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.
Sounds great!
Sorry we're juuuuuuuust too far apart, at present! :(
This is a GMPC of mine. He let's me keep the party moving along the course and provide things we need that people don't think to buy, like a cart and tools.
He is a summoner with both blood god disciple and black snake. He doesn't have spells, so he is really not great, but I love him and his eidolon.
Now if only this campaign would move faster....
Open to recruitment of you're looking for an online game. Just find my post history. :)
I don't need charisma. I don't have spells. Cantrips are it, but they don't really have saves.
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.
I would take over a dominated PC, mainly so players don't get a PvP vibe, I tell them what die to roll and they still roll for the PC. I don't understand what that tells you or what you hoped to hear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would take over a dominated PC, mainly so players don't get a PvP vibe, I tell them what die to roll and they still roll for the PC. I don't understand what that tells you or what you hoped to hear.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.
You've foolishly walked into my fiendish trap... er, well, it was mostly a tangent from being distracted. I was wondering just because of your comment about how fair it would be for the players to run a villain - I know a lot of groups struggle with whether the player is sandbagging their characters effectiveness when the get the kill order in this situation. The power attacking greataxe barbarian who suddenly thinks the best idea is to pull out their unmodified shortbow to shoot at the party from a distance, etc.
It hasn't come up in my games yet - I'll probably have to ask how people want it to be played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm back, took me only ten minutes to read tacticslion's manifesto; I got honorable mention :)
I've never understood the whole GM vs. PCs dynamic.
Players: We—
DM: Doesn't work. You're all dead, no hope of resurrection.
Players: ...Not exactly a fair fight.
If you have it in for the PCs and it takes you more than that exchange, you're either a moron or a sadist. I don't want to play with either.
Just to be clear, antagonist doesn't mean you're actively undermining players or trying to take them out, it means that you're trying to challenge them; a hero's only as good as a villain can allow him to be. You'd have to see it to understand, but it's tough and everyone's counting on them. I don't want them to fail, but neither am I rooting for them, and I've ran more than one xanatos gambit at them, but as a villain, not GM. I try to make an intellectual challenge, I don't just drop them in a snake-pit. There's a million miles of difference from an impartial GM and a sadistic GM.
I'm back, took me only ten minutes to read tacticslion's manifesto; I got honorable mention :)
Of course! I always like finding things I can agree with or well-written things, and, it seems, even more so with people I otherwise disagree with.
How did you staunch the hemorrhaging from your eyes? :D
Magic, most likely. And/or Star Trek movie references (following Spock) in spoiler-tag titles.
(I know you read that, TL.) :P
Of course I did! :D
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.
;-)
Thanks! And the same respect right back atcha! :D
(We're cool.)... but that was a long post. ;)If it wasn't, it just wouldn't be TL.
I have to say, although entirely earned on my part (and more than earned), it's really interesting that I've got that sort of reputation around here.
I think, in part, it's because I feel comfortable on the Paizo forums - even when I disagree with people, I like them, and am generally aware that they like (or at least tolerate) me. That's a pretty awesome environment.
In other forums I'm not nearly so... verbose. In one forum I frequent, there's someone else with effectively the exact same reputation! It's really interesting to see the variance in social dynamics between the two locations.
I think I might do a thread about various villain gambits and what ones I've employed and what gambits the PC's (knowingly or not) used to thwart the BBEG.
** spoiler omitted **...
I only started coming here very recently and love it; to be able to talk about the various stuff that is topic-worthy about a game I spend so much time with. I've noticed a really good atmosphere as well.
| 1 person 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.This is true, but I would generally tend to accept the word of the players who were happy with DMPCs in campaigns in which they played but did not DM/GM.
Absolutely. The only "bragging rights" I share from my positive uses of DMPC's, I only share because the players gave me very positive feedback. My friends and I(especially that particular gaming group at the time) are brutally honest; if you're doing wrong, or being a jerk, we'll call you out on the spot. If you're running something badly in a game(like a "bad" DMPC), you'll find out our opinion pretty fast.
These are the players who, when I was DM, came to me and asked me to keep a few npc's around full-time. Every npc in my games have a personality and a story(available on request, never as a monologue), and sometimes the players enjoy having a npc around. Several notable characters in my games started out as no-name npc's whom the players wanted to keep around and learn more about.
Maybe I don't run DMPC's. Maybe I've just run npc hirelings with a little more personality. It's very possible I've just been using the wrong terminology; every DMPC I've run has been relegated to support roles only, always expendable, lowest on the totem pole as far as loot and resources, and are always removed when their purpose is finished.
Suppose I will put my personal definition of GMPC up as well.
