| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like the stories you hear about are of how the GM abuses his power and makes his own PC far superior to the rest of the party. But I also hear disclaimers that not all GMPCs are like this. Thought it might be nice to have a thread to share those stories of GMPCs done right!
I know it can be done, and I *think* I have had a good GMPC or two. If anything, mine tend to be underpowered.
For example, I once was in a 3.5 Eberron game where the GM position was rotated between five players. We all had characters. I (foolishly) tried to play a psion/wizard multiclass (I was going for the prestige class that combines them, forgot what it was called, but my spell/power selection sucked) and consequently my character wasn't holding up their end of things in combat. I used one of my GM sessions to kill my own character off and played something better the next game.
In another game, I ran a GMPC cleric who was focused entirely on support - summoning low-level monsters to help allies flank, buffing other party members, and healing when needed. Not only did she never steal the glory, she was deliberately built to give the glory to other players. (Too well, in fact - one of the players had the audacity to complain that she never did anything useful because she never dealt damage herself. The other players ignored that one.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely possible for a DM to run his on PC fairly. I've seen it done. I've (hopefully) done it in the past. But for me it's just too much to keep up with, what with everything else going on in a typical game session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely possible for a DM to run his on PC fairly. I've seen it done. I've (hopefully) done it in the past. But for me it's just too much to keep up with, what with everything else going on in a typical game session.
Please feel free to share some of those characters and what was done with them!
|
I'm with TOZ. Whenever I am forced to play a DMPC to bump up the party's power, I play a straight healer of some sort (unless there is someone in the party already playing that role, which is rare). Healer class is the easiest to go with, and pretty much guarantees that you can't accidentally slip up and start overshadowing the party.
I've also used blaster sorcerers if damage is their weak point, but that can still overshadow the PCs if not done correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely possible for a DM to run his on PC fairly. I've seen it done. I've (hopefully) done it in the past. But for me it's just too much to keep up with, what with everything else going on in a typical game session.Please feel free to share some of those characters and what was done with them!
In most cases they were there as support characters, offering healing, advice, or an extra sword arm if things turned sour. I was always careful to let the actual players shine brighter than my DMPC, though I did reward him alongside the others at the end of the adventure. My one main rule was I wouldn't take any of the magic items I'd placed in the dungeons unless they were unwanted by the rest of the party, and I tried to never place those kinds around.
I used to play a paladin in a mostly good party that was always making pretty poor decisions regarding the types of people they would associate with and it was his job to keep them on track and focused on the adventures. He was my way of giving them clues and such, and for the most part they never seemed to catch on to that.. LOL.
Another was a very early 1e all evil campaign in which I ran my Anti-Paladin as the DMPC. His role was overseer to a bunch of aspiring clerics and warriors for Set (the evil deity in our games) and to make sure they toed the line and punish them for their failures. And I never held back with the punishments, even killing one player's character in front of the others to make a point.
Those are the two best examples that come to mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My husband and I frequently run single-player games for each other, so we have used GMPCs frequently, and usually successfully. Classes and roles have varied, but we generally have something about the actual PC's background or our developing story that makes the PC more of the center of attention, the one that's crucial to the adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Healer class was weak at healing. A better choice, favored soul with healing/curing/removing spell selections and one level of dragon shaman for healing aura.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to avoid GMPCs. At most, I'll include an allied NPC for an adventure or two. A better option is to let a PC take the Leadership feat for free, and work with the player to make a cohort that rounds out the party.
OTOH, in the Skull & Shackles game I'm playing in, the GM is using the NPC cleric as a GMPC. it's actually working out well.
Friendly NPCs are effectively "GMPCs". They may be regular, recurring or one shot characters. Just don't make them overpowered, don't overshadow the PCs and don't get too emotionally invested in them (as the GM). The PCs have some control over them (they are making the major decisions) but they make a GMs job easier in terms of plot hooks and rounding out the party without forcing a PC to play something they're not too hot on. Played well they become important to the party and help pull the players into the setting.
