amenity should be avoided as much as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you are low on players, play campaigns that don't rely on having a full team.
Please, keep it civil.
I wasn't trying to be rude, but I guess that was kinda on the edge there. Sorry.
I just don't think it's really something that can have a blanket statement to cover the whole thing. It depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the actual people playing the game. Yet it seems a lot of people think that, under pretty much no circumstances, should a GM ever play a character.
It just seems like a very absolute view to apply to a game that has so much variance when it comes to the people who play and how they do so. All groups are different. Some may not be able to work with a GMPC, but I also know that some certainly can.
Again though, sorry if I sounded rude. I didn't mean to be.
Please, keep it civil.I wasn't trying to be rude, but I guess that was kinda on the edge there. Sorry.
I just don't think it's really something that can have a blanket statement to cover the whole thing. It depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the actual people playing the game. Yet it seems a lot of people think that, under pretty much no circumstances, should a GM ever play a character.
It just seems like a very absolute view to apply to a game that has so much variance when it comes to the people who play and how they do so. All groups are different. Some may not be able to work with a GMPC, but I also know that some certainly can.
Again though, sorry if I sounded rude. I didn't mean to be.
Thanks! I'm glad to hear it simply came off rougher than intended. No hard feelings:)
I see your point, that games and gaming groups have a huge amount of variation, so how could I make a blanket statement that GMPCs are always bad?
In 20+ years of gaming, with a wide variety of games (many versions of D&D, multiple white wolf games, pre-publication playtests, homebrew games; tabletop and live action; any party size from one to way-too-many) I've had experiences with DMPCs that run from "Well, that's annoying" on the good end to "We all quit and we're not letting him GM anymore" on the bad end. Never once, in a dozen samples, have I had a game that was made better by having a DMPC.
Now, I understand that some people like to use a DMPC when a party is "too small". However, I've had great roleplaying experiences with parties of 3, 2, and even 1 player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been doing GMPC for many years (a bit less often actually, that's true), and have never been a problem. As others have said, every party is different. Could work well for some people, no so good for others.
Before I always make my own adventures, and there has never been a problem a GMPC. Now, we basically do APs, and there the GMPC has proven to be more difficult to do properly. My case, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had experiences with DMPCs that run from "Well, that's annoying" on the good end to "We all quit and we're not letting him GM anymore" on the bad end. Never once, in a dozen samples, have I had a game that was made better by having a DMPC.
Fair point. Most of my experience with DMPC's is in situations where we would switch DM's here and there, so it doesn't generally seem too intrusive in that regard. It feels to me more like an actual party member just sinking into the background a little bit, rather than a single character that just doesn't fit from the start. And I fortunately haven't seen any DM's that show favoritism or metagame while they're doing so. I'm sure there are plenty, but I've been lucky as far as that goes :P
On the other hand, if the group doesn't plan to ever switch GM's, at least barring a massive campaign change, then I agree, it probably would make more sense for the GM to not have a character. In that case, it's not a temporary thing, and likely not worth throwing off the party dynamic.
Then again, I dunno, there's probably exceptions to that too, so hey.
Side note, glad we're not yelling at each other :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather allow the players to control two characters each than to play a DMPC with them. I'm the DM, I am the spotlight; I don't need to be stealing anybody's spotlight time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great for filing in party gaps. If no one wants to play a cleric or a rogue, then it can be great. It gives the chance for the DM to have a little bit of investment in the PCs, beyond the norm. He just needs to be built and played in such a way that he is NOT a decision maker. Having his own opinion is cool, but should almost always defer to the rest of the party in a disagreement.
I've seen DMPCs done very well and very poorly. Best used with caution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run a couple campaigns where I've used DMPCs, they can be really helpful as a gm, especially for those circumstances where you want to point out things that the characters should clearly know, but that the players have clearly forgotten. They're also really handy for those times where you want to say "Really?!? That's your plan?!? Are you out of your bloody minds?". In both cases it comes across as being a little more natural coming out in character from an NPC, and a little less ham handed.
