And the fact that some DMs claim to have done it exceedingly well doesn't mean that all who claim to have done so really managed to.
I personally know of at least a few who make that claim. But really they did not pull it off at all well.
Personally, I think I could pull it off. But I also know the entire concept it extremely 'off-putting' for many players, so I don't even try it.
My current GM has run a GMPC Cleric for the party since ~5th level (now 15th). It's worked out pretty well. Every now and then she gets a moment of glory or pulls off something really cool, just like the PCs.
She also takes semi-regular absences from the party due to plot events and the GM's desire for the party not to grow accustomed to leaning on her abilities. She missed an couple of levels from 9-10 while the party trudged across the island they had been shipwrecked on after she dove off the ship during the height of a storm to rescue another NPC (Here there be Monsters). The party believed she was dead.
She also missed an entire adventure from 13-14th level when we accidently pushed on without her underground (The Lightless Depths).
Finally, she was gone during a pair of short adventures dealing with a wizard's guild and a community being attacked by a headless horseman (The Standing Stone).
I think those departures have generally done a lot to make her feel less like the GM playing a character, and more like another person in the game world like most NPCs. That the party semi-regularly runs her in combat also helps.
And the fact that some DMs claim to have done it exceedingly well doesn't mean that all who claim to have done so really managed to.Quite right, but largely if not entirely irrelevant, in that it doesn't invalidate the experiences of those who have had a DM who did so, or accomplished the feat as a DM (and may feel assured of having done so via the testimony of satisfied players).
The naysayers who assert "it's just a bad idea always" seem to have difficulty with the concept that their experiences are merely anecdotal, and that their claims are utterly refuted by the observations of those who've seen it done, and done it.
In short, if you claim it's always bad, you're proven wrong by even a small minority of cases in which it's worked successfully (and it's my anecdotal experience, both as player and DM, that it works whenever a DM is competent and players aren't petulant). No way around it.
I would NOT say it is always bad.
I would claim it is often bad.
I would claim that many players have had such bad experiences with it, that they will assume the GM will screw it up if he tries it.
I would claim that nearly any problem the GMPC was introduced to fix has another possible fix that is not so fraught with potential for a GM screw-up or even incorrect perception of a GM screw-up.
My first couple of experiences with GMPC's were good. Almost all the rest of them have been bad (a few horrifically so). If my first experiences with GMPC's had been as bad as some of the later ones, I would probably also believe it was impossible to do them well and walk out of any game where they were present.
If you and your group like them, fine and wonderful. I really am happy that you have found something you enjoy.
However, I would like you to be aware, anyone new coming into your group or if you join a new group may be horrified at the concept. I know people that will quit a group as soon as they learn there will be a GMPC. They probably won't give it a chance to see how it works out. Some of those that do decide to give it a chance will still expect it to be bad and will be ready to blame any and all perceived slights on the GMPC.
Given that people can and do feel that way, I will use some other method to address whatever issue rather than a GMPC.
NOTE: I would say were are more making a case of faulty generalization rather than anecdotal evidence. While I realize it is really not that much better, the fact remains that people will judge a situation based on what they have experienced (including what they have heard) rather than on everything that may or may not be possible.
I would like to relate an example of DMPC's that worked in the past.
We had a long time group. There were 2 of us that GM'd on a regular basis. We got tired of 2 mutually exclusive campaigns going on at the same time. So the other GM and I got together and made up a world. we agreed on a bunch of overarching storylines, areas to stay out of, bad guys to not kill off, etc... Then we would take turns running small subplots.
We each had a PC in the group. When I was GM, my PC was there with the group to contribute his capabilities. But he didn't lead/decide anything. Same with the other GM. we had to be a bit careful on what characters we built. (For example, it wouldn't help the group if the 'face' character they have been relying on were to suddenly become mute.)
It worked well for our group that knew each other well for a long period of time. But I will admit most of the time I've seen someone try something like that it has not worked well.
Yes. trading off DM & Player, this is one time it is OK.
