|
I think it's a slippery slope, and I prefer to avoid it.
It may start with a GMPC that's just there to fill in a missing role - like healer or even tank - but next you might be tempted to make some "common sense observations" because the players are totally missing the point of some clues you laid out.
I definitely won't put a GMPC in the party; if the party really wants to hire someone for a particular role, that's negotiable, but that NPC will insist on some sort of negotiated contract with the party; he'll never be a true organic part of the group. He'll also be weaker, tend to non-flashy powers that require little bookkeeping (Toughness instead of Power Attack), and definitely won't be an advanced caster. Like, if he's a cleric, he'll have a standard spell preparation from which he'll never vary of his own accord. The GMPC will not display a lot of personal initiative.
I wouldn't split XP with the GMPC. It's not a PC, it follows the magical NPC XP rules. But he'll demand a reasonable cut of the treasure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you described what is acceptable earlier in your post:
"I find having some npcs around really helps keep the party active in adventures and death free. Nothing like a good npc meat shield or multiclass healer / rogue to keep the party alive. They might redshirt, but at least the invested players stay alive."
That is not a DMPC, that is an NPC that helps the party. There is a huge difference.
Never, ever use a DMPC. They are always bad--100% of the time--no matter what other people in the thread will claim (watch: everyone who supports them will be GMs that use them).
NPCs that help the party are fine--even desirable. Just make sure you understand the difference and don't let them cross over.
I can certainly see the points being made against GMPC use. I really had not thought about it. At our table, we have a bit of a rotation on our GMs sometimes. As it happens, my character was a pretty strong part of the party structure, but now I'm the GM. I had not really planned to retire him, but you have certainly given me food for thought.
Sad to think that I have played through 18 levels just to push him to the sidelines because of my changed role. I do think I have avoided giving him any perks - we have other players learning their capabilities better, so my character is less likely to need to carry the fight. In fact, in the last two major fights, he has played a support role instead of being the frontline warrior. I don't think he even got to attack in the first fight - but a random dice roll determined he tookfour negative levels from an enervation spell. No, he's not getting special treatment. But maybe he needs to retire.
Sad...
I can certainly see the points being made against GMPC use. I really had not thought about it. At our table, we have a bit of a rotation on our GMs sometimes. As it happens, my character was a pretty strong part of the party structure, but now I'm the GM. I had not really planned to retire him, but you have certainly given me food for thought.
Sad to think that I have played through 18 levels just to push him to the sidelines because of my changed role.
I think the issue here is that in 100% of groups I've been involved in, if the GM changed, they started their own game rather than running the previous GM's game. Why would you continue the other guy's story? Hell, how would you know where he was going with it? Why not start your own?
What if the other guy didn't have a 'story' or if he was using a published story that someone else wrote anyway?
Then again, I'm not very big on 'GMs story' of any sort really. It's the PLAYER'S story to write as they deem fit by their actions and goals and drive.
I actually agree, and chose my words poorly. The PCs do drive the story, and I do not "tell a story" as a GM, but lazily chose to use the word "story." Even not telling a story, though, there are still things I know about the setting that the PCs don't--NPC motivations and goals, for example, or the existence of slumbering evil or whatever.
The point is, I would never continue someone else's game, nor have I ever considered doing it, or known anyone else that did or would consider it, and I find it odd that it would be common practice with others. I don't even really understand the logistics of it.
Because we are many years into an adventure path, pre-dating Pathfinder. He's invested so much time into keeping the group on the path that if he thought we weren't going to see it through to the end, he would have stayed in the GM's chair, but he could not afford it - too much real life stuff going on. He delayed this for months more than he should have.
The other players want to continue the story and he gets to play for the first time in years. It's a win-win for our table. Might not work for everyone, but it works for us.
I find it amusing that you find it so incomprehensible. It made complete sense for us.
|
It depends a DMPC tends to be a PC who is equal or better than the PC's.
Adding in NPC's that travel with the party is different. My group always tries to get some NPC's to help out. Some of them do, some don't. Some of them eventually die, some retire and some move on to do their own thing.
They key is make interesting NPC's the PC's can run into and if they try and talk the NPC into coming along, have the NPC do so. Let them form a bound with the NPC if they want to ask them to keep traveling or let it be a one off.