When most people say "GMPC" they mean an NPC who is not being played well. A character who is always there, dominating the party, competing with other players or generally just being a jerk. As is the GM. So just don't be a jerk and it's not a problem :)
All imho, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my Runelords campaign, I was recently requested to make a recurring NPC into a DMPC. We occasionally play 3 Dragon Ante in character on nights when not everyone can make it or we wrap up early, and I introduced him as my character for these nights. Everyone likes his personality so much that they asked me to keep him around. So, Ivan the alchemist has become a GMPC. At least when I remember he's there (I've had to be reminded of him multiple times). In terms of power, he may be on the high end, but I don't let him outshine the party. Usually I just have him go after mooks, or even just have him be distracted and waste his turn, only really stepping in if they need the help. His role in the party might become a little larger though, as we recently lost a player who moved.
Healer class was weak at healing. A better choice, favored soul with healing/curing/removing spell selections and one level of dragon shaman for healing aura.
Exactly my experience when I wanted to make a party 'super buffer' and healer. Favoured Soul was awesome (never did the Dragon Shaman level but that was only b/c we already had a full on Dragon Shaman in the party!).
As for the OP - DMPCs aren't really something I've used long term. An NPC here and there that last a half dozen sessions before leaving or getting killed is about the most. I use that 'space' to try out character concepts of my own but they are almost always a couple of levels behind the party and they do what they are told (mostly) by the PCs.
I don't think any DMPC is a good DMPC, because a DMPC is by it's very nature a bad thing.
Now, as I say that, understand that I don't consider most recurring NPCs to be DMPCs. A DMPC, in my mind, is:
1) As powerful, or more powerful, than the PCs
2) Takes any amount of spotlight away from the PCs
3) Actively directs/forces a certain course of action for the PCs with the same autonomy as a PC (i.e. not just providing information, but deciding how the party acts on it).
None of those are okay in my book, unless the group doesn't have enough players, in which case #1 is acceptable, but #2 and #3 still are not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any DMPC is a good DMPC, because a DMPC is by it's very nature a bad thing.
Now, as I say that, understand that I don't consider most recurring NPCs to be DMPCs. A DMPC, in my mind, is:
1) As powerful, or more powerful, than the PCs
2) Takes any amount of spotlight away from the PCs
3) Actively directs/forces a certain course of action for the PCs with the same autonomy as a PC (i.e. not just providing information, but deciding how the party acts on it).None of those are okay in my book, unless the group doesn't have enough players, in which case #1 is acceptable, but #2 and #3 still are not.
Allow me to say that you and I have very different meanings of DMPC (or GMPC).
But, to counter your points:
1) this doesn't matter (I say this as a player)
2) this sometimes happens by way of player decision (i.e., the DMPC in question is thrust into the spotlight by player choice)
3) this is not a bad thing, if the players feel "stuck", and the GM acts in-character instead of out (again, I say this as a player)
I think that your definition is colored heavily by enforcement of 2 and 3 at the expense of the players instead of at their will or consent. If the GM is doing so without player enjoyment, then, yes, absolutely, this can be a bad thing.
But none of those are what defines a GMPC (or DMPC), at least as far as I am concerned, except maybe, number 1, depending on the campaign.
To me, a GMPC is, very broadly, a character that is created in a manner similar to an NPC or PC for the purpose of supporting and assisting the party and story at the willing acceptance of the GM's fellow players.
If anyone - player or GM - creates a PC of any stripe that inhibits the fun of others (generally dominating the game, forcing their will on the party, etc), that's not a good thing.
In truth, I've had far more PCs that act according to your outline against the will of the other players than GMPCs, and I say this as someone who's seen a lot of GMPCs.
Sometimes, perhaps and very probably most often, the GMPCs are to take a back-seat role, compared to the player characters. Otherwise, the risk is run, that the GM uses the game as a spotlight for "their" story, leaving the PCs helpless witnesses. This is usually frustrating and most people find these sorts of things bad ways of gaming.
But, in my experience on both sides of the screen, GMPCs have provided valuable assistance, in single-player or multi-player games. The times the spotlight has been "taken", it's pretty squarely been due to player-forced interaction. Similarly, the few times the GMPCs have fully directed the party's action, it's usually acting on information that isn't their own (i.e. information coming from another source) and has been strictly in-character... and sometimes wrong, but sometimes right.
In other words, the character is a character first. The story is crafted with the consent and input of, and for the enjoyment of, all involved. If that story happens to center around a GMPC for a while, I'm okay with that.
As an example of a time where I worked at elevating a GMPC - in a Kingmaker game, there was a fighter to round out a lack in the party. That fighter had close ties to barbarian people, and was the physically strongest and most robust of us. Thus, I decided (and it was quickly agreed) that she should be the "star" of the delve into the caves to get the MacGuffin of Barbarian Happiness (if you've played through Kingmaker, you know what I mean).
