|
| 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.
I see where people are making the distinctions but my thoughts are that a GMPC differs from an NPC/hireling traveling in the group in that:
1. The GMPC is treated as an equal within the group, equal share of the loot, equal share of the danger, no special/preferential GM treatment.2. GMPCs are meant to be longterm or career-length companions where NPCs tend to be limited to an adventure or so and not meant to be part of the group for long.
3. NPCs are usually part of a quest whether they play a role or just give the quest. A GMPC is an adventurer, just like the other party members.
To me the GM is taking on an additional role besides being a GM when he is playing a GMPC. He is putting on the hat of a player from time to time instead of just running an NPC or Hireling. There is more investment in the role and more lines not to cross with a GMPC than with an NPC or Hireling. An NPC or Hireling may betray the group or do something against them in some way, where a GMPC is a trusted part of the group and should follow the same rules as the PCs with regards to PVP and such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The healer isn't a needed role, they only need access to HEALING; also I play clerics frequently yet I never played a healer. If a party feels they need a healer when I play cleric, they'll be sorely disappointed. Healers are underpowered, have to expend more resources than other players, and less fun to play. Players should be responsible to keep themselves from dropping, and have some healing themselves, a player should not burden a cleric with keeping them alive, that's not fun for the cleric. Also, it sounds as if some parties rely too much on the GM to give them stuff like buffs, healing, and de-buffs; that's playing on easy-mode. If my players don't have a guy for front-line, they don't have a front-line, same for the rest. A party should be self sufficient enough to survive without relying on GM fiat or learn to do without. If nothing else, it'll encourage a party to play to a dynamic.
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.Appearances can be deceiving. I simply took that which I found to be the most relevant elements of your post to the point I was trying to make. The fact that I didn't reiterate what you found more important is by no means meant as an insult, or that I didn't read and consider your comments.
Not everything herein has been opinion. The incontrovertible fact that DMPCs have been used effectively is on the table. So is the equally irrefutable fact that others have seen it done to disastrous effect.
As to your point about players banning DMPCs ... I'd, literally, laugh at my players if they dared to make demands and tried to ban me from doing something. If, instead, they informed me why they honestly thought my use of DMPCs was ineffectual and counterproductive, I'd very seriously consider adopting their suggestion that I stop employing them ... and would likely do so.
But that would entail all of them having previously given it what I deemed was a fair chance at use in my games. Only then would their opposition be substantive enough in my mind for me to give it serious consideration. I would immediately dismiss any, "Well, in these other games I played it ended catastrophically" attempts as an unjustified attempt to generalize. That's indicative of a mind closed to the possibility that their experience of the concept and its execution might be changed.
In other words, Jack Assery, if you were a prospective player in one of my campaigns and told me, "I don't like GMPCs," I'd reply, "Understood. I'll certainly entertain the possibility of ceasing my use of them if and only if...
I didn't say it was insulting, just disappointing because I was trying to give direct examples and make actual points outside of the realm of opinion.
I wouldn't ever ban a GM from doing something in real life, I would ask them to not do it. I did and have played in many games with GMPC's, and would be willing to try it, but it's never fun to play alongside the GMPC. I think most GM's just don't realize that in almost any circumstance there is a better solution to a problem than a GMPC. Most GM's think that if they use a light hand it'll be ok, and I'm not arguing that; my point is that a different solution would be preferable.Some GM's tie them to the story in a way that they can't easily be removed; I think it's a bad reflex to use the GMPC deus ex to move along a plot. Sometimes they use them to get a chance to play in the game, but it is diverting attention from the PC's in all cases. When GM's use them to "fix" the party, the PC's might like it but it's ultimately a crutch, like a person working part time because he can borrow money from his parents.
The PC's should be able to accomplish things in spite of the GM, not because of his intervention, it's a cheaper thrill and robs them of any real sense of accomplishment. Not saying the GM should play against them per se, but the PC's should rely on themselves and each other, not the GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The healer isn't a needed role, they only need access to HEALING; also I play clerics frequently yet I never played a healer. If a party feels they need a healer when I play cleric, they'll be sorely disappointed. Healers are underpowered, have to expend more resources than other players, and less fun to play. Players should be responsible to keep themselves from dropping, and have some healing themselves, a player should not burden a cleric with keeping them alive, that's not fun for the cleric. Also, it sounds as if some parties rely too much on the GM to give them stuff like buffs, healing, and de-buffs; that's playing on easy-mode. If my players don't have a guy for front-line, they don't have a front-line, same for the rest. A party should be self sufficient enough to survive without relying on GM fiat or learn to do without. If nothing else, it'll encourage a party to play to a dynamic.