Once the players trust you to make NPC's who are just like any other NPC but that might travel with them at times most players become more cool with the idea.
Kinda like sidekicks, guest stars etc. The PC's stay the star of the show and the NPC's only stay around till the story writes them out or the PC's kick them to the curb which ever comes first.
|
I'll come right out and say that, yes, I'm a GM, and I support the GMPC. I started out playing the game this way, and it has rarely changed. I have seen some pretty bad GMPC characters, not in the invincible awesome dude, but in the always secretly has the win button way. Very annoying.
In my case, I run a GMPC because that is what keeps me invested in the game. If I didn't have my own personal stake in the game, I wouldn't be running it. My players know this, and accept it. They know that I'm on the same footing as they are, and over the last three years, I've had my fair share of bad things happen to my characters. In fact, when I ran Carrion Crown, far more of my characters were seriously debilitated, or died, than all the other characters combined.
I play the hole filler as a rule. Sometimes it's a healbot, sometimes it's smashmastery.
In fact, when I ran Carrion Crown, far more of my characters were seriously debilitated, or died, than all the other characters combined.
Er, like half of Carrion Crown is mystery and investigation, and the other half is being prepared to fight things with unusual DR and abilities. You know what's coming because you read the path, right? So, how do you draw the line on what your character would or would not be able to figure out or be prepared for?
The same question to the guy who took over an adventure path for the other GM--and the GM still plays in the game. He knows what's next--doesn't that take a bit away from the experience?
If the story is pre-written like that, it's spoiled by switching GMs or playing a GMPC. If it's an open sandbox like I generally run, another GM would have no idea what all the locations held or what NPC motivations were or any secret plans in the background or dozens of other things.
I could understand a game that took place totally in Golarion where each adventure was totally disconnected from the others, like each GM ran their own vignettes, basically, but that's the extent of me understanding rotating GMs.
I just don't see how this could be done while maintaining the integrity of the game. To each their own.
|
In fact, when I ran Carrion Crown, far more of my characters were seriously debilitated, or died, than all the other characters combined.Er, like half of Carrion Crown is mystery and investigation, and the other half is being prepared to fight things with unusual DR and abilities. You know what's coming because you read the path, right? So, how do you draw the line on what your character would or would not be able to figure out or be prepared for?
Separation of player and character knowledge is one of the most important skills a player should have regardless of which side of the screen he is on.
He could run an 8 Int NPC that doesn't have the knowledge to act on. Just because you the DM know does not mean your character knows.
First off:
Never, ever use a DMPC. They are always bad--100% of the time--no matter what other people in the thread will claim (watch: everyone who supports them will be GMs that use them).
"People who disagree with me (especially ones who utilize the thing in question) are wrong because my opinion is fact" is the sort of thing that probably has more logical fallacies in it than I could conceivably count.
Anyway, moving away from that bit of stupidity, I DO use GMPCs, yes. I level them up with the party and generally use them to fill in for a needed class role (though not ALL of the needed class roles, that's just boring and silly). They generally have only one or two defining character quirks and are pretty much there to make skill checks when prompted by the other players. Their tactics are simple and will generally only be varied if it is specifically requested by the PCs, or it is an obvious known trait of the monster (trolls don't like fire, fairly well known fact). They don't have any information that the PCs don't already have access to. If the GM himself metagames, how can he expect the players not to, after all?
I don't see what the inherent problem in this is. It gives me a chance to play a little bit in a session I run and gives the PCs another body on the field that's always going to be there (we've had a lot of absences recently due to this, that, and the other).
I generally view GMPCs as a crutch. Usually (note that I said "usually" not "always") when a GM uses one to fill a hole in the party, that is because the GM does not know how to tailor his campaign to the party or allow his party to adapt. Otherwise, it is often (note "often" not "always") a distraction to the GM as they have to run yet another aspect of the world instead of focusing on GMing. Players do often/usually tend to rely a lot on GMPCs as well, because a lot (not "all") of the time the GMPC is there to circumvent an aspect of the world that the GM did not feel the party was prepared to handle.