GMPC = A character the GM has placed in the party due to his desire to also have a player character. The assistance may or may not be needed, but the reason is the GM wants a PC. Built like a PC, gets the same experience, share of treasure, etc… It is there not as a part of the campaign or backdrop of the mission, but because it is the GM’s personal PC.
------------------------------------
Ok this is getting long, but I am trying to be clear since it appears I was not clear before.
... 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.
Very few posts in this entire thread say they are all bad or all good (I'm not going to take the time to count them). That is taking our posts to a ridiculous and unwarranted extreme.
I am saying there is some percentage that is clearly bad.
Though we may disagree on that percentage, I hope we can all agree that some (not all) are bad?
I am saying the GMPC is easier than many things in the game to do badly and cause problems. I think it is very easy for a GM to unintentionally give preferential treatment to his PC. It is very easy to rationalize the PC’s logical behavior to be something ideal with his greater knowledge of what is going on in the campaign. Not that it always is done, but that it is easy to do.
Can we agree the GMPC is fairly easy to abuse?
Even if not abused, the GMPC could fairly easily have the appearance of abuse. Maybe the personality worked out in advance for JJ makes him being the only one to come up with the aggressive distraction strategy perfectly logical. But when that turns out to be the optimal strategy it can appear the GM meta-gamed to make his GMPC be better than everyone else. What if the defeated demon has a whole trove of magic items that are just coincidentally ideal for the GMPC, but not anyone else’s PC. Isn’t it possible that the other players will think the GM added those just for his PC? If the particular circumstance happens to be ideal for the capabilities of the GMPC, it can unintentionally steal the spotlight from the PC’s. Yes, all of those can be avoided if the GM is sufficiently careful. But it is another concern that should be taken into account.
Can we agree that is fairly easy for the GMPC to appear abusive?
Some people do not like confrontation or disagreement in real life between friends. Some people are introverts. Some people do not handle even polite constructive criticism very well. Some people are frankly, pretty damn irrational. I will posit that some people may not like a particular instance of a GMPC but will not say anything to anyone about it. There have been cases where I personally did not say anything to the GM even though I didn’t like it. The reasons have been varied. I didn’t really enjoy it, but it wasn’t horrid. I think everyone else liked it and don’t want to rock the boat. The rest of the game was good enough to make up for it. And/or I didn’t think (rightly or wrongly) the GM would take it well.
Can we agree that someone might not like GMPC’s but won’t say anything to the GM about it?
The justification that I have seen most often for the GMPC is that the party lacks ‘X’ capability. The ‘X’ can be healing, sneaking, condition removal, disabling traps/locks, knowledge skills, tanking, heavy hitting, arcane might, etc… I have yet to see an ‘X’ that can’t be just as well taken care of for an experienced group with something other than a GMPC.* The GM could NPC’s (meaning lower point buy, wealth, not optimized, NPC classes, and/or idiot savants) that the players could hire, easier access to certain items, coaching on coping strategies, scaling back encounters, etc... I will posit that there might be a lack that can’t be handled any other way, but I haven’t seen it.
Can we agree that the reason of “The party lacks ‘X’ capability” can usually be handled (even if not quite as completely) by something other than a GMPC?
* My one exception to this is a small group of completely new players. If you have 2-3 players and no experienced players, a short term GMPC for the purpose of providing an example can be very useful.
One of the next most common reasons I see for a GMPC is, “It is my way of keeping things going forward.” The GM uses the GMPC to provide hints, directions, or other impetus to the party. I have never seen a situation where I can’t provide the same hints, directions, or impetus by some means other than a GMPC. NPC’s, discovered documents, dreams from the gods, orders from the boss, easily questioned prisoner, intercepted messages, assassins in the night, etc… can all be used to keep the story going.
It may not be quite as easy as a GMPC that is always right there with the group, but can we agree that there is usually some way other than a GMPC to keep things going?
The reason I see least often (but it still seems to come up a significant amount) is I use the GMPC only to save the party if absolutely necessary. Ok, the ‘insurance policy’ GMPC is I think the most understandable reason. It is quite understandable to not want to wipe out the party. I also think it is the use most likely to have bad consequences. Assume the party needs saving for whatever reason (poor decisions, bad luck, tactics suck, etc…), then the GMPC suddenly saves them. It is very difficult to not have the GMPC then seem more powerful and spotlight hogging than the entire rest of the party. “Oh you couldn’t have done it without me.” Even if not intended, it will be likely to marginalize the PC’s in what is probably an important or climactic encounter. Some solution to keep the PC’s alive without invalidating their existence sure seems like it is less likely to cause problems. Again it may not be as simple as a GMPC that is always right there with the party, but I think there is some other way to eliminate a TPK if that is your goal. Again, yes, if the GM is careful enough it is probably possible to for the GMPC to save the party without coming across as the ‘god’ PC.