I see. You believe that everyone in the group should be totally self-sufficient. A cleric who doesn't heal (and by heal I mean more of the removal of conditions like blindness, disease, restorations, etc...healing is easy) or buff in our game is only a cleric in name. A shell of a cleric used to create whatever else the actual role is that the player is playing. Our groups tend to rely on each other for buffs, healing and such. They play as a team instead of a bunch of soloists. Also I don't know how you have decided that a GMPC is somehow GM fiat. I could let them do without but when you only have 2-3 players to try to cover all the bases then the GM fiat would be either changing the adventure to have more healing in the treasure, or making traps easier to spot or removing some, making doors easier to break down...
2-3 dudes going through a stock adventure/adventure path will either require some GM fiat by adjusting the adventure to something they can handle OR you remove the Fiat and just add in a GMPC to help cover the bases and run the adventure normally. I wouldn't want to be part of a group that expects everyone to handle all their own issues. My fighter will have a hard time healing himself with items and would feel pretty put-out if he stands in front of wizzo and cleric taking damage and keeping monsters off of them without getting some healing or help with a couple buffs here and there. My group plays as a collective, not a bunch of soloists banded together.
Our group does this, I don't read anything in the adventure. We usually have 2-3 people playing, and we have fun. Sure we have many deaths. I roll the dice in front of everyone (monsters included). The damage the dmpc deals is mute. Perception checks, for any item fails automatically fails for it. That ring of freedom of movement in the cracks of the dragon's cavern that people couldn't see is gone for good unless they find it. Most of the Skills he has are Knowledge (Geography), (History), (Nobility), and Knowledge (Local). If a rogue, perception and disable device are added to the list. At best he is their to advance the story, and answer questions about the area.
Indeed we do have challenges, but I always anticipate those.
The healer isn't a needed role, they only need access to HEALING; also I play clerics frequently yet I never played a healer. If a party feels they need a healer when I play cleric, they'll be sorely disappointed. Healers are underpowered, have to expend more resources than other players, and less fun to play. Players should be responsible to keep themselves from dropping, and have some healing themselves, a player should not burden a cleric with keeping them alive, that's not fun for the cleric. Also, it sounds as if some parties rely too much on the GM to give them stuff like buffs, healing, and de-buffs; that's playing on easy-mode. If my players don't have a guy for front-line, they don't have a front-line, same for the rest. A party should be self sufficient enough to survive without relying on GM fiat or learn to do without. If nothing else, it'll encourage a party to play to a dynamic.I see. You believe that everyone in the group should be totally self-sufficient. A cleric who doesn't heal (and by heal I mean more of the removal of conditions like blindness, disease, restorations, etc...healing is easy) or buff in our game is only a cleric in name. A shell of a cleric used to create whatever else the actual role is that the player is playing. Our groups tend to rely on each other for buffs, healing and such.
Mine does too, I was just saying that the PLAYERS rely on each other for that, not the GM. My clerics do heal, but that isn't what they are, and players shouldn't just thrust that upon one player is all I'm saying.
They play as a team instead of a bunch of soloists. Also I don't know how you have decided that a GMPC is somehow GM fiat. I could let them do without but when you only have 2-3 players to try to cover all the bases then the GM fiat would be either changing the adventure to have more healing in the treasure, or making traps easier to spot or removing some, making doors easier to break down...
2-3 dudes going through a stock adventure/adventure path will either require some GM fiat by adjusting the adventure to something they can handle OR you remove the Fiat and just add in a GMPC to help cover the bases and run the adventure normally. I wouldn't want to be part of...I do run games where players must rely on each other and not NPC's, but I also run games with 4-5 players, so results may vary. I do consider the approach of using a GMPC to help the party to be GM fiat, but most GM's do it for other reasons, mainly to play a character.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if players could ever ban GMPC's
Of course they could. And just like a player that ignored a GM ban, there would have to be consequences or it would be meaningless. And for the most part, the only consequences players can enforce is 'dude, we're not playing your game anymore'.
Our group does this, I don't read anything in the adventure. We usually have 2-3 people playing, and we have fun. Sure we have many deaths. I roll the dice in front of everyone (monsters included). The damage the dmpc deals is mute. Perception checks, for any item fails automatically fails for it. That ring of freedom of movement in the cracks of the dragon's cavern that people couldn't see is gone for good unless they find it. Most of the Skills he has are Knowledge (Geography), (History), (Nobility), and Knowledge (Local). If a rogue, perception and disable device are added to the list. At best he is their to advance the story, and answer questions about the area.
Indeed we do have challenges, but I always anticipate those.
Minus the GMPC, I run games that way too. I started running that way after an old school GM sat in on my game and later offered some great advice; he said I ran a too narrativist game and didn't challenge the players enough due to too much GM fiat. He was right, my game feels more tough when failure is an option, they might not have enough info if they didn't find it, they might miss out on an item if they didn't find it. My players love it, they're a lot more careful, pay closer attention and get anxious about combat, and when it comes to it, it gets their adrenaline pumping; because they know it's them versus the world. I won't undermine them, but I won't pull punches; so far they haven't even had a death either. I'm rather proud of them.