In the end, we created a new Barbarian Queen - a strong ally of our nation - and established that character as a queen in her own right, thrusting her into the spotlight because it was what fit for the story. It was awesome.
As an example of a time when I was a GM, the players actively recruited a fighter-NPC from Serpent's Skull (if you've been through it, you know the one), and made her part of the party. It fell to me to play her. She received equal (or greater) share of loot, has been brought in on all the decision-making, and generally is treated like just another PC... at the choice of the PCs. This is not something I attempted to enforce or even sought, per se. I think the only time she's had the spotlight was in her [spoilered!] moment as prescribed in the second book, which turned into a moment of awesome on her part (due to a moment of awesome on the PCs part).
These are two examples (also, randomly enough, they both happen to be female fighters) in a suite of examples throughout my gaming experience on all sides of the table.
I mean, from my time as a player, here are a few fond memories off the top of my head:
- the mysterious, quiet, prismatic-haired sorceress [saved my life!]
- the aasimar/tiefling brother-sister duo [they were integral to the plot!]
- the half-drow cleric [helped my character gain social acceptance!]
- the four sisters (each a different class, personality, alignment, etc; all awesome, but too much to go into right now) [they were quest-givers-turned-GMPCs]
- the reckless short human rogue [hahahah! steal all the things!]
- the broody elven undead-hating necromancer [arrogant, cool, awesome]
- the shining, caring fiery cleric of Pelor [helped us establish a government where there was none]
- the flirty, fun traveling bard [totally fascinated other PCs, often]
PF
- the previously-mentioned drunken, dancing/brawling fighter [she rocked the house!]
- the ranger half-elf out to be alone in the wilderness [saved my character's life, allowed him to enter the plot/game!]
- the spunky young cleric of Sarenrae out to save the world [saved my character's life many times!]
- the young wizard who would eventually become known as the Winter Queen [saved my character's life!]
- the drow sisters (a lawful good fighter and neutral good bard) [were my adopted sisters!]
- the redeemed/reincarnated former black dragon [friggin' amazingly awesome!]
- the batman-like night-stalking fighter [the coolest!]
4E
- the doppelganger warlock pretending to be a half-elf ranger [managed to cause an evil alliance to partially self-destruct... by enacting a plan of ours!]
- the dwarven wizard traditionalist [managed to save our lives!]
- the half-elven paladin of Sehanine [one of the best fighters we had, and source of lots of RP!]
And, from my GMing, a few that were really appreciated, vocally:
- the reckless half-elf sorcerer-crafter [made most of the party's gear, and lots of dumb decisions]
- the brooding batman-like monk/rogue [married a PC, died defending her]
- the mongrelfolk rogue-fighter [bodyguard to a PC thief]
- the human monk-wizard (related to NWN story-stuff) [had his arm brutally ripped off in place of a PC]
- the epic lunarian/shade cleric [died - many times, actually - tricking an evil god into following him instead of others]
- the ranger named Sin [general guide/tracker/bodyguard for the mages]
- the big dumb fighter-type [a PC love-interest]
- the immortal psion [a PC's best friend]
- the crafty, morally and ethically variable bard [a PC love-interest... unrequited by the PC]
PF
- the previously-mentioned fighter [a PC's best friend, a few moments-of-awesome, a chronicler]
- the honorable, secretly-native-blooded paladin [helping bring about a social revolution legally]
- the fiery pirate captain [saving the PCs lives and political connections]
- the wise, yet unintelligent (and uncharismatic) half-orc ranger [became a PC's cohort, but, as that PC was a goblin, became the local hero instead (much to the PC's pleasure)]
- the irritating-turned-loved mercenary/traitor (helping the PCs) winter tribesman [turned into a fiery creature by a strangely-worded wish, allowing them to kill the bad-guy while said BBEG's attention was focused on him]
- the doppelganger "monk" [saved the a PC's life!]
- the solar and his "son", the lantern archon [became a PC's cohort, and the Chosen and ruler of a goddess' armies]
- the fiery secret avatar mage-priest [became a PC's lover and religious leader]
- the mysterious psion [saved a PC's life!]