Can we agree that a save by the GMPC has the potential to take away from the other PC and can probably be handled some other way?
For myself, I can clearly answer all of those questions with a yes. So the GMPC is fraught with potential for problems, yet isn't necessary.
The only remaining reason that I can see for a GMPC is that, I as a GM want to have a PC in addition to running the game. For me personally, that is not sufficient for all of those risks and/or extra care that must be taken. I will play PFS, join an online PbP, and/or alternate GM’ing campaigns with someone else to get my time as a player.
I am certainly not saying they can't or are never used well. I am saying I just no longer see any reward that is worth the level of risk associated with GMPC's.
Those are great questions and posits, Kydeem, however, they're also somewhat misleading, as it lays the blame at the feat of GMPCs instead of what's actually causing the problem.
Here's a similar (but short) list of things that aren't necessary:
- everything
Whew! Longer than I thought!
Ultimately, what is or is not necessary in a given individual's game comes down to their skills (which can have varying degrees within various sub-sets, as well as over-all) and group-dynamics.
Sometimes a GM simply can't do that well without a GMPC - they lack a certain skill. Sometimes Players can't get by without a GMPC - they lack a certain skill. This does not relegate either GM or Player into the category of "bad", but rather, "their (real-life) skill-sets are different than yours, but might still come to an enjoyable experience for all".
Sometimes, a GM (or players) don't want to handle things without a GMPC. That's fine, too.
The fact that different GMing (and playing) styles can utilize certain elements better than others does not mean that any particular style is wrong, just that it's different.
Let's just go down your examples:
- Yes, of course. The fact that you're clarifying this to him, when the structure of the part of the sentence you cut off indicates the presumption that there are, in fact, badly played GMPCs - in other words, while it's a known and accepted quantity by all, even when this is admitted, the general response feels like, "YOU DON'T HATE THEM ENOUGH!" which, you know, isn't a good response.
- it's easy to give your own character preferential treatment; corollary: it's easy to give anyone important to you preferential treatment (wife, friend, etc) - in a large group dynamic, that can be be bad (but isn't always, depending on group dynamic)
- GMPCs can have the appearance of abuse; this is absolutely true, however presuming abuse where there is none usually means there is either a lack of trust or a lack of communication on the part of the players or GMs, or both - changing either of those values can change the appearance, as can, you know, changing the GMPC; conclusion: if you can't change the treasure, character-style, or the like, you are more likely to have difficulty with group-based cohesiveness and interpersonal dynamics, regardless of GMPCs, as you are unable to change elements within the game that are important to have flexibility
- agreed that not all are comfortable dealing with confrontation, however that is a personal problem with substantially more far-reaching implications than "bad GMPCs"; it's like noting that some people need to bathe more frequently, but others don't want to tell them this because of a desire not to confront others... that's not good - conclusion: if you are unable to take critiques or criticisms, you likely have more substantial problems than GMPCs (they are symptoms, not problems)
- absolutely a party can alter themselves to plug a hole... but many don't want to; there is nothing wrong with either style of play, either expecting the party to do so, or not, but it's something that should be agreed upon before hand - conclusion: this is a difference in social contracts, and doesn't work well as a situation for all
- absolutely, there are a whole host of methods of keeping the party moving forward other than GMPCs; sometimes, however, those methods are less reliable, less clear, or more apt to throw a party completely "off" a GM's plots by way of misunderstanding or misinterpreting, at which point either the GM alters their plans (a good GM might be able to do this!), tells them out-of-character (a good group might be able to handle this!), or has some other sort of backup (which a GMPC fits into!) - all dependent on your group dynamic and social contract and GMing style
- There are absolutely many ways a GM can prevent a TPK other than GMPC... but many of them have the flaw of believability; how many times can Divine Intercession (or whatever) happen (over the course of more than one game) that players can set aside their disbelief in order to buy-in? Depends entirely on the players, the GM, and so on - in other words, it's all about the social contract and group dynamics.
I agree insomuch that a GMPC can be abused. I know it's "probable", due to the number of stories on boards like these.
But the language so often associated with GMPCs comes off as (intended or not) a kind of general, "ew, you use GMPCs, clearly you're doing it wrong" presentation.
Most all of the problems mentioned with GMPCs are symptomatic of other problems - GMPCs aren't the issue, it's the GMs or players involved.
THAT SAID: as has been noted, GMPCs aren't for everyone. They can't and shouldn't be used by all GMs for all groups. Just as guns ruin some peoples' enjoyment (even though full plate doesn't) means that those people shouldn't play in games with guns, GMPCs can ruin peoples' enjoyment, and thus shouldn't be used (in general) along side that.