And that point, quite honestly, should end the argument.But it won't.[Chuckles.]
When you're right, you're right.
Problem is, I disagree with the point that should end the argument. It's not a bad argument, I don't see any problem with going point for point.
//(and by heal I mean more of the removal of conditions like blindness, disease, restorations, etc...healing is easy)//
So the PC's need a GMPC as the sole means of doing so? Question: why even have status conditions in your game if the GMPC just takes them away immediately? No wonder nobody plays a cleric in the game, they don't need it; the GM just magically removes it for them. I'm not trying to cast stones either, I just want to know why. And how is that not GM fiat? The GM takes care of every status effect for them.
| 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.
It's pretty simple. A fellow adventurer traveling with the party on a regular basis should be run by the players. (With DM over-ride authority of course).
And it's also rather simple- "the people who see DMPCs as a good thing" are (in almost every case) a DMPC running DM, one who isn't happy with running the other 99.99% of the characters in the show. Mostly they are either in denial or just have no idea how much their DMPC annoys the players.
Mind you, most players are so very grateful to get a decent DM, that a non "plot immunity, Mary-Sue-ishness" DMPC will be seen as a minor price to pay. If they see the DM needs to have one, they may even encourage it.
// They play as a team instead of a bunch of soloists.//
Was that a misplaced shot at me? My team has more reason than your team to not plat that way; they would die. In your game, they could play whatev's and the GM will take care of the rest. In my game, if they don't have the ability to neutralize poison and gets poisoned, they have little chance of survival and no chance of intervention. If far from town, they might arrive back in town with a corpse in need of raising as opposed to just status removal; probably why I usually have someone in my game who can do that stuff.
I usually find that the least covered position in a smaller group is the healer role.
A Support Healer will focus on healing, buffs, and de-buffs to help the other party members shine....My opinion and experience is that GMPCs are good if the GM is good. A bad GM makes them bad
Sure- and why can't you set up that healer with a background & stats & stuff- then hand him over to the players to run?
But in My opinion and experience is that GMPCs are tolerable if the GM is good. A bad GM makes them horrible.
|
|
// They play as a team instead of a bunch of soloists.//
Was that a misplaced shot at me? My team has more reason than your team to not plat that way; they would die. In your game, they could play whatev's and the GM will take care of the rest. In my game, if they don't have the ability to neutralize poison and gets poisoned, they have little chance of survival and no chance of intervention. If far from town, they might arrive back in town with a corpse in need of raising as opposed to just status removal; probably why I usually have someone in my game who can do that stuff.
A quote from you: " If a party feels they need a healer when I play cleric, they'll be sorely disappointed. Healers are underpowered, have to expend more resources than other players, and less fun to play. Players should be responsible to keep themselves from dropping, and have some healing themselves, a player should not burden a cleric with keeping them alive, that's not fun for the cleric."
Then you proceed to make a ton of "we are a team" comments afterward. So basically you are either a team-player who does help out the team or you are not depending on where you want to fall in the discussion. You can't be a cleric who won't provide healing in one sentence and then say "that's why we have someone who heals people" in another. Citing that clerics and healers have to expend resources is another whole thread. One entitled "my party takes up a fund to pay for wands and scrolls that the cleric uses".My campaigns are fairly deadly. In a 15 level campaign we usually have 8-10 deaths or more if there are more players. I only toss in a GMPC if I have 2-3 players and those campaigns are still equally deadly. The GM doesn't take care of them. They could hire an NPC to come along or look for someone to join their group or die and come back as what is more needed for the group, or have a GMPC join in to cover a role that none of them really wants to cover. A d**k GM could decide that they are playing wrong and punish them or a GM could pull GM fiat and massage the adventure to help them OR a GM could hand them another player to help round out the 2-3 person team. Sure you could make an NPC and hand it to one of the players but why? If the GM is playing the GMPC right it isn't needed and allows everyone to be the character they want to be and have fun the way they want to.
|
|
Sure- and why can't you set up that healer with a background & stats & stuff- then hand him over to the players to run?But in My opinion and experience is that GMPCs are tolerable if the GM is good. A bad GM makes them horrible.
Sure, you can make an NPC and hand it to the players completed for them to run....it can work. More often I see "why would he take that feat, can we switch it out for this", "NPC X is going to open the chest...no we didn't search it for traps but it's just X", " when we level can we level him up?", "I want Y item even though it helps out NPC X more".
My groups(the small ones that need an extra PC) have always liked having another party member to assist them, but handing them one to play always turns out with either someone they play as needing to be escorted around or more expendable than themselves...there is rarely the equality of a real group member there. GMPC works out better for them and allows me to not put kid-gloves on.