- the rough, protective half-orc tracker [a friend/body guard for a PC]
- the mute/deaf shifter oracle [best friend of a PC/fellow witness to a murder]
- her brother, the self-penitent monk [her brother, defeated by a PC, turned ally]
- the elf cleric of Iomedae (originally just supposed to be an NPC) [resisted being recruited for half the campaign]
- the gun-toting paladin of the same, the tiefling sorcerer, and the cruel-yet-loyal magus [all from the same campaign - nearly died multiple times, caused trouble for, but also solved problems for, the others]
- the human paladin of noble descent [supposed to be gone after the first adventure, but retained by the PCs]
- the crass, unpleasant, powerful-but-small tiefling barbarian [went from hated to loved]
- the elf magus [extremely respected advice-giver]
- the dhampir gunslinger [a romantic interest for a PC]
4E
- the badly scarred fire-specialist wizard [was badly scarred saving a PC's life]
- the shield-specialist sun-worshiping monk [ally and mercenary bodyguard for a PC]
- the elf wizard-turned fiery sword-spirit [manipulator, then true ally of the PCs]
- the dragon (also, a dream-lich) [crazed, but allied father of a PC, turned GMPC when raised]
- the mongrelfolk thunder-priest-turned-god (totally not my fault!) [a minor thunder priest recruited by a PC, who was later killed and, by accidental result due to action of the PCs, transformed into a thunder god]
(Not mentioned: the frequency with which my GMPCs tend to die brutally at the hands of villains and/or traps instead of the PCs.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-I have a deaf mute life oracle which works well, as the only thing he understands is what the party writes down for him. This keep it easy to tell when they are talking to the DM and when they are talking to me.
-Otherwise I'd have a party of three with no healers...in an undead heavy campaign...
Also note that almost all the GMPCs listed under the ones I run were specifically requested to continue beyond their "allotted time" - in many cases, after they'd died, there was great effort made to return them to life.
1) the immortal psion
2) the crafty bard
3) the tiefling barbarian
4) the elf magus
5) the dhampir gunslinger
6) not mentioned above (I'd forgotten her) is the elf druid from 3.5, who was the best friend of a PC
Over-all, that's a short list, comparatively (five out of the original thirty-two mentioned; a sixth out of thirty-three).
So lots of experience, few problems.
Also, there are more. Many of these (whether I was player or not) were NPCs that were recruited just as much as pre-made GMPCs - but either way, the characters connected and the players accepted them, and things ran very well.
You might want to reread what I said.As I recall, Healers did not have the spontaneous casting ability of clerics.Healer class was weak at healing.Not if you just cast spontaneously from the entire list.
I rerolled her as a Life Oracle for PFS.
Yeah, he was saying he was playing the "healer" class, not the healer class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any DMPC is a good DMPC, because a DMPC is by it's very nature a bad thing.
Now, as I say that, understand that I don't consider most recurring NPCs to be DMPCs. A DMPC, in my mind, is:
1) As powerful, or more powerful, than the PCs
2) Takes any amount of spotlight away from the PCs
3) Actively directs/forces a certain course of action for the PCs with the same autonomy as a PC (i.e. not just providing information, but deciding how the party acts on it).None of those are okay in my book, unless the group doesn't have enough players, in which case #1 is acceptable, but #2 and #3 still are not.
with my friday evening group we use DMPCs since 20 years, no matter who has DMing duty
Why?
1. the DM is truly neutral if he plays for both sides
2. we never trust NPCs and at least I hate to have them along, eitheR they abuse us or we abuse them
our DMPCs follow certain standards:
1. they are made with the same rules (WBL, point buy etc) as PCs but all of us tend to leave them unoptimized
2. they are support characters, good class choices are Cleric(healer), Bard, maybe Fighter, bad choices are Wizards
3. they choose magic items last (but get the same gold)
all of these makes the DMPC usually a bit weaker than a PC
I don't think any DMPC is a good DMPC, because a DMPC is by it's very nature a bad thing.
Now, as I say that, understand that I don't consider most recurring NPCs to be DMPCs. A DMPC, in my mind, is:
1) As powerful, or more powerful, than the PCs
2) Takes any amount of spotlight away from the PCs
3) Actively directs/forces a certain course of action for the PCs with the same autonomy as a PC (i.e. not just providing information, but deciding how the party acts on it).None of those are okay in my book, unless the group doesn't have enough players, in which case #1 is acceptable, but #2 and #3 still are not.