To be clear, GMPCs can - obviously - be played very badly. And sometimes, it's easier to handle the symptom than the issue behind it. Okay, that's fine. Ban GMPCs. That works for a certain groups.
But don't conflate the symptom itself as the problem. Instead, as I've suggested often, find the actual problem, and explain how that relates to the issue at hand.
If there are two conflicting points (which happen in real-life social dynamics), someone needs to change or some sort of compromise should be reached* - generally, I recommend (if possible**) that the one with the least experience in a field be the one open to new experiences, whatever that is.
Your post is an excellent set of warning flags - potential problems with GMPCs. That's great! But the way it's written, it comes off as "GMPCs shouldn't be used, and if you do, you're doing it wrong." which, you know, might not be the intent, but it's certainly the impression.
* Which requires communication!
** That's not always possible, though, for many reasons***, so it really cuts either way.
*** Such as, but not limited to: A GM's particular skill-set doesn't work well with certain elements, a player cannot internally rationalized
To be clear, part of the problem lies at the feet of ourselves and our general tendency to say, "That person doesn't agree with me enough, even though they kind of do."
The above is actually quite problematic, and one of the sources of continuing discourse on these topics.
To me, the divine is, "GMPCs aren't inherently bad; please stop presenting them as generally that way." while others feel, "Some GMPCs are bad, some aren't; but I want to warn people." (which is actually probably the best "area" to be in, when combined with the first), while others are, "GMPCs are usually trouble, thus if something spins them in a positive light, it's not giving clear-enough warning signals." and there are some that are various mixes of the three. And probably some that are altogether different; I dunno, I'm not smart enough to think of it.
The issue, here, is that most people don't think in terms of what they really mean. Instead, they think in terms of approximations of what they really mean, and place those words.
For example, I don't look at myself pro-GMPC, at least in terms of, "You should use GMPCs!" but I'm aware that I probably come off that way to many others.
That's why I always try to clarify at the end of my posts, "GMPCs aren't for everyone, don't expect that you have to use them." because, otherwise, it might come off as me suggesting that people need to and should be using them in their games.
I'm really, really not.
But I am suggesting the manner in which things are worded often strongly comes across - for good or ill - differently than intended.
Thus, I'd like to say, Kyeem made a good post. Mine was in response to the perceived tone, as well as clarifying some underlying issues that can come up with GMPCs, rather than to say that he was wrong.
He wasn't wrong - but the issues he brought up for GMPCs have application in areas other than GMPCs, and thus it felt (to me) like a stronger condemnation than the words themselves may have been meant. Or, maybe they were meant that way. Who knows? (Kyeem probably* does, but I certainly don't!)
This is something that should be kept in mind, regardless of what we're talking about, by the way, GMPCs or otherwise. 'Cause it happens a lot 'round here. I know I'm guilty of it, and it certainly seems others are, too! :D
So... #TLtalkstoomuch!
* I say "probably" because it's really easy to have your own motivations hidden from you, or to get confused about them, or to change them outright, after-the-fact, without realizing that you've done so. Heaven knows I have that problem anyway. People: we're a mess! I love us! :D
Those are great questions and posits, Kydeem, however, they're also somewhat misleading, as it lays the blame at the feat of GMPCs instead of what's actually causing the problem....
I will agree that for many/most of those problems, the GMPC is not the root cause. However, I believe that the GMPC has the potential to inflate whatever the root cause might be.
Since it fairly easy to avoid using a GMPC, I believe it is fairly easy to avoid inflating those problems.
...Your post is an excellent set of warning flags - potential problems with GMPCs. That's great! But the way it's written, it comes off as "GMPCs shouldn't be used, and if you do, you're doing it wrong." which, you know, might not be the intent, but it's certainly the impression....
What I am responding to is the comments coming back at me that I'm being a absolutist, idiot, immature, irrational, and/or guided by fear since I don't like them.
I am explaining why I (and I believe many other people) prefer to not use them. I am no 'prophet of the god on high absolutist' about it. I have used them in the past. I might use them again in the future. But it would be very rare that I can't find a different way to handle the issue that is less likely to cause problems.
If you and your group all like them, then feel free to go for it. It is no skin off my nose and I wish you all enjoyment from it. But don't be so surprised that some people (especially someone new to your group) may not like GMPC's. A person that doesn't want to join your group because of them may not actually be an immature, irrational, fearful idiot. He/she may be an otherwise perfectly enjoyable friend with a different set of experiences than you who just doesn't want to keep taking that chance.
I am saying there is some percentage [of the GM's significant other's PC] that is clearly bad.
Though we may disagree on that percentage, I hope we can all agree that some (not all) are bad?