// They play as a team instead of a bunch of soloists.//
Was that a misplaced shot at me? My team has more reason than your team to not plat that way; they would die. In your game, they could play whatev's and the GM will take care of the rest. In my game, if they don't have the ability to neutralize poison and gets poisoned, they have little chance of survival and no chance of intervention. If far from town, they might arrive back in town with a corpse in need of raising as opposed to just status removal; probably why I usually have someone in my game who can do that stuff.A quote from you: " If a party feels they need a healer when I play cleric, they'll be sorely disappointed. Healers are underpowered, have to expend more resources than other players, and less fun to play. Players should be responsible to keep themselves from dropping, and have some healing themselves, a player should not burden a cleric with keeping them alive, that's not fun for the cleric."
Then you proceed to make a ton of "we are a team" comments afterward. So basically you are either a team-player who does help out the team or you are not depending on where you want to fall in the discussion. You can't be a cleric who won't provide healing in one sentence and then say "that's why we have someone who heals people" in another. Citing that clerics and healers have to expend resources is another whole thread. One entitled "my party takes up a fund to pay for wands and scrolls that the cleric uses".
My campaigns are fairly deadly. In a 15 level campaign we usually have 8-10 deaths or more if there are more players. I only toss in a GMPC if I have 2-3 players and those campaigns are still equally deadly. The GM doesn't take care of them. They could hire an NPC to come along or look for someone to join their group or die and come back as what is more needed for the group, or have a GMPC join in to cover a role that none of them really wants to cover. A d**k GM could decide that they are playing wrong...
When I said: //If a party feels they need a healer when I play cleric, they'll be sorely disappointed.// I meant forcing me to focus solely on healing at the expense of playing a well rounded cleric; not foregoing healing entirely.
// You can't be a cleric who won't provide healing in one sentence and then say "that's why we have someone who heals people" in another.//You misquoted me and conflated two issues, when I talk about playing a cleric; I'm talking about being a player. I don't use GMPC's so I don't understand how you conflated my GMing styles with my play style. I also pointed out that I do heal earlier, but the PC's shouldn't be DEPENDENT as SOLE MEANS of healing.
Now I hope it didn't confuse you, when I talk about GMing, I'm not at all talking about being a player, and likewise when I play I don't GM. I can see how that confused you as I jump back and forth when explaining my point.
I'm not saying your game would or should be more or less deadly; we can see that the games I run and the PC's have no help and don't die, and your game has a lot of deaths even with the help and fiat, although that seems counter to what I'd guess. I was saying that GMPC's make a party reliant upon the GM for bailouts. So it becomes: you helped us then but throw up your hands when a PC dies when you showed that you're willing to intervene; that's inconsistent.
My point is consistent: players can rely on each other but not on the GM; though they should be survivable. The GM giving out lots of fiat and helping them out here and there, fixing up party holes and then killing off lots of PC's is making the players live and die entirely on the whim of the GM. It reduces player agency to a mere illusion.
|
|
My point is consistent: players can rely on each other but not on the GM; though they should be survivable. The GM giving out lots of fiat and helping them out here and there, fixing up party holes and then killing off lots of PC's is making the players live and die entirely on the whim of the GM. It reduces player agency to a mere illusion.
And you are assuming that the GM cannot pull off the role of being a GM in the game and play a character as a player. My players do rely on each other, including the GMPC who is a full part of the party. Essentially there if there are 2 players then there is actually 3. I separate GM role and Player role. Some GMs do use GMPCs badly and inconsistently. Some can separate the 2 roles. My GMPC does everything he can to save the party. As GM, sometimes the challenges the party face, bad dice rolls, bad player decisions, end up in a PC(or GMPC) getting killed. It certainly doesn't happen because there is a GMPC and I don't fiat. The encounter is what it is and the rolls are there to see. The GMPC is part of the group and acts as such. There is no fiat. There is no helping them. There is only players and GM. I sometimes have the role of both and it works out well because I keep them separate. You seem unable to come to grips with that actually happening because I assume you never had someone able to do it.
My point is consistent: players can rely on each other but not on the GM; though they should be survivable. The GM giving out lots of fiat and helping them out here and there, fixing up party holes and then killing off lots of PC's is making the players live and die entirely on the whim of the GM. It reduces player agency to a mere illusion.And you are assuming that the GM cannot pull off the role of being a GM in the game and play a character as a player. My players do rely on each other, including the GMPC who is a full part of the party. Essentially there if there are 2 players then there is actually 3. I separate GM role and Player role. Some GMs do use GMPCs badly and inconsistently. Some can separate the 2 roles. My GMPC does everything he can to save the party. As GM, sometimes the challenges the party face, bad dice rolls, bad player decisions, end up in a PC(or GMPC) getting killed. It certainly doesn't happen because there is a GMPC and I don't fiat. The encounter is what it is and the rolls are there to see. The GMPC is part of the group and acts as such. There is no fiat. There is no helping them. There is only players and GM. I sometimes have the role of both and it works out well because I keep them separate. You seem unable to come to grips with that actually happening because I assume you never had someone able to do it.