On the other hand I've seen the flip side, playing in a 4E game where the GM was running a DMPC that was a high-end epic tier character (fully stated out) using his epic bluff to convince us he was a slightly bumbling henchman... To make matters worse the GM's idea of hints were things like having the real character sheet on the table amongst his notes where we could see it... (after he said that I started using a screen in my games for a while...) Needless to say I can understand why some people would be very much against the idea.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike GMPCs.
However, sometimes they are necessary if you have an incredibly small group, such as a two-person group.
I dislike that PFS requires a GM-controlled 4th character if there are only 3 people. Let 'em take the challenge on, I say.
And of course, if you have four or more people, they have no business existing.
However, I will say this. I think focal characters that the GM roleplays to interact with the party (for instance, an eccentric businessman that hires the PCs to do some missions, and demands that he comes along for the ride and observes them as they fight through monsters, or an NPC that the party often talks to all the time and that the GM will communication a good deal of the story's information through) can be a great narrative tool, when used correctly.
The big issue I find with DMPCs is that in order to be done well they have to be mechanicly fairly simple. As a DM I find I have enough numbers and whatnot floating around in my head without having to worry about the minutia of complex mechanics for my own characters.
Fighters for instance make great DMPCs. Spontaneous casters can be good as long as the DM is super familiar with all their spells. I personaly would never try to run a prepared caster as a DMPC nor would I ever run a rogue (whadya know, found every trap).
And as other people have noted as long as you keep them out of the spotlight they're fine.
Whenever I've run one they've been involved in the decision making process as much as any party member but I give my players a heads up that just because he's advocating a course of action that dosen't mean it's a good one. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't
- Torger
P.S. Paladins are unacceptable as DMPCs at anytime.
|
Never say never. I will go a few years without a GM PC (this is widely accepted as being called an NPC).
But then a storyline comes along, and as a GM you want to be there to comment. My rule is if I start to notice that I wish to "say" things and realize I can't becuase 'I'm not there' then I'll introduce one of those interesting NPCs that work their way into the group for a timhte.
They don't stay forever. Usually through an adventure path (homebrew) and then get on with their lives. The NPC I use typically helps bring out the flavor and setting.... i.e. an evil priest that truly helps the PCs, or a sexy female ship captain that provides transport as well as shares interesting world views germain to the theme of the storyarc.
Just my 2 cp.
Pax
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one case where I use GMPCs, if they can be classified as such, is to fill in for a player who wasn't able to show up to the game.
I keep a few NPC sheets with characters who play a similar role in combat as each PC, so they can act as substitutes for the occasional the missing PC.
e.g.: The Barbarian player is not here, guess my Fighter NPC will show up so the party is not weakened. The Wizard couldn't come? Well, we have a Witch or Sorcerer NPC for that. No Cleric? Luckly, time for the Oracle NPC to come out.
In any case, the DMPC rarely acts outside of combat, even if it's a something like a Bard or Paladin. Any social interactions are made by the players, though the NPC may make a few Knowledge checks if those are usually made by the guy who is not present. And even so, the NPC is mostly controled by players, not me, I only use it if noone wants the burden of controling it. In case the missing player is the "party face", then I give them a charismatic character, but tell'em to control her in any social situation, otherwise, she'll just hang around without saying much.
For smaller groups (2~3 players + GM), I like the idea of each player controling 2 characters. I've done it before and if it was very fun. I even tell my players that they can have a 2nd character in case someone can't show up.
Of course, there cases such as a when the PCs are hired to protect a NPC or something, my players are currently under contract to escort a girl to the River Kingdoms, she does have class levels, but she gains level at half the speed of the PC, which makes her too weak to count in combat, and as Ranger with lowish charisma, she doesn't feel comfortable talking to most people.
Basically, she is the quest. She's is too weak to have any real relevance in combat, and too shy to play party face. This I see no problem with.
Although ,sometimes, things take an unexpected turn... Recently the Paladin convinced a Flesh Golem and a Clockwork soldier (with class levels, no less) to join them. The player not only rolled well, but he made a creative use of the Diplomacy skill, so I decided that he should succeed. After all, that's why he put all those ranks in Diplomacy, right?