I have seen them done well. But I've seen them done poorly much more often. Every single GM (including myself) felt they did them well.
Like I said, I am willing to give them a chance (I do consider it to be a warning sign, this may be one of 'those' GM's). But I can easily understand the people that won't give them a chance. If my experiences had been in a different order I might very well be one of them.
Since it is so easily done poorly (apparently with no GM ever realizing he is doing it poorly), I personally feel it is better for me to avoid them. For whatever issue, I have always found an alternative that works at least as well and usually better.
If I was extremely confident of my co-GM and know the rest of the group very well, I might consider the revolving PC's/GMPC's again. I am not certain it would work in my current group. Or at least they would be worried that it wasn't working well. So it is better to just avoid the situation entirely.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd probably even go so far as to say that I'd take offense at someone who declared their unwillingness to even try. That's the kind of close-mindedness that derails games, friendships and love affairs before they even start.
What about someone who has tried DMPC and just flat out doesnt like the concept good or bad? For me its about play style and I learned from experience I just dont care for DMPC on either side of the screen.
I like that a group dynamic forms with the PCs. Its up to them to form plans and make decisions. Its not so much a player vs GM dynamic but a seperation of places in the game. I could send them a silent animated heal wand or a melee fighting dummy to round out the roles but I dont like the idea of a thoughtless souless character in the game. On the flip side then I have to run a fully fledged memebr of the party. That means role playing with the players and weighing in on decisions and RP-ing oddly enough with myself as GM. Neither uses of DMPC are attractive to me.
So I am not denying that DMPC can work for some people but for me it fails on a concept level and their inclusion will make my game suffer because of it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the fact that some DMs claim to have done it exceedingly well doesn't mean that all who claim to have done so really managed to.
What about players that claim that for other GMs?
Because, as a player, I've enjoyed many of them.
I mean, holy cow people. This thread reads kind of like:
"As a player, I've actually enjoyed this in actual experience."
"Nope, can't be done. You must be wrong."
"No, I mean, in real-life experience."
"Nope, sorry, I've also had experience - bad experience. Also it doesn't work."
"I'm sorry for your bad experience, but it can be done, and done well. Not everyone can do so, but I've had experience -"
"YOUR EXPERIENCE DOESN'T MATTER! IT CAN'T BE DONE!"
or, if not that,
"Sure, it can be done well. See?"
"THAT'S NOT A GMPC!"
"... but the GM treats them the same way-"
"NOT A GMPC!"
I rarely really, really strongly disagree with Evil Lincoln. But apparently I do in this thread!
What about someone who has tried DMPC and just flat out doesnt like the concept good or bad? For me its about play style and I learned from experience I just dont care for DMPC on either side of the screen.
I like that a group dynamic forms with the PCs. Its up to them to form plans and make decisions. Its not so much a player vs GM dynamic but a seperation of places in the game. I could send them a silent animated heal wand or a melee fighting dummy to round out the roles but I dont like the idea of a thoughtless souless character in the game. On the flip side then I have to run a fully fledged memebr of the party. That means role playing with the players and weighing in on decisions and RP-ing oddly enough with myself as GM. Neither uses of DMPC are attractive to me.
So I am not denying that DMPC can work for some people but for me it fails on a concept level and their inclusion will make my game suffer because of it.
This is an entirely valid reason not to use them. In fact, I'd encourage you not to.
However, on a related note, sometimes you take groups where you can get them. Good or otherwise.
In those cases, I've tried to roll with whatever the current climate is of the group in question. But if someone asks, I'm certainly going to give my opinion. And if there is an appropriate place for discussing how I feel about something, I'll certainly accept it and talk to the GM - I try to always be encouraging, but, since I'm interested in improving and getting feedback along those lines, I'll try and give it out, too.
Sometimes I'm not good at putting feedback into practice. That's a fault of mine - a fault of most people at some point or another, but one that I'm especially cognizant of.
On the other hand, often I'm not always bad at putting feedback into practice either.