//And you are assuming that the GM cannot pull off the role of being a GM in the game and play a character as a player. My players do rely on each other, including the GMPC who is a full part of the party. //
If you've been reading the thread, I'm not just assuming it works that way, I'm demonstrating it. You have far from refuted my points, so asserting that my points are assumptions is missing the step of demonstration; it's putting the cart before the horse.I understand and take your point that your GMPC's aren't on god mode, but what's stopping you? Nothing, and everyone knows it. Do you at least take my point on that?
It's an entirely different thing to say that I play a GM because the party needs it (arguable but not my point) and play a GMPC because you want to play a player; if the former there is always a better option; if the latter, you should show restraint, give the players their fun and play a player in a game. It is too hard to split your time to run and play the game at the same time and only takes the spotlight off the small percent that the players get. Most of the game the attention is on the GM, he's the whole world that the players need access to in order to play, he's all the info, all the actors, all the challenges. He gets the role of antagonist, the rest get the role of protagonist, and the GM shouldn't step on their toes. Could you imagine if the players get to play a monster/villain during combat? That's the exact same thing.
Man if I'm coming off as a downer because I'm vehement about GMPC's, I don't mean to; I play PF for the same reason I comment on these threads; it's fun. Jaelithe, I've also used players to play monster for the heck of it, and it might've been fun for a lark, but I couldn't imagine playing every game like that, and coming to every game with players coming in with monsters, leveling them up between games, putting them into every villain's schemes, would be a serious downer IN MY OPINION.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A person offering an opinion they claim is invariably correct despite solid evidence to the contrary should be challenged or ignored.
Which is exactly what you have been doing also, so why the personal attacks?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in My opinion and experience is that GMPCs are tolerable if the GM is good. A bad GM makes them horrible.
This actually gets at the heart of the terminology issue.
By my definition, the act of "being a good GM" would turn the GMPC into an NPC. Other than the GM's personal investment, there is basically zero difference between the two. You can have a GMPC and an NPC who are virtually identical, but the GMPC interferes with the GM's partiality while the NPC does not.
Yes, it's a purely academic distinction. To be fair, I've already said as much, several times.
Trying to play in your own game is bad GMing, for largely academic (but often consequential) reasons. That's what defines a GMPC, for me.
And yes, this terminology is not universally understood. Yes, that will continue to cause problems throughout the life of this thread.
But in My opinion and experience is that GMPCs are tolerable if the GM is good. A bad GM makes them horrible.This actually gets at the heart of the terminology issue.
By my definition, the act of "being a good GM" would turn the GMPC into an NPC. Other than the GM's personal investment, there is basically zero difference between the two. You can have a GMPC and an NPC who are virtually identical, but the GMPC interferes with the GM's partiality while the NPC does not.
Yes, it's a purely academic distinction. To be fair, I've already said as much, several times.
Trying to play in your own game is bad GMing, for largely academic (but often consequential) reasons. That's what defines a GMPC, for me.
And yes, this terminology is not universally understood. Yes, that will continue to cause problems throughout the life of this thread.
That was well put and put exactly what I've been trying to say but much more succinctly. People keep saying they're ok to do if you're good, but that doesn't have to be true and hasn't been demonstrated regardless of assertions. It's still up for debate, because people saying it does happen, the truth of that is still in question, saying that it's done well. I've never seen it done well, I HAVE seen GM's THINK it does; but I've never been like 'that GMPC was amazing!".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand and take your point that your GMPC's aren't on god mode, but what's stopping you? Nothing, and everyone knows it. Do you at least take my point on that?
Ethics?
I realize that is a strange concept to some here. We see a lot of it when they say things like, "The GM acts like a player." As if acting like a player means being a liar, cheat, etc. Maybe we should expect GMs and players to act ethically? Just a suggestion.
It is the same thing that allows people to game with their significant others, the same thing that allows GMs to include BBEG in games, the same thing that ensures the group can trust that the GM is applying the foes abilities in a fair fashion.
If I as a player can't trust the GM to run a character, that I would otherwise consider to be a PC, how can I trust the GM to do anything?
Could you imagine if the players get to play a monster/villain during combat? That's the exact same thing.
I have done this before. Usually it is a situation where the player's character isn't present or just died, to give the player something to do. But I wouldn't have this be a problem from time to time if someone was interested.
That is the big issue with giving players other characters to play in my experience. Players aren't usually interested in playing other characters. Getting them to just run their familiar is like pulling teeth a lot of times. Asking them to run an NPC party member, forget about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And so you see, in the hands of a good, impartial GM, the distinction becomes academic.