I do and have used GMPCs. My last campaign had three equivalent level character DMPCs traveling with the party's caravan, because the group had no arcane caster, healer, or skill monkey. I killed them all horribly when the party needed them most (aka, I felt the party was relying on them too much), and the party had to react to the plot twist and adapt. It made me think long and hard about using DMPCs ever again. I was able to use the DMPCs to impress several aspects of my homebrew world on them, but it ended up being a mistake. In the long run, it made for a good plot twist, but it hampered the early part of the game.
In fact, when I ran Carrion Crown, far more of my characters were seriously debilitated, or died, than all the other characters combined.Er, like half of Carrion Crown is mystery and investigation, and the other half is being prepared to fight things with unusual DR and abilities. You know what's coming because you read the path, right? So, how do you draw the line on what your character would or would not be able to figure out or be prepared for?Separation of player and character knowledge is one of the most important skills a player should have regardless of which side of the screen he is on.
He could run an 8 Int NPC that doesn't have the knowledge to act on. Just because you the DM know does not mean your character knows.
Notice I was questioning where you draw the line, not how to play a character that knows nothing. Knowing nothing is easy, it's knowing only some things that's hard.
First, an NPC is fine--I've always advocated NPCs helping the party. The issue is with DMPCs, not NPCs.
Second, an Int 8 character doesn't know nothing. That's ridiculous. And that's exactly the problem I'm talking about--where do you draw the line?
Let's say you read the module for the game you're in. You know everything that's going to happen and the answers to all the mysteries and exactly what to prepare for.
Your character does not know everything, obviously. However, they know some things.
If you don't discover what they know organically (i.e. by going into the adventure with no knowledge as you're intended), how can you fairly decide what that character can figure out on their own? Acting like your character can't figure anything out at all is just as problematic as them figuring everything out spontaneously because you know it.
Third, while I'm trying to come at this from a different perspective, I'm of the school of thought that riddles, puzzles, investigations are for the players to solve (just as conversations and whatnot are also for the players to have), because rolling for that stuff is boring as hell. I prefer immersive roleplaying where the PCs feel as thought they are their characters, and actively separating knowledge is an unwanted barrier to immersion.
This has not been an issue for the most part, however, as I have always run my own material (only recently have I tried running something pre-written: Serpent's Skull, but I've had to heavily modify it and I knew none of the players had read it before).
First off:
Never, ever use a DMPC. They are always bad--100% of the time--no matter what other people in the thread will claim (watch: everyone who supports them will be GMs that use them)."People who disagree with me (especially ones who utilize the thing in question) are wrong because my opinion is fact" is the sort of thing that probably has more logical fallacies in it than I could conceivably count.
But, it's funny if you don't take it seriously--did anyone take that seriously?
Anyway, moving away from that bit of stupidity, I DO use GMPCs, yes. I level them up with the party and generally use them to fill in for a needed class role (though not ALL of the needed class roles, that's just boring and silly). They generally have only one or two defining character quirks and are pretty much there to make skill checks when prompted by the other players. Their tactics are simple and will generally only be varied if it is specifically requested by the PCs, or it is an obvious known trait of the monster (trolls don't like fire, fairly well known fact). They don't have any information that the PCs don't already have access to.
What you are describing is not a DMPC. This is an NPC that helps the party. This is not a problem.
I killed them all horribly when the party needed them most (aka, I felt the party was relying on them too much), and the party had to react to the plot twist and adapt.
Again, not DMPCs. These are NPCs that help the party. There is a huge difference!
A few thing that I think make for an acceptable GMPC.
-should be less powerful than the party. Use a minimum point buy, or keep the GMPC a level or 2 lower than the main PCs.
-have no social skills - keep RP interaction focused on PCs. Don't use the GMPC for narrative or exposition.
-don't overlap a role that a PC has covered, and especially one they have focused on. The role of the GMPC is to fill a vacant role.
-let the PCs direct the GMPC in combat. The GM knows what the monsters are going to do, so should not be acting on that knowledge. Letting the PCs decide keeps the GMPC equally as "in the dark" as the PCs. They don't need to have the GMPC character sheet, commands such as "come over here and heal" are sufficient.
-let the PCs roll for the GMPC sometimes, especially if the GMPC is the rogue and is searching/disarming traps. You don't want the PCs to think you detonated (or did not) that trap on purpose, because you felt like it. Other checks may be appropriate for the PCs to roll, but those are more situational than trap finding.