To me the "GMPCs are bad!" mantra that is constantly repeated (and then redefined to make it true... even when that redefining process still fails to automatically do so or changes from "reasonable advice" to "empty tautological statement") is something that needs to stop.
Point out the difficulties, the failure-points, the places that make it hard. Give advice - either "I wouldn't do it, and don't like it for X." or, "Here are ways around that, either to shore up the potential problem areas or other ways of handling the situation."
Point out your own stories - for good or ill. This gives people some idea of where you're coming from and helps them learn and understand.
Point out your own feelings on the matter in general - like Pan, above, it helps get a broader picture of what anyone, as a GM or as a player, might run into.
But for all that this board stands for, please stop declaring other people in the wrong for playing in a way you don't like. I mean, this is an actual product, and, frankly, it sounds pretty awesome... for certain groups. It's definitely not for all.
GMPCs aren't always a bad thing. Many* are. The concept is not, nor are all executions. Please accept this - all sides.
To the question in the OP's title: Yes, though a few people refuse to accept it, it seems.
* ()
I have lately come to the decision to not use them, but used them before. I just like to run the game to my quirks, and I can't stand GMPC's when I'm playing. I have a couple GM's I know who do it, but I dislike them when I see them. Maybe it's unfair for GM's who never get to play, but I think that they should either run or play, not both at the same time. My group still laughs about when we had a GM use one the stuff my character did to ditch him; I framed him for a crime, I tried to ditch him, put him in the worst tactical positions I had the power to in combat, I even tried to help a lich in return for her to curse him from coming around us. Little did I know he was the god Adonis from mythology, and we had zero choice over if he joined us. One player was a Spartan type and knew him "in the biblical sense" and took great umbrage over my antics, but I just grew tired of needing him for everything we tried to do and wanted him to go away. It did lead to ALOT of great RP on all sides and the GM later conceded that he was taking too active a role in the game. Another thing I disliked due to an epic god travelling with us was the scale of stuff we went up against was so powerful that we the players were left in a spectator role and entirely dependent on the GMPC to even survive; he also lead us around and didn't reveal to us anything to which we could make our own decisions about, in other words: great story, zero player agency.
I, too, can understand the people that won't give them a chance. It doesn't make said refusal any less immature and hidebound, for all that it is understandable.
I don't agree with the "no GM realizes he's doing it poorly." Some GMs do it well, and employ it appropriately. Some do it poorly, realize that (or are told), and discontinue the practice. Some do it poorly, don't give a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut, and bring their campaigns down in ruin time and again ... or worse, have it lurch on as this undead thing that the players dread but can't resist. Any GM who does it poorly, doesn't realize it, and is never told by his players is not remotely at fault. Players have to stand up for themselves, or they get what the timid merit.
In my opinion, it's not better to avoid the situation entirely. It's better to see where it goes (if a GMPC is appropriate to the situation) and place a moratorium on it if it doesn't work.
To me, avoiding it entirely is a decision based on fear, which is never a good motivator.
There is also a point where continuing to give it a chance when experience says it doesn't work is just plain idiocy. Many people are long past that point.
The times in the distant past when used a GMPC it did not bring the campaign down in ruins or anything like that. However, might it be possible that it wasn't all that great, I could have found a better way to do it, and the players were just too polite to say anything (or liked the rest of it well enough to overlook that aspect)? Yes, I have to say that is possible.
There were times I experienced something like that from the other side. An otherwise decent campaign with an annoying GMPC. I didn't specifically say anything about it because the rest of the campaign was as I said decent. But I feel it would have been better, if he had chosen a different vehicle to bump the group back on track. (That was his stated reason for the GMPC. To let us know when we were lost.)
Is that me being timid? I suppose you could say it was. But no matter how often people say they want more open communication and constructive criticism, many people get very upset if you say you don't like something they have poured that much effort into making perfect. To me it just wasn't worth it. I am not going to chance hurting someone's feelings over something that minor. I was enjoying the campaign even if I think removing the GMPC would have been better.
