GMPC - The Reliable Friend

[Lumiere Dawnbringer]

DMPCs aren't a bad thing, they are just really easy to botch in a lot of directions and require a level of awareness and commitment a less experienced DM may have difficulty dealing with.

[Kimera757]

Cranefist wrote:

While I like maintaining the integrity of the sandbox I run and I don't fudge dice, 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.

Isn't that taxing on your time and mental resources? One reason I don't like henchmen, hirelings and so forth is because I need to have an idea of what they're doing at all times, especially in combat. (Why wouldn't the NPCs attack the vulnerable poorly-armed guys in charge of the water and food supplies? When a combat breaks out, all of a sudden their locations, actions, and even AC, saving throw bonuses and hit point totals become important when the NPCs target them with Burning Hands spells.)

It's the same reason a lot of DMs take no control over summons, animal companions, etc, and sometimes use "mob templates". It just slows them down. Better to hand over the henchmen to the players. It's easier for a player to control one henchman than for a DM to control 6 attacking NPCs plus two henchmen (or more than 10, as in the above example).

Quote:

How receptive are you to the GMPC if he is low powered and doesn't contribute to many ideas or directions - just role play and combat help (though he gets a share of the loot and xp).

Certain editions actually handle this well. Pathfinder is not one of them. You'll always have players being suspicious of how much power the DMPC has compared to them. (This is especially the case when you have a 3rd-level NPC fighter help a 1st-level party. At the very least that fighter should be leading troops in what turns out to be a battle of lesser importance just out of range.)

I ran a d20 Modern campaign where, for a couple of sessions, this issue came up. It took place in AD 184 China, so maybe I should have called it d20 Past, but I never bought that book. Never mind that. None of the PCs were a healer, and one session only had three PCs who wanted to travel across a mountain range.

They borrowed a previously existing doctor NPC to help them out. Said doctor never had stats before beyond a Treat Injury value. I let the players design him within limits. I said he had to be two levels below them and had to be an "Ordinary" (d20 Modern's equivalent of an NPC class, so picture using an adept instead of a cleric as a DMPC and you have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about). The players made him an archer (and he wasn't that good at it) mainly to keep him out of trouble. They were to control all of his actions, not me!

This generally worked. In one encounter, they came across a cave occupied by bandits. In one of the rooms in the "dungeon", there was a pair of pillars right by the entrance. They had the doctor take cover behind the pillars, then advanced to take on the bandits. Alas, there was a trap in the room, placed right by the pillars because any attacker would likely use that area to take cover. Flaming logs fell on the doctor, and the PCs scrambled to save him as the bandits gleefully fell on them. (The PCs still won though.) They almost lost the doctor in a similar manner in another encounter.

It's a lot easier to make the doctor fall into that trap, because I could not mix player and character knowledge. It didn't matter that I (as DM) knew where the trap was. The players made that error, and they paid for it. They also won, because they'd made that error while trying to be smart (and played smart for the whole encounter), so they deserved their victory.

Splitting XP and loot can cause resentment (even though it's reasonable/fair) and mess around with math (even though, again, that's reasonable/fair). I personally had enough trouble keeping loot levels proper in 3rd Edition, I wouldn't want any extra hassles.

[Blueluck]

Cranefist wrote:

How receptive are you to the GMPC if he is low powered and doesn't contribute to many ideas or directions - just role play and combat help (though he gets a share of the loot and xp).

100% unreceptive.

I've been playing RPGs for more than 20 years, in a wide variety of game systems, with a wide variety of GMs. Many times I've seen a DMPC, and while I've never once seen it make a game better, I've frequently seen it flaw, wound, or even kill a game.

[ericthetolle]

Look, it's a dangerous world for player characters, and they rarely know where to go. That's why GMPCs are necessary, like my Doomfam. He's just there to help the PCs; even though he's a 25th level fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue, he doesn't dominate the game. He's just there to back the PCs up, give them directions, solve puzzles and kill the BBEG. Last session was great; the PCs were paralyzed, so they got to hear some of Doomfam's backstory (not all of it-that's being self published on Amazon this fall- look for "Doomfam the Destructor") before he killed Asmodeus. It was such an awesome victory that the PCs got to hold some of Doomfam's artifacts. Anyway, I could talk a lot more about Doomfam, but I have to write the upcoming adventure where the PCs help Doomfam save Thor, who gives Doomfam Mjolnier to use as a backup weapon. Ta!

[Blueluck]

ericthetolle wrote:

Look, it's a dangerous world for player characters, and they rarely know where to go. That's why GMPCs are necessary, like my Doomfam. He's just there to help the PCs; even though he's a 25th level fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue, he doesn't dominate the game. He's just there to back the PCs up, give them directions, solve puzzles and kill the BBEG. Last session was great; the PCs were paralyzed, so they got to hear some of Doomfam's backstory (not all of it-that's being self published on Amazon this fall- look for "Doomfam the Destructor") before he killed Asmodeus. It was such an awesome victory that the PCs got to hold some of Doomfam's artifacts. Anyway, I could talk a lot more about Doomfam, but I have to write the upcoming adventure where the PCs help Doomfam save Thor, who gives Doomfam Mjolnier to use as a backup weapon. Ta!

Sadly close to the truth in some cases.

[Wandslinger]

I run the world, yes, but world building and running said world don't keep me personally invested enough to keep coming back to the game week after week. The progression of a character throughout their adventures is what keeps me coming back.

We take a pretty relaxed attitude at my table. We're all there to have fun. If my fun requires a DMPC, then that's what it takes. We play other games where other people are GMs in different systems. Some play GMPCs, some don't. If they don't, then obviously their fun doesn't require it.

When I'm running my DMPC, I put myself in the mindset of a supporting character in a fantasy novel. These actual PCs are the main characters, I am like their main ally. I never take ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate; I only take knowledge skills when they ask me to; and I always play the holefiller. I don't even play gish types or multiclass unless nobody is playing those roles. I do everything I can to keep from stepping on their toes. And while I run my GMPC in combat, I always let the PCs choose what tactics our party is using.

[John Kretzer]

One of these days I would like to see a constructive thread about how to handle playing a GMPC in game without ruining the game...instead of people throwing around their 'experiences' as absolute evidence that GMPCs don't work.

[Mystery Meep]

For my part I don't usually use them, largely because it's a distraction. As a GM I already have 'everything else' to worry about, so needing to also run an individual character who is always with the group is a lot of extra work!

There is one situation in which that changed, though--and that was actually when the players pretty much demanded that a particular NPC stick with them. I actually kept moving to have her leave or move on, but they really enjoyed her presence (and probably were trying to be nice beecause they know I'd rather play.)

So it really isn't an 'always' thing by any stretch of the imagination. That said, it wouldn't be my go-to solution if the party were missing something; if the party's missing something, they're just... missing something, they can deal and plan around it.

[ElyasRavenwood]

I have seen awful DMpcs. I have seen DMpcs that the story revolved around. We called ourselves the "Watchers" because all our adventuring party ever did, was watch other monsters fight, or watch the DMpc fight them.

And I have seen DMpcs that work. In one game I Co-GMed with a friend of mine. We worked together and wrote a big 20 level meta plot... we made detailed back stories for our "PC"S.
We divided things up. I DMed levels 1-3, my friend levels 4-5, I took 6-7, my friend 8-9.....

So When I DMed, my PC was a "DMPC", and when my friend GMed, his PC wa a DMPC and mine was a pc......It worked for us and for our group.

At the moment I have a small group....two players and 1 GM myself and yes a GMPC....So our plan is to rotate GMS.

In short a GMpc can work and it can be awful.

Just my two cents.