Allow me to say that you and I have very different meanings of DMPC (or GMPC).
But, to counter your points:
1) this doesn't matter (I say this as a player)2) this sometimes happens by way of player decision (i.e., the DMPC in question is thrust into the spotlight by player choice)
3) this is not a bad thing, if the players feel "stuck", and the GM acts in-character instead of out (again, I say this as a player)
I think that your definition is colored heavily by enforcement of 2 and 3 at the expense of the players instead of at their will or consent. If the GM is doing so without player enjoyment, then, yes, absolutely, this can be a bad thing.
But none of those are what defines a GMPC (or DMPC), at least as far as I am concerned, except maybe, number 1, depending on the campaign.
To me, a GMPC is, very broadly, a character that is created in a manner similar to an NPC or PC for the purpose of supporting and assisting the party and story at the willing acceptance of the GM's fellow players.
If anyone - player or GM - creates a PC of any stripe that inhibits the fun of others (generally dominating the game, forcing their will on the party, etc), that's not a good thing.
In truth, I've had far more PCs that act according to your outline against the will of the other players than GMPCs, and I say this as someone who's seen a lot of...
2) I would say that he is not taking spotlight away in this case if (for some reason) the players are just saying "Have at it, Mr. Potions" and letting him take the lead.
3) I may not have been clear. When I say "Actively direct/force" I mean a situation like this:
-The GM creates a paladin "companion" that keeps the party from doing anything the GM doesn't want them to do (i.e. stealing the keys instead of earning access to the guild hall)
-The GM creates a "companion" that is vitally important to their success and uses them to railroad their choices onto the path they personally prefer. i.e., the chosen decides to go North and can't be persuaded, so the PCs have to go North even though there is a perfectly valid option, maybe an easier one, to the West that the GM didn't think about.
A simple "this would/'wouldn't be a good idea." is giving the players information, "We're doing this and that's it" is railroading them with a GMPC.
In any case, as far as your definition is concerned, I don't consider that a GMPC because, as something controlled by the GM, it is still and NPC.
The GMPC is the GM's attempt to be a player in a game where he is not and shouldn't try to be. Trying to have his cake and eat it too. And that's bad.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good GMPC, Shepherd Book. Bad GMPC, River Tam. Be the Book, not the River.
I don't think any DMPC is a good DMPC, because a DMPC is by it's very nature a bad thing.
Now, as I say that, understand that I don't consider most recurring NPCs to be DMPCs. A DMPC, in my mind, is:
1) As powerful, or more powerful, than the PCs
2) Takes any amount of spotlight away from the PCs
3) Actively directs/forces a certain course of action for the PCs with the same autonomy as a PC (i.e. not just providing information, but deciding how the party acts on it).None of those are okay in my book, unless the group doesn't have enough players, in which case #1 is acceptable, but #2 and #3 still are not.
with my friday evening group we use DMPCs since 20 years, no matter who has DMing duty
Why?
1. the DM is truly neutral if he plays for both sides
2. we never trust NPCs and at least I hate to have them along, eitheR they abuse us or we abuse themour DMPCs follow certain standards:
1. they are made with the same rules (WBL, point buy etc) as PCs but all of us tend to leave them unoptimized
2. they are support characters, good class choices are Cleric(healer), Bard, maybe Fighter, bad choices are Wizards
3. they choose magic items last (but get the same gold)
all of these makes the DMPC usually a bit weaker than a PC
and I forgot:
before important fights I let the players decide a DMPC casters spell list, so DM knowledge don't has an impact in that instance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DMPCs can work fairly well under the right circumstances.
It depends a lot on what the character was built for.
BY sheer coincidence, both of my DMPCs (who weren't intended as DMPCs, but I wound up running both campaigns shortly after they started) so far were healing focused clerics. I usually handled their turns by asking if there were any requests, and then having them do something still useful if they're weren't any requests.
And occasionally, someone else would run a game for that campaign, and I'd have the opportunity to really cut loose with the character.
Bards can also make good DMPCs - buff spells, singing, maybe shooting if they aren't casting.
Oddly enough, so can a support/maneuvers oriented fighter - simple to run and spends his actions making the other PCs look good. The reactions when said fighter grappled a werewolf and then used the "move up to half your speed" grappling option to carry the poor werewolf over to where the other martials could full attack it were pretty great.