The times where the GMPC really was horrid, I did state that it was part of the reason I left the group.
Is me generally avoid them now fear? Again, I suppose you could say it is. I also don't check to see if the circuit breaker is still on with my tongue. You could also call that fear. I think prudence is a better word. It is more prudent to use a light indicator to see if the circuit is still live.
I think I ran a GMPC very well, but so does everyone that runs one. I usually see them not run well, again by people that think they are doing it wonderfully. Maybe I am wrong and didn't run them all that well (even if not campaign wreckingly bad). The odds would say that is more likely than that I am one of the few that do it great.
Many people (whether justified or not) absolutely hate them. Using them could easily lose me some otherwise excellent players.
I have never found a situation that I couldn't remedy just as well without them.
It seems more prudent to use something other than a GMPC.
For me this is a hobby. My friends and I do this for fun and relaxation. I don't see how it adds anything and I can see how it might detract. If something seems to have more potential to cause than solve problems and there is no intrinsic need for it, why should I include it?
You shouldn't. That doesn't preclude others from including it.
I never said it should preclude others from using it.
I specifically said to Jaelithe, that it is great he and his group enjoy it. I meant it.
But I was pointing out that not everyone feels that way. It at least has the potential to cause one to lose out on otherwise good players.
I don't think that necessarily makes me or them hidebound, immature, or motivated by fear.
I don't think that necessarily makes me or them hidebound, immature, or motivated by fear.Agreed. I feel the same way about low magic games as you feel about DMPCs.
LOL. Not a problem. Just don't join my low magic campaign then complain that there isn't a set of shocking thundering burst shuriken in every shop. ;-)
----------------------------------------------
... you don't think reward is nearly worth risk...
Other than experiences, this may be where a key difference is. I definitely think reward is worth risk.
But I don't see any significant reward for using a GMPC.
Whatever I hope to accomplish with a GMPC, I have always been able to just as easily accomplish with something else.
A sincere good day to you also.
Now here's an interesting thought: Would a DMPC be less likely to cause a stir in a low-magic game?
It's all about what everyone thinks, because any answer would just be an opinion. I would probably do everything I could to get rid of him as a player. Not saying that it's ok to do that, but I have in the past (see above story). I doubt I've ever really truly played in a low magic game I think, so I don't really know the difference in practical approach.
I would probably do everything I could to get rid of him as a player. Not saying that it's ok to do that, but I have in the past (see above story).Let me get this right: You'd do that simply because he was a DMPC, before even evaluating the situation and whether he/she was an asset to the game or a detriment?
Hmm. I'm not sure how to respond when someone says, "I know this is wrong, but I do it anyway."
IKR :)
I would probably do everything I could to get rid of him as a player. Not saying that it's ok to do that, but I have in the past (see above story).Let me get this right: You'd do that simply because he was a DMPC, before even evaluating the situation and whether he/she was an asset to the game or a detriment?
Hmm. I'm not sure how to respond when someone says, "I know this is wrong, but I do it anyway."
It is also wrong for a GM to introduce a character into the game whom the players can tell he is as attached to as the players are to their PCs -- and regardless of stats, that GMPC is effectively of infinite level because of the ability that the GM has to punish players who want to harm or avoid said GMPC for any reason, whether in game or out of game.
Players can generally tell the difference between a well detailed NPC and a GM's pet GMPC, and they have excellent reason to despise the latter.
My feelings come from my opinions on player agency; I want to at least FEEL like I get to make some decisions as a player based on the info we get and not be lead around by a GM. I totally understand that sometimes players are "not to mind the man behind the curtain" but it's hard to do that when the GM has a mole for his agency amongst the party. That's what I see them as, a mole for the GM in the midst of the party, if they say something, the GM just told us that; I don't get that vibe from NPC's. In my game, the PC's solve all the problems that aren't just scenery; NPC's are willing to help but ultimately ineffectual. The PC's must rely on themselves and each other; I know it could be argued you way is actually more realistic, I won't even argue it; but because of my feelings about GMPC's as a player I just try to focus on the PC's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.
Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.
Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.
Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.
I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.
I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Like I said, though ... to me, every NPC is a GMPC...
Ok, I didn't see this in your earlier posts.
That does not fit the definition of GMPC used by almost anyone I have ever talked with about the subject. Yes, if you define a word differently your evaluations will of course not match everyone else's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, I'm discussing this as a matter of policy. There aren't really absolutes in gaming. I'm as adamant about GMPCs being bad as I am about password re-use being bad, or washing your hands after using the restroom. The world will not collapse if you break the policy, but there is a risk inherent in the behavior. The consequences *may* be among the worst that a campaign can suffer. Therefore, I say, don't do it.
The pay off just isn't there. You can't actually enjoy playing in your own game, it's a desperate measure for those who can't find GMs to run for them, or control freaks, or people who don't enjoy GMing on its own. I'd be hard pressed to find a GMPC that wouldn't be improved by becoming a proper NPC.
Those of you arguing that my black-an-white stance is too rigid may be right. It's nothing more than a "best practice" really, but I really do believe it to be the best practice.
...
Like I said, though ... to me, every NPC is a GMPC...Ok, I didn't see this in your earlier posts.
That does not fit the definition of GMPC used by almost anyone I have ever talked with about the subject. Yes, if you define a word differently your evaluations will of course not match everyone else's.
I think this seems to be where a lot of the argument stem from. The definition of what is a DMPC/GMPC. For me at least, it is any NPC who becomes part of the party and fights alongside them. They can be there for 1 session or the entire campaign.
Now with that said, there have only been 2 times where I've run GMPCs. The previously mentioned current game where it was requested by the players, and when me and my wife were taking turns DMing and it was my PC as a player. In that case, I usually found it easier to write the character out of the story anyways. When your character is the party face, it doesn't work so good as a DMPC. You either wind up talking to yourself and bore everyone, or the character's sudden silence in social situations seems very odd.
I think the distinction comes from the word player in the title, the GM is not a player, and serves to challenge them, not share them with the players. The GM's challenge arises from the players interacting with the challenges, what to do as the PC's murder hobo their way through the dungeons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
So, the people who see DMPCs as a good thing (tm) use the definition "any NPC that travels with the party", and lo and behold, they don't see a problem. The others will in most cases agree, as long as that's the definition given. Any criticism about using DMPCs will be considered unreasonable, because this is the only definition the pro-DMPC group uses.
Those who do not like DMPCs use the definition (more or less) "a character who the DM sees as their PC, which means the DM is actively rooting for that character", and they don't like it because they see a very large risk that it ends up with plot immunity, Mary-Sue-ishness, and tons of other different bad things or pitfalls. Most of the anti-DMPC crowd see nothing wrong with having NPCs follow the party around.
As long as this discussion doesn't even try to discuss the SAME definition of the term, it's never going to be productive, in this or any other thread.
So much of this is about feel, and following the lead of your players' desire. Some really can't abide any attention being paid to an NPC, and in that case, their responses and actions should be phrased in perfunctory fashion. Others love to be part of an epic, giving speeches and listening to them, in turn. Really depends.
I had a pair of characters, paladin and bard, who served as PCs when I played and NPCs/GMPCs when I ran. The players used to find their disagreements tremendously entertaining, largely because they spoke with different accents—one Arab, one Italian—and I could switch back and forth between them even when their argument became rapid and heated.
Of course, I used to on occasion employ DC's demon Etrigan when running a supers game, and could usually stay in rhythm with rhyme for the duration. Of course, certain players would then converse with him constantly, good-naturedly trying to trip me up.
Fun stuff.
I feel I have entirely upfront about my position on GMPC's, even highlighting my biases. I do not like NPC's taking the main stage, they are support characters at best in my games. I even will say that I dislike running NPC's in the party, even if the party "needs it". If a player tells me they need a X (healer, front-line, traps-springer), I say that's cool, maybe you should take one or multi-class. I find that players might feel a little left out when they spring the trap or ran out of free healing, but they quickly make a survivable dynamic.