I dunno how long these characters will stay with them, so I just handed their sheets to the players and told them to control them in battle. Outside of that, the NPCs ocasionally share their PoV if asked for, but rarely take initiative and if let to their own devices, will wonder off to take care of their own business while the PCs do their shopping or whatever. They may or may not rejoin the party.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a DMPC more often than not in campaigns in which I've taken part over the last 30 years or so.
I won't talk about them all(!) but I'll mention one. My friend moved to Scotland a few years ago and I visit him about once a year for a fortnight each time. He owns a pine furniture shop located in an old church. He only gets a handful of customers a day, so we roleplay in the church all day; roughly 10 days of solid role-playing, and we play board games at his house after the kids have gone to bed!
Because there are only two of us and one is the DM, then DMPCs are the norm and have been over the years. Right now we are playing the Council of Thieves AP and having enormous fun! When we started I got him to make the character of his dreams (4th level; we started with the second book). When that PC was done we talked about a possible party make-up. I made a celestial blood-line human sorcerer (whos's noble family had taken a serious dip in fortune since the rise of devil-worship in Cheliax) who became his first PCs fiance. Since he chose monk/rogue as his main character (don't blame me! It's what he wanted!) I chose a ranger paladin as the warrior. A six-foot-four female half elf. More like a hand-and-a-half elf. Okay, a six-foot-four bastard elf with a two-bladed sword and a 1000-yard stare! Then he made a PC to fill the divine caster role, and chose an inquisitor with a reach weapon who, now I come to think of it, fought a baddy in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor! Luckily I didn't realise that the 3.5 exception to threaten the corners hadn't carried over to PF, but if I had known I'd have house-ruled it back in in a heartbeat!
In practice, he has all four character sheets in front of him, and makes all the combat decisions for them, with suggestions from me from time to time because he's new to PF. But I role-play the two I made, partly because there are sub-plots I added to the adventure involving the PCs I made, but also to make sure that there is some role-playing going on!
It works for us!
With my regular group, our current campaign is the first we have done without a DMPC! This is because each player controls two PCs! This means that we are playing a party of 8 characters, one cohort and two animal companions! I wouldn't want to DM this myself but our DM wants it this way. : /
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't think it's really something that can have a blanket statement to cover the whole thing. It depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the actual people playing the game. Yet it seems a lot of people think that, under pretty much no circumstances, should a GM ever play a character.
They absolutely should not. If the party is really short and the GM is uninterested/unwilling to alter the adventure to suit the smaller number of players, then there should be NPCs in the party.
An NPC is very different from a GMPC because an NPC does not "belong" to the GM. The GM does not have vested interest in them the way they would in their PC. An NPC does not need to feel cool or awesome to the GM, it does not need to be powerful or know anything extra--it simply is there like any other NPC, no different to the GM than the local bartender or the goblin you killed last week.
The best method to tell whether a given party ally is an NPC or a GMPC is to figure out who would care more if said character died: the party or the GM. If it's the party--congratulations, you've successfully run an NPC ally in the party. If it's the GM, then shame on you--you have a GMPC.
most of the time my GMPC is a walking mechanic; the extra bow shot, another target for the dragon to randomly choose whom to attack...
Occasionally, I use him like a red shirt in a star trek episode, "hey whats this green stuff.....aaaAAAArrrrrg!"
Essentially it's kinda like a free cohort.
Once in a while, the PC's ask, wait what's grim-bob doing? Then I'll roll perception, and if he makes it, he'll be staring at the secret door they have all been looking for and I'll say "whats that weird little line right there....." oh duh there is the secret door!
If they don't ask, I don't roll, if he misses his roll and they ask what grim-bob has been doing I say he's been rearranging his back pack, it was chaffing.