If you do those things, it is not a GMPC, it is an NPC that helps the party.
Seriously, this is a different phenomenon. This is totally acceptable and even encouraged.
DMPCs are not weaker than the party, they don't stay quiet in social situations, they don't know nothing about what's going on, they don't let the party direct them in combat--they function like actual PCs.
They do everything PCs do, like choosing their own build however they like (and frequently have houserules made to cater to them). They speak up in social situations, take spotlight, and help decide what the game focuses on. They make choices and decisions, solve mysteries, and choose their own actions and roles in combat.
A DMPC and an NPC that helps the party are not the same!
The same question to the guy who took over an adventure path for the other GM--and the GM still plays in the game. He knows what's next--doesn't that take a bit away from the experience?
Actually, I was planning to run the adventure path originally, so I had read/scanned each installment as they were published in Dungeon. The guy hosting our games got all excited about the AP and wanted to run it - so I was a player. He's never had any concerns about the fact that I was familiar with the path before we started - and he's free (and expected) to throw plot twists in even in a pre-generated adventure.
If I have a concern about what a character would know, it's a dice roll and the DM tells me if I know it or not. I generally don't play know-it-all characters, so it's pretty easy to stick to the common knowledge sort of things. Of course, after several years of playing, I've forgotten most of what I read, anyway, because I specifically avoided those issues of Dungeon since we started the AP.
I trust him to keep his player knowledge separate, also, and he's been so busy with RL issues over the course of the last year that he actually hasn't read the last couple of installments yet. In fact, I'm quite sure what we did last night surprised him, so I think I'm already past what he previewed.
As you say, to each his own. I do prefer to be in a game where I don't have foreknowledge. But it doesn't ruin the experience for me. It's always been more about hanging out with friends than playing the ideal instance of rpg.
Cheers!
Here, let me expand on the difference I'm trying to make here, between DMPCs and NPCs that help the party. I'm going to be lazy and quote myself:
The major differences are:
1) Vested interest--a GM has no vested interest in the survival of an NPC. It's just an NPC, no different from any other background characters. I mean, no GM cares if the butcher in the local town dies, right? Meanwhile, a GM has huge vested interest in a GMPC--it is their character after all. They want their PC to survive and be awesome!
2) Drawn focus--a GM does not draw focus towards NPCs, the players do. An NPC only has spotlight when a PC gives it to them by virtue of interacting with them. For example, an NPC thief picks a lock because one of the PCs asked/told them to do it or brought them along specifically for those sorts of purposes. A GMPC, meanwhile, is fully capable of taking spotlight for themselves or even generating it for NPCs by interacting with them. In fact, this can create a chain of problems, since NPCs the players normally wouldn't give a damn about can end up with spotlight because the GM puts them into focus via his GMPC interacting with him. "Tell me about your childhood, oh great Wizard." "What? No, let's move on." "No, Dr. Awesome wants to know about the Wizard's childhood."
3) Power--a GM does not make his NPCs more powerful than the party. NPCs have the same (or more often, lower) pointbuy, class levels, intelligent feat choices, etc. And in fact, if the PCs suck at making their characters, the GM makes their NPCs even more sucky, to make sure there's no overshadowing. "I'm a half-dragon half drow Sorcerer and she's a Wizard/Monk/Rogue!" "Oh, well, uh, you meet a Kobold Barbarian with a shield and dagger..." A GMPC, however, is not bound by this law. A GMPC is as powerful as the GM is able to make it utilizing any and all tricks in the book. "I'm a dual wielding Cavalier and he's a Paladin with a Crossbow, because Crossbows are cool." "Ok, meet Father Facekicker, a Divine Metamagic Cleric." Especially egregious ones will have house rules built around their schtick. If the GM ever tells you about all his houserules for grappling and then brings in a GMPC Tetori Monk, be afraid.
4) Deus ex-machina problem/puzzle/mystery solving--a GM does not solve puzzles of his own design via NPC sources. At best, NPCs might offer cryptic hints or clues if asked, but unless your players hate puzzles and brought an NPC along specifically to solve them, an NPC does not solve problems/puzzles/mysteries for the PCs. "Who killed him?" "I don't know, maybe we should check the scene again, re-examine that dagger?" A GMPC, however, solves them like there's no tomorrow. "Who killed him?" "Jo-Bob the mountain man--didn't you notice the carving from his wife on the handle of the dagger?"