However, good GMs probably see the value in not calling an NPC "their PC." It's just a good practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a character functions exactly like a PC, despite being run by a GM, then I would say that character could be described as a "GMPC" (i.e. GM run character that is functionally equivalent to a PC). The GM might be (irrationally) emotionally invested in the character or not (just as players may or may not be in their own characters). The character might be a boon to the group or not (just as PCs can help groups or sometimes be more trouble than they're worth).
Now if the definition is limited to just characters that interfere with the player's enjoyment, then you have to include characters that don't remotely resemble a "PC". Demigods forcing their will on parties (This foe is beyond all of you), BBEG that can't ever be defeated and always have the exact right tools to remove all PC abilities, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would everyone agree that a character run by the DM who does not annoy the players with its portrayal, and instead is viewed as an asset, is an NPC, while one that interferes with the players' enjoyment is a DMPC?
No, I don't. I have found that PCs tend to be wary of NPCs and distrustful of them on a certain level due to some being used for plot devices that either put the PCs into a pinch or outright betray them. A well-played GMPC is simply another PC and should be subject to all the rules that PCs are.
You could argue that a badly-played GMPC can interfere with the player's enjoyment but a blanket statement saying all GMPCs are bad-wrong or that all GMPCs are great would be wrong.Everything is subject to whether the GM is mature and able to act in both roles well. If they can't then THEIR gmpc is bad. If they can then THEIR gmpc is great.
Statements like "I've never seen it so it isn't possible" are just stupid and serve no purpose in the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you imagine if the players get to play a monster/villain during combat? That's the exact same thing.
So if a PC gets dominated and ordered to kill the other PCs, do you play the PC for the player or do you trust them to play their character to the best of their ability within the confines of their characterization?
Just curious since I have seen it go both ways on how groups handle it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would everyone agree that a character run by the DM who does not annoy the players with its portrayal, and instead is viewed as an asset, is an NPC, while one that interferes with the players' enjoyment is a DMPC?
These are just semantics questions and honestly don't expect to get any sort of a 100% agreement one way or the other.
So, in that vein, personally I don't agree with that definition. For me, the line between NPC and DMPC isn't in how wrong they're run, but in the participation degree. As in, the characters that come with the party to the dungeon are DMPCs, and the characters that stay behind in town are NPCs.
|
|
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"I was with you until the bolded portion. As a player, I don't root for my own character, I share their experiences good or bad. (Naturally I'd prefer good things happen, but I'm not so far removed from a character as to cheer for them.) As a GM, I'm rooting for all the pcs.
Exactly. It seems like too many people see the game GM vs. PCs...I as a GM try to give the encounters and scenarios to the PCs so they can create a cool story. Sometimes I sandbox it an let the story evolve on it's own and sometimes I toss in a framework with an adventure path but that is neither here nor there. As a PC I try to work with my group and help us all survive the encounters and scenes presented to us. When I am a GM running a GMPC I do both, removing out-of-character logic and knowledge and playing an impartial role in implementing the rules to the game. I cheer when the PCs win a hard-fought battle and I feel the pain when a comrade is lost. It isn't, and should never be, GM vs Players. If anyone is playing in that type of game then they have a Bad GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thread... thread, you're still alive my friend...!
...
I've done far worse than bore you. I've hurt you.
But I don't wish to go on hurting you.
...
From my chair, I edit at thee!
For sanity's sake I spoiler my next-to-last-most-recent post for thee!
*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.
Aaaaaaaaactually, you're wrong. If I haven't said before, I've actively created characters to use at the start of games to go with the party and adventure. Similarly, I've had GMs do the same. I have no problems with these characters. So... again, false base presumption spread across the whole.
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.
Fair enough.
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.
True.
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.
This has been proven false. In my experience. On both sides of the table.
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.
This has been proven false. In my
I'd be hard pressed to find a GMPC that wouldn't be improved by becoming a proper NPC.
Fair enough.
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.
I certainly think it's too rigid. But I respect your right to an opinion, despite disagreeing with it.
It's pretty simple. A fellow adventurer traveling with the party on a regular basis should be run by the players. (With DM over-ride authority of course).
And it's also rather simple- "the people who see DMPCs as a good thing" are (in almost every case) a DMPC running DM, one who isn't happy with running the other 99.99% of the characters in the show. Mostly they are either in denial or just have no idea how much their DMPC annoys the players.
Mind you, most players are so very grateful to get a decent DM, that a non "plot immunity, Mary-Sue-ishness" DMPC will be seen as a minor price to pay. If they see the DM needs to have one, they may even encourage it.
I feel that, perhaps, you might not have read all of my posts. That's understandable - they're long, overly-wordy, and often needlessly complex (like my home-brew campaign plots! Hey-oooooooooo!).
But the fact is, as a player, disregarding my status as a GM, the preponderance of GMPCs have neither bothered me nor detracted from the game in any way.
Perhaps your way of acknowling that was by hedging with the words "most". But it doesn't feel that way via text communication!