Recently, my GMPC saved my wires character in Korvosa fighting an Otyugh. They came out of the first encounter without healing themselves and wandered into the fight with the otyugh. the GMPC (actually a PC who is out of the state for the winter) happens to be an Inquisitor, and happened to have a cure light he hadn't used. I don't know why I thought this character would just fling himself in there, and heal her, instead of thwack at the monster with a bow like he had been.... I was like "oh no man down!" and ran him in there to heal her. Kinda funny really, because most of MY PC's if they have healing, it's for self healing OR for SALE. Hah, I hardly ever play the benevolent types (usually because there is a party full of them already)
I just don't think it's really something that can have a blanket statement to cover the whole thing. It depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the actual people playing the game. Yet it seems a lot of people think that, under pretty much no circumstances, should a GM ever play a character.They absolutely should not. If the party is really short and the GM is uninterested/unwilling to alter the adventure to suit the smaller number of players, then there should be NPCs in the party.
An NPC is very different from a GMPC because an NPC does not "belong" to the GM. The GM does not have vested interest in them the way they would in their PC. An NPC does not need to feel cool or awesome to the GM, it does not need to be powerful or know anything extra--it simply is there like any other NPC, no different to the GM than the local bartender or the goblin you killed last week.
The best method to tell whether a given party ally is an NPC or a GMPC is to figure out who would care more if said character died: the party or the GM. If it's the party--congratulations, you've successfully run an NPC ally in the party. If it's the GM, then shame on you--you have a GMPC.
so what if you are a PLAYER and you don't care it if YOUR character dies, what is it called then?
There is only ONE difference between a GMPC and an NPC (and it's not who cares about it) it's wether or not that character is a permanent part of the adventuring party.
IF it's some dude you found in a dungeon and tags along while you are there, and then thanks you and goes about his merry way? NPC.
Volstag the shop keep, never goes anywhere with the party NPC.
IF the party is short a cleric, goes to an Inn, and HIRES one, and he goes on a quest with the party, NPC. IF the cleric stays on as a permanent member of the team, he becomes a GMPC.
It's all ok as long as a GM doesn't force a character on the players, "NO this guy is going with you".
For example, I had run the encounter in CotCT in Zellara's home, I had ALOT more people show up along with the PCs to that, all people who had been wronged by Lamm. the Pc's were the main motivators to do something about it, whilst there were NPCs there who had interest in seeing something done, but not necessarily the self starter types. I described maybe a handfull of faces there (and a few of them were literally commoners and experts, I think it's really funny when the PCs accidentally hire a farmer with a spear to travel along with them, go get him farmer joe!)
The end result is the PC's ended up taking three NPCs with them (one them was a PC who just wasn't there for the first game night) one NPC got eaten by gobble gut (arrrrragh!) and I can't recall what happened to the other dude, oh yea..... he stayed with the party long enough to get murdered by the cow hammer boys.
I float the other character because it's player floats in and out. And like I mentioned about, it's a walking mechanic, damage soaker, and occasionally does something funny (like miss a dex check and fall off a roof chasing trinia, it was literally hilarious)
Edit: I typically dont even stat up NPCs unless they are a) intended to fight the PCs are b) end up tagging along long enough to become a GMPC. If he's just around and has to fight, I guess at some hp and ac and if he's a caster throw out some random spells that he would reasonably have, assuming he doesnt have a full spell list as he had helped aunt matiilda earlier that day running off some looters trying to steal her cow....
But if they stay around, I eventually stat them up, and choose some feats and what not.
But yea if you are designer a character to be pushed on the party without them choosing it,,, that does kinda suck.
I personally never thought of this distinction, but I guess if the GM's attitude is different it could be a problem. In my games I'll have NPCs tag-along regularly, but they never become permanent unless they become a PCs official Cohort.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost always offer the party a DMPC to tag along. They're great for giving advice in-character, although players that think the DM is speaking through the character will quickly learn that sometimes the DMPC can be mistaken. :) It's also helpful when no one wants to play the healer, which is usually a role that never outshines the rest of the party.
A GM character is best played as a "Faceman" someone who has the charisma to gather information or to be the party's DiplomatI too enjoy watching the GM talk to herself.
(sarcasm on)
Yes, this is best done if they use a sock with eyes painted on it on one hand and carry on like they are Shari Lewis and Lambchop. Hilarious.
Or, the DM can just play the game by himself and send us out a summary of what happened.
(sarcasm off)
Guys, you can always let the PC hire a NPC, which they run (with you stepping in if they have the NPC do something stupid.) There is never a need for a DMPC.