A diviner specialist can actually work too. And gives you an avenue to give advice to the party, if you feel they're missing something obvious (or worse, making an assumption they SHOULD know is wrong) - "your friendly int ## wizard will point out..."
If I intend an NPC to be a sort of GMPC from the beginning (like I did with Kendra Lorrimar, the above diviner specialist, in Carrion Crown), I'll have said NPC ignore the regular XP tracking and stay a level or two behind the party - keep the NPC effective, but not strong enough to overshadow anything.
|
I made one - count 'em, one - DMPC in my lifetime. An eleven-year-old sister to one of the main party members named Tish who was blessed/cursed with magical powers. (A Lore Oracle with the haunted curse.)
Essentially she would sacrifice for cure spells to the exclusion of all else and never fought in combat because . . . well, she was an eleven year old girl. If the PCs were absolutely stuck, the 'spirits' would share a revelation to drop hints about where they should go next.
The only right way to make a DMPC is to make them an aspect of the story and not THE story. Her entire arc was wrapped up into the sister PC.
there is no such thing as a DMPC, i use the term Tagalong NPC. though yes, a Tagalong NPC can sometimes be annoying if they hog the spotlight, especially if they are a long term Tagalong NPC
the Best Tagalong NPCs of the level approrpiate variety, are those that enhance other Party members, those that provide out of combat healing and condition removal, those that craft at half price for the party, and those that cover a role that party doesn't want to deal with, with the notable exceptions of roles that encourage the DM to engage in long monologues with himself or herself, such as Face.
the best DMPC classes are those that focus on either buffs, such as the bard, or healing and condition removal, such as the life oracle. but a fighter whom frequently gets battered trying his best to protect the party is doable, as long as the fighter isn't too Sticky.
The worst class for a party NPC (GMPC) is rogue. If you have a rogue to disarm the traps, you are basically just doing mental masturbation at that point. Leave out 90% of the traps, and you don't need the rogue.
there is no such thing as a DMPC, i use the term Tagalong NPC. though yes, a Tagalong NPC can sometimes be annoying if they hog the spotlight, especially if they are a long term Tagalong NPC
the Best Tagalong NPCs of the level approrpiate variety, are those that enhance other Party members, those that provide out of combat healing and condition removal, those that craft at half price for the party, and those that cover a role that party doesn't want to deal with, with the notable exceptions of roles that encourage the DM to engage in long monologues with himself or herself, such as Face.
the best DMPC classes are those that focus on either buffs, such as the bard, or healing and condition removal, such as the life oracle. but a fighter whom frequently gets battered trying his best to protect the party is doable, as long as the fighter isn't too Sticky.
That's basically what I'm getting at. A character controlled by the GM is never going to be a PC by it's nature.
The problem with GMPC's is usually one of 2 things. They marginalize the PC's contribution and/or the GM get's too attached to them.
Examples of the GMPC marginalizing the PC's contribution.
- No one built a face character. So now everyone watches the GM bard talk to the GM noble.
{boring}
- No one wanted to play any kind of scouting build. So the GM made a rogue. So now the group follows around the rogue at a distance while the GM rolls dice. Rogue comes back and tells them some info. Move forward a bit. GM rolls some more dice...
{BORING}
- No one wanted to play a ranged or arcane character. GM made an arcane archer. Some fights became the PC's hiding while the GM killed himself.
{BORING}
Examples of the GM getting too attached to his GMPC are a bit more nebulous, but even more irritating.
- GM starts including unique magic items in loot that are coincidentally only usable by the GMPC.
- Social situation which can be most easily handled by the skills the GMPC happens to have ranks in.
- The GMPC is the only one in the party that some powerful NPC aristo is not angry with.
Plus, the GM has too much to run, handle, keep track of anyway. Why give him something else.
I think the GMPC should be just good enough to tide the party over until they can figure out a way to handle the situation from their own resources.
If I include a GMPC, it will only be for a certain role. It will barely be able to cover that role. It won't be even close to as good as the PC's.
So I won't build a caster for much of anything but healing (mostly condition removal out of combat), a few low level buff spells (, and maybe a few very minor offensive spells (summon monster 1).
The only martial build would be a meat shield. Or possibly decent at something else that doesn't come up very often like a mounted knight in a mountain campaign.
I won't give them a skill monkey but maybe a build for a very specific skill.
Definitely won't be super smart or show any leadership qualities.