I've never gotten the difference really, besides a negative stigma associated DMPCs so idk if I use them or not.
I will say this though, I like to treat my NPCs like guest stars on my player's shows. The PCs are the stars, but the NPCs have goals are moving throughout the world doing their own things.
Occasionally they may help a pc and join the party for a time if requested, but they ultimately leave to do their own things. They're dynamic and their own goals drive the story, as reflected by the actions pcs take in relation to them, since the PCs are still the real stars of the show. But yes, they level(when appropriate) and will occasionally disagree with the PC. I think these kinds of NPCs are good for the party to encounter, and they help build a stronger sense of the world around them imo.
Edit: Going by MLP's standards
1) I try to kill them off all the time. The players go out of their way to try to save them in some cases though.
2) While I will have them drawn some focus("You guys see a dude wielding 2 Bastards swords in the hallway, standing over the body of a troll."), it'd definitely just to draw the story in a certain direction. And I can't count the amount of backstory for NPCs my players have skipped over/killed before they could say a word. I don't think that's a terrible issue.
3) I do power-game my NPCs, but my players are power gamers to one degree or another in terms of build strength. If I want them to be useful/challenging, I have to meet the demand as it were. Also, I inform them of all my house rules via messaging, so I can't see what would do that.
4) Only did it once, when they sought out a sage-type character to solve their problem. Otherwise, it's all PCs.
What you are describing is not a DMPC. This is an NPC that helps the party. This is not a problem.
I think we may have different definitions of DMPC then.
Mine is a character that is a player character in most ways, except I have to work a bit harder to stop myself from metagaming (and therefore ruining the story for my players).
Yours seems to be something else I can't quite seem to break down.
IMO what I do is a GMPC done right, or as right as possible. A helpful NPC is more like a town guard or something that gives them directions in my book. If it travels with the party, participates in conversations (though in the case of a GMPC, doesn't dominate them), and all around does everything the PCs do, it's a PC. What makes it a GMPC is just the fact that the GM controls it for the most part.
If the party need a hole filler or a red shirt, roll one up, and hand the sheet over to the players to run, after a brief intro. Of course, if they have him do crazy suicidal things you can over rule them, but the DM has enough to do without running a NPC also.
There's the fact that players don't like DMPC's in general. The usual reaction varies from quit in disgust to "Well, Bob's a great DM otherwise and he's having fun, so we'll go along with it."
And an earlier poster did make a good point- when we see posters adamantly saying DMPC's are great, it's always a DMPC running DM.
Now of course with any rule there are exceptions: when there's only one player and the DM- or when you have rotating DM's, all of whom have PC's.
But in general, it's best for DM's to avoid DMPCs.
I ran a single-player campaign where the main PC got a handful of allies for each different adventure.
The player controlled their actions in combat, whilst I RPed them in other situations. To a certain degree they served to point the player in the right direction when he wasn't sure which way to go. But on the whole, it was a case of him saying "hey, ally, what should we do next?" rather than them volunteering information.
Some were equal to the PC in power level, some lower level, and a few higher level. They didn't gain XP but they did receive an equal share of treasure. Of course, they usually 'moved on to other things' at the end of each tale.
I don't know if this really qualifies as a DMPC, but the player really enjoyed this element to the campaign, and at the start of each adventure would be excited to find out who his new ally would be.
I see a lot of people claiming that healing, buffing, and other support characters can't steal the show.
Er, what? I play almost exclusively support characters, and I'm almost always at center stage. Support characters do tend to fall into leadership roles, after all. We make tough fights easy.
Nobody doesn't notice when my Hospitaler takes half of the main tank's damage, then pops off three heals in one turn (LoH on self, Quick Channel as a move, and a standard Channel). My Oracle of Life is almost as crazy with Energy Body and Lifelink, except I also get full spellcasting for more buffs and CC. My Bard's Inspire Courage is responsible for more damage than anyone else in the party (and Cacophanous Call/Confusion makes for amazing CC). My Helpful, Blundering Defensed, Bodyguard Sensei routinely saves PC lives with crazy AC buffs (and Touch of Serenity is amazing CC) or by granting just the right ability at the right time (Diamond Body just before a mega poison attack, Evasion just before a big AoE blast--I even once saved someone with Slow Fall).