Can we agree the GM's significant other's PC is fairly easy to abuse?
Can we agree that is fairly easy for the GM's significant other's PC to appear abusive?
Can we agree that someone might not like GM's significant other's PC but won’t say anything to the GM about it?
Can we agree that the reason of “The party lacks ‘X’ capability” can usually be handled (even if not quite as completely) by something other than a GM's significant other's PC?
*See what I did there? }:-)
Yes I see what you did there. Though I don't think the last point really applies. I've never heard someone say the reason their significant other is playing is because the party doesn't have 'X' capability.
But (ignoring the snark) eliminating the significant other's PC means kicking them out of the game. Not using a GMPC does not kick anyone out of the game.
To me, the potential reward (having another enjoyable player in the game) does outweigh the risk (could be another example of favoritism) of having a significant other PC.
On the other hand I can understand why someone who has had several bad experiences with a GM's significant other might not want to be in such a group. I might be disappointed that he doesn't want to join and I might try to talk him into staying. I wouldn't dismiss him as immature, irrational, or a fearful idiot.
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.This is true, but I would generally tend to accept the word of the players who were happy with DMPCs in campaigns in which they played but did not DM/GM.Absolutely. The only "bragging rights" I share from my positive uses of DMPC's, I only share because the players gave me very positive feedback. My friends and I(especially that particular gaming group at the time) are brutally honest; if you're doing wrong, or being a jerk, we'll call you out on the spot. If you're running something badly in a game(like a "bad" DMPC), you'll find out our opinion pretty fast.
These are the players who, when I was DM, came to me and asked me to keep a few npc's around full-time. Every npc in my games have a personality and a story(available on request, never as a monologue), and sometimes the players enjoy having a npc around. Several notable characters in my games started out as no-name npc's whom the players wanted to keep around and learn more about.
Maybe I don't run DMPC's. Maybe I've just run npc hirelings with a little more personality. It's very possible I've just been using the wrong terminology; every DMPC I've run has been relegated to support roles only, always expendable, lowest on the totem pole as far as loot and resources, and are always removed when their purpose is finished.
Indeed. As you describe them, they are solidly NPCs without your personal investment beyond what any well-played NPC in your world should have. Calling them DMPCs is the root of the problem.
I will agree that for many/most of those problems, the GMPC is not the root cause. However, I believe that the GMPC has the potential to inflate whatever the root cause might be.
Entirely acceptable!
Since it fairly easy to avoid using a GMPC, I believe it is fairly easy to avoid inflating those problems.
Depends on your skill-set, your players, and your very specific table/game dynamic, and social contract.
"Fairly easy" depends on a lot of factors that you don't know about a game, including player preferences.
...Your post is an excellent set of warning flags - potential problems with GMPCs. That's great! But the way it's written, it comes off as "GMPCs shouldn't be used, and if you do, you're doing it wrong." which, you know, might not be the intent, but it's certainly the impression....
What I am responding to is the comments coming back at me that I'm being a absolutist, idiot, immature, irrational, and/or guided by fear since I don't like them.
I am explaining why I (and I believe many other people) prefer to not use them. I am no 'prophet of the god on high absolutist' about it. I have used them in the past. I might use them again in the future. But it would be very rare that I can't find a different way to handle the issue that is less likely to cause problems.
I get that. Thus my explanatory post: I'm letting you know how it feels, much like you're letting us know how it feels. We're cool - it's all about the communication, yo!
If you and your group all like them, then feel free to go for it. It is no skin off my nose and I wish you all enjoyment from it. But don't be so surprised that some people (especially someone new to your group) may not like GMPC's. A person that doesn't want to join your group because of them may not actually be an immature, irrational, fearful idiot. He/she may be an otherwise perfectly enjoyable friend with a different set of experiences than you who just doesn't want to keep taking that chance.
Sure... at least not innately more-so than others.
While I don't like hearing it from others (so I get the feeling), I know, deep down, that I can be immature, irrational, fearful, or an idiot (or all three!) at various times about various things.
I strongly expect all people can.
Not every hardline stance, by any means, but many hardline stances tend to have, as one of their ancillary "roots", if not the primary one, one of those elements involved when maintained in the face of counter-proof. Effectively, ignoring evidence to the contrary because of personal experience means you're... ignoring evidence.
THAT SAID: as previously mentioned, I'm actually okay with that. People have different expectations. As a group, the primary element you want to have is a "safe" environment where people are welcomed. That doesn't mean you always give everyone their own way - that would be impossible. But rather, you purposefully design your social interaction in such a way that those within that circle do not feel threatened, abused, neglected, or rejected... as much as possible, anyway*.
Thus, forcing GMPCs isn't a good thing.