Have you fellow DM's that run DMPCs noted one thing in these threads? DMs come in and say how great or nessesary their DMPCs are and how much the player love them.
We never have PLAYERS come in and say how much they love their DM's DMPC, etc. In fact, usually when we see a Player talking about his DM's DMPC, it is the player complaining about the DMPC and how clueless the DM for not getting that the players don't like the DMPC.
Think about that.
How is this different to an NPC?
Well, either a NPC doesn't adventure with the party, or if they do the Players run him.
I agree its entirely player choice. If they want you to have one, feel free. If they don't want you to have one, you've got plenty else to keep you busy. I don't think forcing them to run a hireling is the right way to go... Some people just dont like dualboxing. Some people don't like playing a character that somebody else made... If they're ok with you running it then run it. A group that feels that you're good at running gmpcs is giving you high praise indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you fellow DM's that run DMPCs noted one thing in these threads? DMs come in and say how great or nessesary their DMPCs are and how much the player love them.
We never have PLAYERS come in and say how much they love their DM's DMPC, etc. In fact, usually when we see a Player talking about his DM's DMPC, it is the player complaining about the DMPC and how clueless the DM for not getting that the players don't like the DMPC.
Well, I could point my players to this thread and have them post to prove you wrong but that is a hassle since only one is a poster and not regularly so I'll post for them. In the current campaign, after getting their collective keisters handed to them, my players asked (begged!) me to being in a DM NPC Cleric, and run her as a full party member.
Now, she was a cleric of Erastil, bow focused, knowledge (religion) and heal, and was with the group till they made 8th level, when we gained a player who is playing a cleric. She never offered advice other than making the occasional knowledge or heal roll, shot her bow, and healed the party. She had a background and her own goals, one of which was completed by the group by the end of chapter 1 of the AP.
-- david
papa.drb
I personally see no problem with a GMPC, in fact, every campaign I've ever played had one (including my own). Personally, I prefer Bards to be GMPCs as they can be great info/buff/support characters. It's really easy to introduce new plots or devices through a Bard since they are generally very knowledgeable, while most other classes don't have the same set of skills.
I avoid full caster classes like Wizards and Clerics as GMPCs because their spell lists and options can totally change the outcome of encounters or dungeons.
Also, something I really like about GMPCs is if a new player shows up interested in starting Table Top RPGs (I play at the local hobby store), then I can take a few minutes to give a brief rundown of what the character can do, and some options he can employ, and then I allow him to play the GMPC himself. This is actually how I was introduced to the game, by playing a GMPC, and using this same method I've got 6 people to start playing Pathfinder themselves.
All in all, GMPCs, in my opinion, are great. However, I do understand how some GMPCs might be bad choices because the GM makes a totally ineffective character, or one that is too powerful. If done right, GMPCs are great additions to any game. Plus, it's a really rewarding experience when you see the players genuinely concerned about a GMPC and they go out of their way to ensure the characters safety.
Well, in a couple of weeks I'll be running a one-shot with my nephews in their first actual adventure played in Pathfinder using Beginner Box. Already from the one time we rolled up characters, one nephew is a wizard and the other a rogue - and that also means only 2 players, both brand new at playing RPGs at all. So in our case, I'm running an GMPC as a fighter or cleric to fill the frontline combat role, since neither nephew's characters fill that slot. Plus I'll be able to show them various aspects of play, skill challenges and the like, since they have no idea how to initiate these aspects of the game.
Primarily as a teaching tool, will I be including a DMPC in our nephew game. Among my regular adult gamers, I never play, nor do we allow a DMPC in our games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't think it's really something that can have a blanket statement to cover the whole thing. It depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the actual people playing the game. Yet it seems a lot of people think that, under pretty much no circumstances, should a GM ever play a character.They absolutely should not. If the party is really short and the GM is uninterested/unwilling to alter the adventure to suit the smaller number of players, then there should be NPCs in the party.