The GMPC will be mostly NPC class levels. Lower point buy than the PC's. Probably lower level than the PC's. Definitely little to no gear.
Some GMPC's that I have used.
- After some death and character rebuilds, the entire group is ranged or squishy casters. I provided a meat shield tank for them. He was a human, 1 level lower than the party, warrior/expert, high con, toughness, iron will, skill ranks in navigation, profession sailor, craft shipwright. (They would be rewarded with a ship in a couple levels, so he could help them get it home.) He was marginal as tank, but would keep most bad guys off the casters for a round or two.
- No one wanted to build any kind of scout but they were very worried about traps. I gave them a low dex & wis dwarf expert. Had feats and traits to be halfway decent at disable device, appraise, profession smuggler, craft traps. No good at anything else and he certainly couldn't sneak worth a damn. Someone else had to find the traps for him to disable.
- Party didn't want to pay for healing consumables or use any healing spells. Gave them an adept that was lower level, lower point buy, abilities just high enough to cast the spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've used DMPC's when I DM'ed a few times. Usually when it was a small group(2 or 3 players) who didn't want to play multiple characters themselves. Other times, it was just a means of helping the story along, or having a helper shore up the party's weaknesses; one group of PC's were all arcane spellcasters at level 1, so I had a meat shield accompany them until they didn't need him anymore.
In any case, I will use DMPC's if the game calls for it, if the players ask for assistance(better than a hireling), etc. My DMPC's always take care to stay out of the spotlight, play super-support roles, and are always expendable. They pick loot last, after the PC's have taken what they wanted, etc. They are strictly SUPPORT, and only exist if the PC's want the help.
That said, I have seen some terrible DMPC's. I've played a few games that fit all of the classic bad tropes; where the DMPC was the most powerful party member, had the best loot, always took the lead, always hogged the spotlight, etc. I've had plenty of examples played out to get a good idea of what not to do.
... I have seen some terrible DMPC's. I've played a few games that fit all of the classic bad tropes; where the DMPC was the most powerful party member, had the best loot, always took the lead, always hogged the spotlight, etc. I've had plenty of examples played out to get a good idea of what not to do.
I'm always amazed at the people who don't learn that lesson. I was with one group for a very short while. Almost every session started with a list of all the horrible things other GM's had done to him (including GMPC's) and how much better he was than all of them. Then I got to watch him duplicate nearly everything he complained about just minutes before.
It was so blatant that I at first thought he was just kidding around. I actually stayed for a few session to watch just for the comical value.
Also note that almost all the GMPCs listed under the ones I run were specifically requested to continue beyond their "allotted time" - in many cases, after they'd died, there was great effort made to return them to life.
** spoiler omitted **
So lots of experience, few problems.
Also, there are more. Many of these (whether I was player or not) were NPCs that were recruited just as much as pre-made GMPCs - but either way, the characters connected and the players accepted them, and things ran very well.
I wanted to be a little more clear what I meant about these six exceptions: these were GMPCs that joined the party without prior consent of the players. Despite this, they have all been fully accepted by the party - in fact, both the psion and druid were considered best friends.
Although, actually, I was wrong, I realize now. Numbers 3-5 were crafted with the consent of (and assistance from) player-input.
So... that means that only 1, 2, and 6 were done without player input before hand. Of those, only 2 failed to become well-liked by the party (1 and 6 were actually exceedingly welcomed).
In any case, as far as your definition is concerned, I don't consider that a GMPC because, as something controlled by the GM, it is still and NPC.
Semantics.
In other words, we've got different definitions. I accept that I'm not going to change your mind: I'm not going to try to. However, I'm going to explain my position.
I really don't agree with yours, because by inherently defining GMPCs as "the bad thing GMs do", you're shutting down possibilities for many groups. For example:
My husband and I frequently run single-player games for each other, so we have used GMPCs frequently, and usually successfully. Classes and roles have varied, but we generally have something about the actual PC's background or our developing story that makes the PC more of the center of attention, the one that's crucial to the adventure.
That's something that is shut down by automatically defining "GMPCs" as a bad thing. And while you don't consider that an "GMPC" (which I can understand), it seems like most people who are familiar with the terms "GM" and "PC", when confronted with a GM running a PC-classed character in a party, will logically go, "Oh, so that's a 'GM'-'PC' - i.e. a PC-classed character that is part of the party who is run by the GM." which, to me, is a better definition than, "a jerk GM who ruins the game for everyone", as the former actually fits the name.