Maybe you guys just haven't seen well-built support characters ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A "GMPC" that is "low powered and doesn't contribute too many ideas or directions - just role plays and helps in combat," does not sound like much of a GMPC to me. It sounds more like an NPC.
I see a lot of people claiming that healing, buffing, and other support characters can't steal the show.
Er, what? I play almost exclusively support characters, and I'm almost always at center stage. Support characters do tend to fall into leadership roles, after all. We make tough fights easy.
Emphasis mine. That might also have some bearing on how your GMPC is perceived. ;-)
Regarding your earlier bullet points,
Vested interest - Unless the character takes an action that makes them a preferred target, a dice roll determines who gets the love from the BBEG, just like I do when I don't have a character in the game. Sometimes the character drawing attention to himself is mine. I think I'm playing it clean.
Drawn Focus - Non-issue. I'm too busy to grandstand. If they want his opinion, they ask for it.
Power - Non-issue. He was rolled up with the original DM's rules and actually turned out sub-optimal because of something cool I tried.
Deus Ex Machina - Nothing has come up in my brief turn at the wheel for me to do something of this nature, but I will pay attention since this thread has pointed it out.
Understand that I am not dismissing your concerns, I am just saying that 'there lies potential problems' does not equal 'it's a disaster and never works'. I appreciate the comments from obviously more-experienced GMs. I seem to be accidentally avoiding pitfalls that concern you. Now, I can hopefully avoid them intentionally.
Cheers!
Emphasis mine. That might also have some bearing on how your GMPC is perceived. ;-)I see a lot of people claiming that healing, buffing, and other support characters can't steal the show.
Er, what? I play almost exclusively support characters, and I'm almost always at center stage. Support characters do tend to fall into leadership roles, after all. We make tough fights easy.
To clarify, I have never used a GMPC and never will. I was referring to my PCs, when someone else GMs (albeit, that is a rare circumstance).
|
|
A GMPC is just an NPC that you don't approve of, really. It's a meaningless distinction.
First, an NPC is fine--I've always advocated NPCs helping the party. The issue is with DMPCs, not NPCs.Second, an Int 8 character doesn't know nothing. That's ridiculous. And that's exactly the problem I'm talking about--where do you draw the line?
Let's say you read the module for the game you're in. You know everything that's going to happen and the answers to all the mysteries and exactly what to prepare for.
Your character does not know everything, obviously. However, they know some things.
If you don't discover what they know organically (i.e. by going into the adventure with no knowledge as you're intended), how can you fairly decide what that character can figure out on their own? Acting like your character can't figure anything out at all is just as problematic as them figuring everything out spontaneously because you know it.
I'll point out that I never said the NPC knows nothing, and that you're adding in a lot more I didn't say as well.
You ask how I can fairly decide what my NPC can figure out, and I ask you, do you not do the exact same thing for your BBEG? How can you fairly decide how much he can figure out about the party and what they are doing, in order to have him react to them without metagaming?
You can't say one is impossible and the other isn't.
I think mplindustries reasoning is absurd (sorry for the word). His definition of DMPC make them suck inevitably.
Yes, they do inevitably suck, true.
But if there is NPc that travel with the party but the party is not fine with it, then it is a DMPC cause it sucks.
You're close, but not quite. There can be bad NPCs that the party hates, too. DMPCs are awful, but being awful is not enough. Its one of those all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are square things ;)
To be a GMPC, the GM has to treat the character like a PC. If a character that is not controlled by a player gets equal spotlight to the other PCs, that is a problem. No, that's not even enough--if such a character gets any spotlight that wasn't given to them by the actual PCs (by virtue of them interacting with said character), that's a problem.
I can guarantee you it would sadden me to see the butcher that's been a long time associate of the party, the guy they bring their monsters to in order to turn them into product for sale to split profits with, who hosts barbeques with them and whose wife and daughters have also befriended the PC's, to die.
...really? Ok, that's not something I can comprehend. I don't think I'd even be "sad" if one of my PCs died.
So please, don't try to tell me a GM doesn't have a vested interest in the npcs. While many may not, some of us do and it's a slap in the face to tell us otherwise.