This actually gets at the heart of the terminology issue.
Like I said above!
By my definition, the act of "being a good GM" would turn the GMPC into an NPC.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
Other than the GM's personal investment, there is basically zero difference between the two. You can have a GMPC and an NPC who are virtually identical, but the GMPC interferes with the GM's partiality while the NPC does not.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
"Can", not "does".
Yes, it's a purely academic distinction. To be fair, I've already said as much, several times.
Let me put it this way: if they look identical, act identical, and are virtually identical, but you define GMPC as "the thing that interferes with partiality", how, exactly, does that differ from a PC? In that case, why is that a bad thing?
You have asserted that it is impossible to enjoy playing in your own games. For you? I'll accept that. For me? For others? Not so much.
Trying to play in your own game is bad GMing, for largely academic (but often consequential) reasons. That's what defines a GMPC, for me.
Terminology for which I strongly disagree.
And yes, this terminology is not universally understood. Yes, that will continue to cause problems throughout the life of this thread.
Agreed.
However, good GMs probably see the value in not calling an NPC "their PC." It's just a good practice.
This hasn't been a problems in the groups I play in.
Thus it's not "just good practice", but rather, "in personal experience, it seems to be a better practice." which is a pretty fundamentally different statement.
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.
* (Note that I'll accept this as true due to evidence from others, despite my own personal experience saying otherwise. Although most of the stories have run fewer GMPCs than I've seen from either side of the table, I'm ignoring aggregate weight of GMPCs in favor of probable number of GMs that use GMPCs.)
GMPC is a character, run by the GM, that is, for all intents and purposes, a standard part of the party - effectively making them a player in their own game.
Certain styles of GMing make this naturally perilous.
Are the PCs "great chosen ones, destined from the fore"? Well, then, it can be very easy to accidentally let that part of a GM's style affect their GMPCs.
Do the PCs tend to face brutal, devastating odds? Unless the GMPC has some sort of plot immunity (which is a failure on the part of the GM to treat them as a PC, thus failing to mesh the definitions together properly, or, in other words, a "bad GMPC"), then they're likely very brutally treated as well. If a GM is treating them like a PC then, despite rooting for them (which can be dangerous as well, but is not necessary to be a PC - see kyrt-ryder's post above), they will be treated with the same harshness and brutality.
Effectively, running a good GMPC requires thoroughly treating the GMPC as if they were part of the party - whatever that means. For good or ill.
That means separating your own out-of-character knowledge. That is difficult, but not impossible to do.
That means sharing the XP and loot, where warranted, equally. That is easy to do, but some player resent it - though that's a problem with the player, though, not the GMPC. (Note: a GM can handle this wrongly, in which case it becomes a problem of the GM handling it wrongly, not a problem with GMPCs being treated equally.)
That means sharing story elements, as needed. That is more difficult to do without accidentally "taking over" and is one of the primary struggles most GMs I've seen talked of have dealing with GMPCs (outside of rather bizarre-to-me "horror-stories" style accounts). This is related to, but not the same as, the separation of in-character and out-of-character knowledge.
My GMPCs tend to be extremely mortal, fallible, and oft (though not always) destined for relatively short lifespans. They don't always have these traits, but it's a tendency they have. In general, I tend to run my GMPCs as more expendable than the players. Of course, in general, I tend to take occasional risks as a player, too (though usually I try to control as many of the factors as I can before that risk is taken, thus minimizing the chance it turns out poorly).
But I've run GMPCs as just-as-integral.
Similarly, I've had GMPCs where the characters were either more expendable or just-as-integral as the rest of the party. Neither of these were ever problems.
(In fact, in the first two 3rd Edition games I ever played, under two different GMs, we had some great GMPCs.)
To be clear, GMPCs aren't for everyone. Just like epic levels, levels above 6/8/12/15/whatever, psionics, guns, witches, alchemists, wizards, bards, barbarians, ninjas, Eastern themes, or pretty much anything else you want to name isn't for everyone.
To be clear, GMPCs can be done badly - very badly, it seems. I've never seen it done all that badly in personal experience*, but I'm able to put aside my own experience with about six different GMs (off the top of my head) that have run them to accept that what other people say is true.
I mean, if you want to talk about self-aggrandizing power-tripping GMs, I've had far more problems with NPCs (not related to the party at all), villains, and story-rail roads than with GMPCs (those characters run by the GM that adventured with the party and were treated just like one of the party members). Heck, I've had more problems with fellow players than I've had with GMPCs.
GMPCs aren't automatically bad.
Defining GMPCs as "those disruptive things" isn't helpful, and fosters no meaningful communication. If you insist that non-disruptive GMPCs be called "NPCs", and instead relegate all disruptive behavior under the heading of "GMPC"... well, I can't stop you, but you're talking oddly, and generally managing not to say anything.