Definition? Easy, a player character ran by the GM, thus GMPC.
I did hear a lot of people talking about GM's using the excuse that the party needs a healer, or the party needs a front-liner; first those roles aren't necessary. You can play a sorcerer that summons things to the front line, you can have anyone put points in UMD or just chugs potions, most classes can do something to heal. Traps are trickier, but the Pc's will work out some workaround after the first trap that makes then pull out their hair. Ultimately PF doesn't make a big deal out of the roles like other games; they make classes able to fill multiple holes or survive without them.
I wonder if players could ever ban GMPC's, because a GM will do whatever they want and the players would only ever be the ones fed up enough to ban the use of them; because some GM's games would have been a million times better if they couldn't use them. Obviously this couldn't be done if the GM was insistent enough to just walk from the game, but it might be possible for certain groups with a dynamic of being able to get GM concessions.
I feel ... I do not like ... I dislike ...Nothing wrong with the above, and Jack Assery is entitled to his opinion and feelings ... but it indicates that this is largely if not entirely about taste. No one is going to be able to "prove" their side is correct on this one, because too many emotions are intertwined with the "lies, damned lies and statistics" being provided as "evidence."
And those who like DMPCs are just as entitled to employ them (often to excellent effect), as those who dislike them are to avoid or even ban them.
After being up front about my biases, I did make several points, that granted are opinions, but it looks as if you just quit reading after seeing my admissions of relativity; which is a little disappointing as I've been trying to make a point which is just dismissed as opinion when EVERYTHING in this post is.
To me, it's not about right or wrong, proving any side, but rather to expound upon my bias and try to make a point here and there about the various pros and cons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually find that the least covered position in a smaller group is the healer role. Everyone wants to be the Beefy frontliner, the Magical Master, or the Sneaky Stabber. If I have 2-3 players and no one wants to cover The Supportive Healer or Sneaky Stabber role (usually the second least covered position IMexperience) I go with a GMPC. When I do one I focus on the reason they are needed and the role they are gonna cover.
A Support Healer will focus on healing, buffs, and de-buffs to help the other party members shine. His combat abilities will be minor, mostly defensive to keep him out of the spotlight. He may have a couple of spells ready for if the dice go tragically wrong for the group (like a flame strike or something) but he is there to make them better and make sure that the healing role is covered.
As a Sneaky Stabber GMPC I usually focus on boosting his sneakiness and ability to find and remove traps and pick locks. Combat is secondary, mostly built to be tough and hard to hit so he can provide flank at opportune times. He is there to help scout out a situation so the group can make a plan of attack, and to help with getting through locks and traps so the party can explore and advance into the dungeon.
I generally ask what the group would like them to be doing and go with that, outlining a basic standard of actions that the GMPC operates from. I sometimes have someone in the group roll for the GMPC or at minimum I as GM roll in the open (I do this for all combat rolls anyway, and most other except some perception rolls or secretive stuff).
I like to give the GMPCs a personality that is somewhat vanilla but recognizable (daft farmhand, sniveling lackey, devout priest to whatever God is most inline with the group, quiet loner, etc...)
I believe that I do a good (if not great) job of keeping the GMPC in the background without being a drain on the group and have had some compliments from players on how they are played. I have played with GMs who played GMPCs that were badly played. GMPCs that were a drain on the group, taking no actions for several rounds and then swooping in to save the group at the last moment. GMPCs who hogged spotlight time with too much personality or insisting on stuff because the GM has A Purpose For The Group and the GMPC is the way to force that upon them.
My belief is that if a GMPC is played well he assists the group in general, he takes little to no spotlight time, he makes the group work better in a very understated manner, and on occasion he can be a sacrificial lamb for plot. I have killed of a GMPC or had them leave the party for story reasons from time to time...usually replaced with someone more fitting for the region or adventures coming up.
My opinion and experience is that GMPCs are good if the GM is good. A bad GM makes them bad.