Ok, so I'll reword this in a less funny way so you don't feel butthurt anymore:
If the GM takes measures to save the character commensurate to what a player would take to save their PC, then it is a problem. You can be as emotional as you like, but you are still apparently willing to let the character die without pulling out all the stops.
Sure a GM who uses a GMPC would want him to survive and be awesome. But what you're forgetting is that every GM wants every PC to survive and be awesome, whether they play him or not.
Er, what? I have no vested interest in the lives of my PCs. I only have vested interest in the fun of my players. Their characters can all die 5297864318746 times as long as they enjoyed it. That said, I've never had a PC death in 20 years of D&D (though I have had PCs die in L5R and Godlike). But that has nothing to do with vested interest.
The problem arises when a GM uses a GMPC and gives that GMPC priority over the other PC's. When that happens, things tend to go south HARD, but that doesn't always happen depending on the GM in question.
Wait a second. When you PC, don't you give your own character priority over the others? How could you not? You want your character to be awesome and survive, so you pull out all the stops to make sure they're ok. Keep in mind I'm not talking about overshadowing them by playing a CoDzilla in an all Monk campaign--just that if you had to choose between the life of your PC and another's, you pick your own. That's a no brainer.
So, if the GM is treating this character as their PC (hence GMPC) rather than just some other NPC, they are, by definition, giving them priority over the other characters the same way each other player is giving their PC priority. That's part of what makes it a GMPC in the first place.
See, this right here is the distinction of a bad PC. One who hogs the spotlight when the others unanimously want to do something else.
So, if you care about the backstory of the Great Wizard Bob, you don't find out about the backstory unless the other PCs also care? Really?
I don't care if it's a GM or a Player who's doing something annoying like that, it's f&~!ing annoying and he should respect the other players.
But regardless, it's not only about hogging the spotlight, it's about deciding the spotlight at all. When the GM creates spotlight directly, he guides the party on where to go. That's more railroady than I'm interested in, thanks. The PCs should be making those decisions.
I've played alongside 3 quality GMPC's, one named Marino Vega (a Fighter), one named Phoenix Silverlance (a Knight) and one whose name I can not remember, but who was a twisted and slightly perverted middle-aged evil halfling cleric who occasionally made advances at [only to obtain the ire of the rest of the party and occasionally some light-hearted nonlethal discipline]/half-hearted-ly threatened Shayla (my 12 year old human girl PC.)
WHA--?! Ok, so two Mary Sues (Phoenix Silverlance?! Really?!) and a pedophile? And these were the good characters?
Not one of them ever STOLE the spotlight from the rest of the party, nor did they drag us down when we wanted to be doing something else. All they were, was 'part of the team.' Equal companions with whom we shared adventure, plunder, joy, and sorrow.
If they ever had spotlight at all, they stole it from a PC, where the spotlight rightfully belongs. Taking spotlight from PCs is the sign of a bad GM and GMPCs are great ways to take it "fairly." If you need spotlight, you shouldn't be GMing.
A good GMPC isn't necessarily weaker than the party (although he can be) but he certainly isn't stronger. He's just part of the team. He's a brother-in-arms, a companion, a friend. An equal among equals, where there is no overshadowing.
Being equal is a problem. The PCs should be the focus. They can decide to treat someone as an equal, but it should not be thrust upon them through social contract (if it's a GMPC, they will feel the need to treat them equally, while an NPC can be embraced or shunned freely under most social contracts).
(but if the GMPC can legitimately contribute in a way that helps the party work it out without cheating, that seems reasonable enough to me.)
It is not reasonable, unless the PCs instigate it. Again, if the PCs say, "Hey, NPC, can you open this lock?" and the guy can, awesome. There's a good chance that's why the PCs agreed to let the NPC come along. If the PCs realize they can't pick the lock themselves and then try to figure out another way, and the GMPC says, "oh, it's cool, I can pick the lock," that's a problem.
If the GM knew he was going to have this character pick the lock no matter what, why was there even a lock here? Hint: to draw focus to himself and his character, when the focus should rightfully be on the PCs/where the PCs decide to put it.