An NPC is very different from a GMPC because an NPC does not "belong" to the GM. The GM does not have vested interest in them the way they would in their PC. An NPC does not need to feel cool or awesome to the GM, it does not need to be powerful or know anything extra--it simply is there like any other NPC, no different to the GM than the local bartender or the goblin you killed last week.
The best method to tell whether a given party ally is an NPC or a GMPC is to figure out who would care more if said character died: the party or the GM. If it's the party--congratulations, you've successfully run an NPC ally in the party. If it's the GM, then shame on you--you have a GMPC.
See, the problem with this question is people are speaking different languages, even though it looks like the same one. Given mlpindustries' description, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. At all.
Also, as Pendagast said, I'm extremely disappointed when a PC dies (), whether GM'd or not, so that's kind of not a good metric.
And if I have a NPC who is entirely background-only, is not meant to go adventuring and that I labored on to create, and s/he's killed quickly and ignobly, I can be really disappointed about that, too. 'Cause, you know, s/he was going to hang around and be part of the story, even if they were never in the spotlight, and I'd worked hard on creating them. But s/he's dead now. So... sadface.
Ask your players. No one on this forum is going to be able to tell you what is good for your table.
This is pretty much the most accurate response anyone can give on this issue. And to add to it, you can only know what's good for your table for sure, by learning from experience.
Great for filing in party gaps. If no one wants to play a cleric or a rogue, then it can be great. It gives the chance for the DM to have a little bit of investment in the PCs, beyond the norm. He just needs to be built and played in such a way that he is NOT a decision maker. Having his own opinion is cool, but should almost always defer to the rest of the party in a disagreement.
I've seen DMPCs done very well and very poorly. Best used with caution.
The top paragraph has been my experience as well. It really depends on the players I've had, the party makeup, and how many players. Further, as a player, I love it when my wife gets to play and places GMPCs into the games. I've not yet had a GMPC from anyone at any time that I thought was a complete boor. I know it happens, and I am not discounting the experiences of those who've had it happen, but it has not been true for me on either side of the fence. Thus, it's impossible to tell with a blanket statement whether or not something will be "right" for one game, and not another.
Right now it's down to me and my wife as other players have left or been hard to come by, and, as a result, DMPCs are the way of things for us.
Potential Perks:
- Romance! You can use a DMPC as (a) romantic option(s) for the player!
- Filling Party Gaps! You can use a DMPC to fill in the holes of a party with only one (or very few) player(s), allowing the player to play the character they want without forcing unfair and unfun multiclassing penalties!
- Keeping the only PC (or the only two PCs) alive at low levels! I'm actually very harsh with my GMPCs, and they don't have a huge life expectancy. Even when they don't die, I usually show off "cool" (i.e. "deadly") monster abilities on the GMPC(s) first, just so the player(s) can have an in-character way of knowing what they're dealing with. If there was a solid or even burgeoning romantic attachment... well, that's just more drama.
- Giving opinions/putting in a vote when the party can't come to a decision (or giving the deciding vote to a player when it happens that the GMPCs are split). While my GMPCs oft have opinions, they usually aren't forceful about them (character traits rather than campaign hooks). If the PCs are evenly split and simply can't come up with an answer, I have the GMPC weigh in in-character (occasionally metagaming, but I keep that to a rare few instances - I think I've done so twice). On the other hand, when I've got a few GMPCs (a sadly not-terribly-rare occurrence around these parts), I generally have them have different opinions in character and present the arguments to the player(s) to side with (or against) based off their in-character arguments. My GMPCs rarely agree with each other, and often have substantially different personalities and abilities.
- They can be great story-fillers. If a story has gaps in it: bam GMPC can be there. It works wonders to cement the theme and tone of a story when no PC wants to make a character that "fits" with the world, or gives the feeling or sensation of the adventure pathe (home brew or otherwise). Just don't make it all about the GMPC - they're there for the delicious, delicious flavor, not to take over or have the whole story revolve only around them.