On the other hand, neither is unilaterally rejecting them.
My point is simply this: there are various play styles which mesh better with certain elements and worse with others - whether that play style is as a GM or as a player, it's up to each group to make their own social contract.
Thus, if you want to recruit a player who's not into the elements of your social contract, either modify either or both of your styles/opinions (even if it's only temporary, such as a "let's try it out phase") or agree not to play that game or that style together.
But to do that requires communication.
Introversion, shyness, fear (stemming from all sorts of causes) is a real thing. It's difficult for people to speak up sometimes. I get that. Heck, it's certainly true of me at points (shocking, I know).
But without communication, change is impossible. Without change, a given unpleasant experience is going to continue.
This is what I champion: if a given GM doesn't do something well, talk to them. Empathize with them, certainly, but talk to them. Make your feelings aware, while being respectful of theirs. The conversation isn't always happy. But that's okay, because it's better.
Again, I champion the right for GMPCs to exist, because I love my experiences with them. Thoroughly, and on both sides of the table.
But I don't champion that everyone, or even the majority, should use them.
* There, as in most things, limits to how far this stretches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
What do you do?
As I said before. I would (and have in the past) give it a chance. However, it would be a warning sign to me. "Aw jeez another one of those. Let's see what's going to happen this time." It would be a warning sign to me because it has nearly always been a negative. Sometimes a small negative and sometimes a huge negative. Yes, I agree it depends upon the GM. I will give it a chance because I have had a few good experiences with GMPC's. Not many, but a few.
Even though I find that one aspect almost always at least a bit annoying, if everything else is good I can overlook it. I think it is a negative that doesn't need to be there and would be better without it, but I can deal with it.
EDIT:
This is in fact the case with one of my current groups that meets only a few times a year. The GM is pretty good, he runs things pretty well, and I like the whole group. Yes, he wants a GMPC in the group. It is usually not too intrusive. We have talked about it a little. All of the players are either neutral to slightly negative on it. No one feels it really helps the experience in any way. But since the GM really wants it, we put up with it because the rest of it is good enough to make up for it.
But some people will not. As soon as they realize there is a GMPC they will be gone. They have zero good experiences with it. They have several bad experiences with it. That is not the same as irrational fear. That is a learned response. They apparently did give it a chance in the past several times or they wouldn't have had all those bad experiences.
There is an often quoted definition of insanity that is - doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result. There are people that have reached that point were it seems insane to expect anything different to happen this time. Is it a little sad? Yes. But that is where they are at.
|
So I see a situation that I've seen in the past that went well sometimes and didn't go well sometimes and I am seeing it go well....I enjoy the game. If something pops up later that was either really well-done and deserves merit, or I feel was a bad call and I feel it needs mentioning, I talk to the GM about it.
I would treat it like I treat evil campaigns, monstrous PCs, gunslingers, zen archers, synthesist summoners, etc....I've had good and bad experiences with all of them and if I see the experience going good...I enjoy the game. Otherwise I talk to the GM about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How I begin a campaign and introduce the idea of a GMPC is I tell the players to choose to play whatever they want (within the restrictions of the game). If they feel that would like an additional character to take care of some role, I can make a character to join to the party if they wish. I've had groups say, "Yeah do that." And I've had groups say, "Nah, we got it covered." While I like the interaction, not running one means there is just one less set of stats that I have to worry about leveling and such as we go on. It's a tool. A tool can be used well, or poorly. But how it is used is not the fault of the tool, but the user.
Anything can be done badly. Some things are done badly by their very nature. From kazoo music, to eating three-months-old stuff you find in the fridge for the lulz, there are tools that may possibly be used well at some single point in history, but generally worsen everything else they touch.
Pres man, it seems you too use NPCs, not DMPCs, from your description of it.
I think a lot of the confusion in this thread comes from the thin line between fully-developed, long-term npc's, and DMPC's. I've seen some terrible DMPC's played, which I used the experience from to make sure any long-term npc I run doesn't run afoul the same habits. I thought what I was running were DMPC's, but after reading this thread, I feel like they were just detailed npc's. Read my above posts for examples.
I saw one DMPC ran so badly, the game was basically the DM playing by himself. The PC's were little more than hirelings. If that were my only experience with DMPC's, then yeah, I'd be against them.
I guess intent is everything. If the npc the DM is running isn't part of the story or helping move the plot forward, I guess that makes them a DMPC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pres man, it seems you too use NPCs, not DMPCs, from your description of it.
No, not according to the definition I posted earlier:
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).