Again, I've run lots and lots of NPCs that have traveled with the party. It's great--it adds a lot. Probably 50% of the games I've run over the past 20 years have involved only 2 PCs, so they frequently want characters to accompany them. But the PCs remain in control--they are always the focus. The NPCs contribute when the PCs want them to, never on their own.
It was some sort of post apocalypse or at least post disaster game, where the PCs were traveling through irradiated sewers, beset on all sides by huge radioactive spiders. They were supposed to be totally normal people (level 1), so it was like a bike messanger, a cop, and a stripper who had like, one weapon between them (the cop's sidearm).
They were confronted by these spiders, and the GM made them flail helplessly for a few rounds, all nearly dying, before his GMPC swooped into the rescue. He was dual wielding Greatswords--yes, specifically Greatswords, not bastard swords or whatever--in d20 modern, which had no rules for such a thing. He easily hewed through the spiders--someone noted on the GMPC's sheet that the character literally had all 20s for stats. They asked him about it, and the GM responded that it was from a special optional rule that none of the other PCs qualified for.
He then led them from location to location killing spiders with his dual greatswords while the PCs basically watched. But this wasn't the worst thing he did. No, the moment that defines this character was when he started flirting with the stripper (played by an actual female) and when she was unreceptive, he rolled what he called a critical success on a Charisma roll, so she had to be into him. He even insisted she had to follow him down a side path, where he wanted to take the player into another room to play out the scene that the others weren't there for. She just rightfully walked out on the game.
Oh, and before you go, "oh those silly kids--they'll learn," everyone involved in that game was in their 20s.
THAT is a GMPC.
Never, ever use a DMPC. They are always bad--100% of the time--no matter what other people in the thread will claim (watch: everyone who supports them will be GMs that use them).
Absolute statements like this are never right.
I GM...and use NPCs to fill the holes if any. Example I ran a witch though out a AP because the party did not have a healer or much in the way of arcane caster. She healed in combat or sometime provided damage to area...etc. She never gived her opinion unless asked(which the PCs always did because well it is called RPing), never claims any of the treasure(though the player pick things out for her), never had any side adventures based on her or her action, etc.
I related the above in a hope to illustrate that I do in fact know the difference between a NPC and a GMPC.
Now in with GM I have been playing the longest he always uses a GMPC. His GMPC is of equal level, though most of the time does not hog the spotlight(though sometime any player may find themselves in the spotlight.) is a part of social action, gets a vote, get a equal pick of treasure, well present his opinion in party discssions, etc. But he does not houserules thing in his GMPC's favor(all houserules are pout up to a vote by the party...and any player can propose them), yes he is invested in his PC...but we as players are in general invested in each others characters as well, he does separate his knowledge from his characters knowledge, he sometimes runs plots around his own GMPC...but as players we would find it wrong if he did not.
I as a player...or any of the players do not have a problem with him running a GMPC. He needs to run a GMPC to be fully invested in the game...if he does not the game does suffer(he did so once).
His games are good and fun.
I have heard a alot of horror stories over the years of GMPCS...it yes they can be a bad thing...and not every GM can handle them...but than again they are bad players out there that can't handle 'evil campaigns'...yet there are people who can handle evil campaigns.
As with all this stuff it depends on the GM and players.
WHA--?! Ok, so two Mary Sues (Phoenix Silverlance?! Really?!) and a pedophile? And these were the good characters?
I must have missed the class where they taught that Mary Sues were defined by whatever random name they are given, and not their character traits (which you have none of).
Also, your spoiler contains another baffling bit of "My anecdotal evidence is superior to yours" syndrome, capped off by another nonsensical statement to the effect of "A GMPC is not a GMPC unless it is a walking Deus Ex Machina".
Your definition is not shared by anyone else here. Stop "correcting" people as if it were.
True Story, Bro
And a NPC run by the GM can't be the same? Actualy I have seen it more defined by the GMs who pull such stunts that it is a NPC. GMPCs by defination has to be on a equal footing as the PCs. So...
The GM who had god come down to help the PCs...that is a NPC.
The GM who had a poerful character hire the PCs and then did all the fighting is a NPC. Heck anybody who hires the PCs is a npc.
The GM of the d20 mordern game...might have been a abuse of a GMPC. But it sounds like he was just a bad GM to start with...which well a Bad GM is a Bad GM with or without GMPCs.