Potential Drawbacks:
- It drains my time and focus. While I enjoy playing characters, it becomes substantially more difficult to run encounters (especially if they're complicated). This means that it takes me longer to resolve combat rounds. Generally this results in me beginning to hand-wave things at a certain point, or carefully check stats in general before hand, and make complicated notes and preparations to speed things along, like
"d20 results: 5 = hit john for 1d12+6 damage melee, 11 = hit bob for 1d12+1 damage melee, 8 = hit jaine for 1d12+6 damage melee; 8= hit john for 1d6+3 damage ranged, 14= hit bob for 1d8-2 damage ranged; 11= hit jaine for 1d8+3 dmg melee"
... or..."saves: fortitude needed to negate john (d20: 14 fortitude, 12 reflex, 4 will), bob (d20: 4 foritutde, 12 relfex, 14 will), jaine (d20: 9 fortitude, 9 reflex, 6 will)"
... or similar notes. If I have time, I start rolling d20s up in advance so that when it comes to it, I know exactly whether or not the bad guys hit the good guys, and when, and who goes at which point, and all that. This becomes especially necessary for mass combats with multiple baddies, NPCs, and GMPCs. The PC(s) still roll their own dice, and I set them up within the predetermined initiative order. Still, I'd rather not have to do all this work in advance, as I've got enough to do. It is a really nice thing to be able to just describe battles, though, instead of wait every round for five people to make multiple decisions and do stuff.
- It can result in heavy-handed GMing. Being rather paranoid about this, I constantly ask any players I have for feedback, and work to tweak my style to better suit the gaming style of whatever group I happen to be running at the time. As a result, I've mostly avoided doing heavy-handed player-angering techniques I've seen a lot of people complain about on these boards. I've seen enough complaints to know that they must be at least partially valid, and I know how easy it can be to fall into the trap of "leading by the nose". I've been too heavy-handed a few times, but strangely (I guess) never due to a GMPC. Still, something to watch for.
- It can result in the GMPC being the "star". Similar to the one above, a GMPC can steal the spotlight from the players. First, as a member of the party, it's okay for a GMPC to look cool every once in a while. In fact, if the GMPC is nothing but bumbling, the party will wonder why they're there in the first place. However, the GMPC shouldn't be so powerful that they don't need the party, and shouldn't be so awesome that the party is not really needed as a result. So, basically, don't overdo it. Create a character that's fun, but keep them well within the bounds of reason, and perhaps ever-so-slightly underpowered compared to the players (though this needn't always be true). You can create uberguy when you're the player. ()
- It can be slightly disappointing to you when your character dies with no chance of resurrection. I mean, it's your character! Why wouldn't it? (But it can make for some great stories.)
- It can get the one player mad at me (briefly, though it may be), if the GMPC dies forever. Look, how was I supposed to know your character loved that one! She hadn't made any moves! () This is... more specific to our campaigns, though, so, you know. :)
Anyway. GMPCs are created in our games for a number of reasons:
- The PCs make some really great recruiting rolls. () Generally, if a player really wants something, I allow it as a possibility, regardless of how difficult or strange unless it's simply too impossible or disruptive. But I'm permissive like that. Sometimes GMPCs result (like the Serpent Skull game.)
- There aren't enough PCs, but the group wants to go after a particular story or style of play anyway. This happens on occasion, and it's a real thing. You really want to play that nifty new AP, but you only have two people! Sure, the GM could re-balance things, drop stuff, or what have you, but if you just drop stuff, the experience can be quite lacking, and if you don't have time to do that from the beginning, it means your hand is forced. Plus, dependent on the story, it can be very awkward or uncomfortable if they simply drop out later.
- I really want to add flavor to a game that the PCs are just missing. If it's an urban horror game and they all roll up simple forest folk that "aren't never afraid of nothing", the game will come off as a bit poor without some sort of in-between. If it's a detective mystery and no one has the ability to gather clues... well (though usually the GMPC "detective" will only gain clues as the character would, and it's the party's job to put them together.)
- The GM is asked to do so by the players. This is a thing that happens.
- It's necessary for some other reason. There are really too many to name here.
Anyway, that's been my experiences with it, and those that I've gotten from talking with others whenever this thread comes up periodically.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, anything that gives me an excuse to stand up from the table and pantomime the actions of a cowardly archeologist that had no idea this temple was full of undead is okay with my players. They get a kick out of it.