Since I am choosing to describe such characters as GMPCs, they are in fact GMPCs regardless if you would describe them as GMPCs. My definition does not depend on "feelings" or "wants", which can't be defined in a way to separate a GMPC from NPC without also separating some PCs into NPCs as well. Instead my definition depends on function, which can be more objectively measured. A demi-god that travels with the party, saving them and forcing them to act is not a GMPC in my definition, since the character does not function as an effective PC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, now let me just ask the DMPC running GM this sit rep. The party is charging across a room to rush the BBEG (for this example, he needs to be rushed, ok?) One way for your DMPC to move, in fatc the direct path- leads over a certain death trap. (You know your DMPC won;t spot it and won't make the save except on a nat 20 and won't survive due to other things). What do you do?
Moving to go around the trap is metagaming and cheating. But so is deliberately moving into the trap.
And yes, you could justify another route easily- BUT YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY TAKE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT TRAP OUT OF YOUR DECISION. No matter what you decide- you have made that decision based upon your DM knowledge. Even if you let him die a horrible death- you have done so knowing.
And think of all the things you can't do- solve puzzles, know a monsters weakness- and you have to constantly keep that in mind while DMPCing. You can NEVER have that flash of brilliance- "Mellon!". You already know that the password is the ancient elvish word for 'friend".
And- look none of you are more experienced in DMing that I am. (That doesn't mean I am better or more imaginative and heaven knows you quite possibly know the PF ruleset better than I do). When I am DMing I am already running dozens of re-occurring roll NPCs, the BBEG and of course thousands of one shot "meet & greet or kill" monsters, shopkeepers and what not. And of course, I have a couple PC's in other games. I dunno about you guys, but this mere mortal thinks that's enuf for one guy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Move him across the death trap. If I wasn't willing to lose him to that trap, I shouldn't have put it there.
Part of DMing is having NPCs act on their own knowledge and not your own. DMPCs don't change that.
While a DM has more than enough, I am happy to take on more if it will help the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who's on first, NPC's on second, GMPC's on third.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, now let me just ask the DMPC running GM this sit rep. The party is charging across a room to rush the BBEG (for this example, he needs to be rushed, ok?) One way for your DMPC to move, in fatc the direct path- leads over a certain death trap. (You know your DMPC won;t spot it and won't make the save except on a nat 20 and won't survive due to other things). What do you do?
Moving to go around the trap is metagaming and cheating. But so is deliberately moving into the trap.
Before I answer, let me place a counter question. Let's say the party is looking for the BBEG strong hold. They grab a random street urchin and ask the urchin, "Where is the BBEG?" Let's say they charm him so he has to answer somehow. Now you the GM know where they BBEG is hiding and you are running the street urchin, thus do you tell the party where the BBEG is hiding? Or do you not? In either case you are using your knowledge as the GM, so you are metagaming and cheating.
Survey says? WRONG! Logic fails. Yet this is exactly the logic you are trying to employ in your questions here.
How do handle the trap? By employing the same methods of handling the street urchin. What is the appropriate response in game for the character? If I have been playing the character as a rush forward and smash, then that is what I do in this case. If I have been hanging back and casting buffs in the past, that is what I do in this case.
And yes, you could justify another route easily- BUT YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY TAKE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT TRAP OUT OF YOUR DECISION. No matter what you decide- you have made that decision based upon your DM knowledge. Even if you let him die a horrible death- you have done so knowing.
Actually the reason why we play with dice is precisely so you actually never do know the outcome for certain. You could roll all ones on damage dice, or the character could roll a 20 on a save or die. It is possible. But your point is irrelevant, the issue isn't what I the person running the character knows, but instead how does the character act based on what they know. They don't know about a trap, then they don't act as if they know the trap is there. Just as the street urchin has no reason to know the location of the BBEG and so can't reveal it to party.
Players can do this all the time, when the rogue spots a trap but doesn't have a chance to tell all the other characters about it, their players act as if they don't know. I fail to see how a GM would be any less capable.
And think of all the things you can't do- solve puzzles, know a monsters weakness- and you have to constantly keep that in mind while DMPCing. You can NEVER have that flash of brilliance- "Mellon!". You already know that the password is the ancient elvish word for 'friend".
As I said earlier, for myself at least, I full appreciate how I can't be a "player" in my own games. There are some things that running GMPC isn't going to be the same for me, the person controlling it, as it would be for someone else controlling their PC. If I know the answer to the riddle, I can't "solve" it. But then again, if I had heard it before as a player, I couldn't "solve" it then either (Oh yeah, that was from the hobbit. The answer is teeth!). Anyone that has GMing for anytime already knows lots of monster weaknesses and strengths, that means there are going to be something a little less special for them when they "learn" a troll gets really hurt by fire.