"A character played badly by the GM that is with the party is inherently defined as a character played badly by the GM that is with the party."
Why does that need defining? Instead, let me suggest,
Definition? Easy, a player character ran by the GM, thus GMPC.
That's the definition I use. Note that we feel the opposite way about GMPCs.
In that definition, there's a certain amount of expectation on my part. I expect the players to treat their characters fairly, each other fairly, and the game fairly. I expect no cheating or other problematic behavior out of character. And, as a result, I expect the players to generally reign in their more problematic in-character activities for the benefit of the group.
If they don't? As a GM, I handle it in-character. If I can't? I talk to them out-of-character. I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me.
I effectively gave up playing my favorite character - ever - for the good of the group and game. Just stopped playing him and made a new one. Why? He was hurting the over-all game-experience.
I completely changed another character's mind about something. Why? Because his in-character actions were harming others' enjoyment of the game, and I found it within myself to alter my PC's decision. Sure, it was a little out of character, but, with time, it became in-character. It made him grow as a person and change... and that's pretty cool.
This is the kind of maturity I expect from players and GMs alike - whether they use GMPCs or not.
This is not the same thing as altering your campaign on the whim of the players. But if your players aren't having fun, be flexible to change things. Don't just blame them and throw them under the bus. Don't give them every little thing they want, but don't reject every idea out-of-hand. That's good GMing... and that's good being a player.
To that end, if a GM wants to introduce a GMPC, I'm cool with that.
If a player doesn't want me to introduce a GMPC, I'm cool with that.
I find the GM to have the most authority, but a GM that refuses to listen or change is a GM asking to have a group dislike his game and leave. Similarly, a player - or even a group of players! - that refuses to listen or change is asking to have themselves no longer play the game.
There is no one "right" way to govern a group dynamic. But listening, being responsive, engaging, and willing to change based on input is being a decent person in general.
That is the key to working around GMPCs on one level or another - either running them, avoiding running them, or allowing others to run them.
I get that people have different emotional reactions to the term. I can totally see that. I get where those differing reactions come from - experience informs opinions; this is natural and a good thing. But when exposed to opposing experience, it makes sense to re-evaluate your own position. Currently, opposing experience indicates the "impossible (or at least implausible)" take on it wrong.
I dunno, guys, if someone tells you, "from experience, I know that an absolute statement about this is wrong" I'd tend to rethink my absolutist (or so-close-as-to-effectively-seem absolutist) statements.
I've had a blast running GMPCs. Maybe not all of them were great, or maybe (as unlikely as this seems to me, based on my interactions with other players) none of them were - I don't know*. I know that many GMs I've played under seemed to have fun with them, too, and I know that I've certainly enjoyed those games.
I might not be the majority - heck, I'm pretty sure I'm not - but my experience is pretty solid proof that something held as ironclad isn't even remotely.
For the record, if anyone is down near the Ocala area, doesn't believe GMPCs are good things in general, but is interested in GMing, I'd be extremely interested in playing in a small group with you as GM... with a GMPC. I'll be more than happy to give you feedback.
Similarly, if you're interested, let me know. Then give me feedback. Because that's how I learn and grow.
* Note, I'm saying this as a player. I'm not commenting on my own ability - I'll leave that to my players, when I ask them for feedback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear:
A bad GM can (and probably does) make for terrible GMPCs.
A bad GM can (though it's unlikely) make for great GMPCs.
A good GM can (and may) make for terrible GMPCs.
A good GM can (and may) make for great GMPCs.
^ All of the above statements are true. None of them conflict.
Also:
GMPCs have some rather steep risk factors that take a number of fine-tuned skills (or natural talents) to run properly, as well as a group that is properly amenable to the idea.
Also, also, man this thread just exploded. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's understandable - they're long, overly-wordy, and often needlessly complex (like my home-brew campaign plots! Hey-oooooooooo!).
But the fact is, as a player, disregarding my status as a GM, the preponderance of GMPCs have neither bothered me nor detracted from the game in any way.
Perhaps your way of acknowling that was by hedging with the words "most". But it doesn't feel that way via text communication!
Yes, I used that terminology as you are here (as in most cases) the exception. And I mean that in the nicest possible way with all due respect.
;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, if anyone is down near the Ocala area, doesn't believe GMPCs are good things in general, but is interested in GMing, I'd be extremely interested in playing in a small group with you as GM... with a GMPC. I'll be more than happy to give you feedback.
Similarly, if you're interested, let me know. Then give me feedback. Because that's how I learn and grow.
* Note, I'm saying this as a player. I'm not commenting on my own ability - I'll leave that to my players, when I ask them for feedback.
You are a bit out of range for a get-together...I recently moved to Celebration, but I feel that we would game well together. I am currently about an hour and a half from you...if anything changes and you get closer to the Orlando/Kissimmee area we could get a group together.
We seem to be on the same page in our thinking on the subject though.