And- look none of you are more experienced in DMing that I am. (That doesn't mean I am better or more imaginative and heaven knows you quite possibly know the PF ruleset better than I do). When I am DMing I am already running dozens of re-occurring roll NPCs, the BBEG and of course thousands of one shot "meet & greet or kill" monsters, shopkeepers and what not. And of course, I have a couple PC's in other games. I dunno about you guys, but this mere mortal thinks that's enuf for one guy.
I wish I could remember the way someone said it. Something like, "Experience doesn't make perfection, merely permanence."
But that is why a lot of the better "GMPC"s are wallflower types. They hang back, only offer some advice if the group seems really stuck. This takes some of the burden off the GM to be constantly "ON". To be clear, some players run their PCs this way, so that is not a characteristic of a difference between a PC and an NPC. As others have said, not everyone wants to use GMPCs, nothing wrong with that. Heck, even most of us that support their use, don't use them every single time.
P.S.: Not all meta-gaming is cheating.
I recently was in a session where my character had seen about 3/4 of a rectangular dungeon complex and was preparing to cast Dimension Door to reunite with other party members from whom he had been separated by structural collapse. Even though I saw exactly where they were on the map, I based my teleport destination on symmetry with what I had actually seen, not what was actually there. I also made sure my character was in good enough health to take some scramble damage if somebody else was there (I could see that the selected squares were empty, but of course my PC had no way to know that.).
P.S.: Not all meta-gaming is cheating.
This is a tangent, but worth commenting on, I think.
1) it depends on what you mean by "cheating" (some people will include it under the heading of "cheating")
-1b) "cheating" is not necessarily a bad thing (depending on your group)
In other words, despite some defining it as cheating, that cheating isn't necessarily the "bad" kind. Like cholesterol, there's the good stuff and the bad stuff. You want a (limited amount) of the good stuff, and none (or a very small) amount of the bad stuff.
2) meta-gaming is, occasionally, almost necessary; for example: when you've painted yourself into a creative corner and can't make things work with the group as currently envisioned
Whenever people bring up, "But, metagaming!" with loathing, I always think to the article by Rich Burlew. I don't always agree with him, but he makes a rather salient point under "Decide to React Differently" area: sometimes acting "out of character" is necessary, and even good. To me, this expands to include metagaming - any time you act based on outside influence (not in-game) you're metagaming. This isn't bad. In fact, it can be for the good of the group.
No healer, and you're willing? Rolling up a healer is metagaming.
No healer, so you're a UMD specialist? Metagaming.
Healer isn't the only thing, but it's one of the easiest to describe.
Having heard a brief rundown of some events of an Adventure Path (hey, it's easy to get spoiled on accident with the internet), but willing to play your character as if you hadn't? Evasion of metagaming.
Following advice in the Player's Guidebooks for an AP? Metagaming in order to avoid metagaming. ("Yo, Dawg...")
My point is that metagaming isn't a sin - it's a tool. It's often used "incorrectly" (or, at least, "incorrectly" according to a certain classification of "correct") in various games, but it can also be a valuable tool for assisting your fellow players, eliminating out-of-character strife by eliminating in-character strife, and generally making the game better.
...
...
...
...
... just like GMPCs (can be).*
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have on occasion engaged in what I would call "posotive" metagaming. On more than one occasion, my PC has found himself separated from others in the party and not sure whether the other PCs survived wherever they ended up. It was a real toss-up whether in character he would follow them or abandon them and go look for another party to adventure with. In such situations, the only real question was when he would follow them -- not whether he would do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bob the Hammerer is killed in a dramatic fight. He is buried by his companions. Down the road on the way to the next adventure they run into Glen the Summoner. He asks to travel with them. They respond, "You seem trustworthy."
Once again, fallacious appeal to authority.
As I have said, we're not having a High School debate club here. IRL, people appeal to authority all the time. And, in in debates, it's acceptable to do so if the authority is a noted expert in that field*. And, you're also using appeal to authority incorrectly. So- not only are you resorting to a high School debate club set of rules we're not using here, you're also wrong twice in how you use it.
"Albert Einstein says XXX about Theoretical physics" is not only acceptable but a good point. "Albert Einstein says the death penalty is wrong" is not acceptable. IN A HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE.
So, next time you think to refute a point made by a poster by dredging up some half remembered "logical fallacy' do follow these two rules:
1. Do so correctly.
2. Check where you are- are you in a debating society? If the answer is no, then don't bring it up, it's rude. It's like trying to use the rules of Monopoly IRL. Really, you can't Get Out of Jail Free with that little card.
Bob the Hammerer is killed in a dramatic fight. He is buried by his companions. Down the road on the way to the next adventure they run into Glen the Summoner. He asks to travel with them. They respond, "You seem trustworthy."
Yep. But then, what happens if he's not?