Also, wow, that was a long sentence.
The GMPC is the GM's attempt to be a player in a game where he is not and shouldn't try to be. Trying to have his cake and eat it too. And that's bad.
And, no, to mix food metaphors into this, I'd say more it's like the GM is trying to make dinner and cake for [two-to-usually-about] six, but eat some of it, too.
Sure you get those who'll lick the spoon and shove it back into the bowl, but they're not the only kind of cook.
I will agree to disagree with you on this. I get it: I'm not going to change your definition. That's fine. But I am going to for certain stick to mine, and continue to champion GMPCs as "not-inherently-bad things", because, in my experience, they're not.
I have often created DMPCs as necessary to fill party roles, because in my opinion the idea that players should have to worry about rounding out a party rather than just freakin' playing what they want to play (within the established campaign bounds) is asinine.
I encourage players to have their character and background fleshed out before the party gathers. When time permits, I run solo adventures for each player before the main game begins. It's amazing how confident and bad-ass players feel when they meet each other at 2nd (or in some cases 3rd) level—a 2nd (or 3rd) level they achieved—rather than 1st.
I wish more DM's would do this. I've lost count of the times I wound up playing some kind of healer/support simply because the party needed it, even though I didn't really want to play that. I tend to join already established campaigns, and by that point, everyone's jumped on the fun roles, and all that's left is the cleanup patrol(healer/buffer).
A DMPC is a PC run by the DM. Simplistic, yes, but important. That it's a PC entails certain things:
A PC is run by a player - so the DM considers him/herself a player, which is not necessarily a good thing. A player lacks a lot of the things a DM has, and neutrality is a difficult concept in this setup.
A PC has story focus, i.e. is entitled to a certain amount of "screen time", and in many playstyles have various plot immunities, such as "death only occurs after warnings have been given" and the like.
A PC has a player rooting for him/her! This is obviously not a good idea - and it's the major reason why DMPCs are a very bad idea. A side issue here is that the DM will be distracted by running the DMPC.
There is a tendency to say that if an NPC joins the party, it's a DMPC. Far from it. Any NPC can be anywhere in the game world and do anything and still be an NPC. It's the three above points that makes an NPC a DMPC. Juggling categories and redefining things only muddies the discussion. So long as the "tagalong NPC" is treated the same way every other NPC is by the DM, there won't be a problem.
Conversely, every time a DMPC is used, there WILL be a problem, sooner or later.
There are many who have stated what should be done if you want to make an NPC to join the PCs, but in short: Make them weaker than the PCs, let them provide utility and don't give them too much screen time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This.
You could take Tacticslion's post above and replace GMPC with railroad and it would be the same thing. Some people think its the bees knees and others think its a fart in a bottle best never opened. If you really want to champion the cause start trying to prove it can be a feature instead of arguing it doesn't exist. IME, it never works kind of like the words fluff, powergamer, sandbox, etc. These words dont have dictionary definitions but people are going to use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl, my experience on both sides of the screen says that your post is incorrect, unless by "... there WILL be a problem, sooner or later." you mean, "... at least to the same extent that there will be a problem with any player whatsoever."
There is always the possibility of conflict of interest. A GM who uses these things properly knows how to separate their GM-side from any internal favoritism. Otherwise you have things like:
1) improper favoritism for the GM's SO
2) improper favoritism for the GM's best friend
3) improper aggression against someone a GM doesn't like out-of game
4) improper aggression against PCs because a GM's had a bad day
... and so on.
Either people are capable of separating how they play the game and real-life (and this includes their own characters), or they aren't. They will either metagame or they won't.
This will all either bleed through negatively, or it won't.
There are far too many factors to say, "GMPCs are all bad, m'kay?"
Instead of unilaterally denouncing them, let's make a list of potential pit-falls. Those are great things to note about anything, whether it be bards, paladins, druids, SOs playing together (or one GMing for the other in a larger party), or, of course, GMPCs.
To that end, a potential conflict of interest (by which, I suppose, we mean a "synchronicity of interests plus the power to enact them") generating a less-enjoyable experience for all is one potential problem.
Another potential problem is the possibility that a GM will be distracted.
I mean, let's go through some of the GMPCs that I ran that I "rooted" for:
- the reckless half-elf sorcerer-crafter [made most of the party's gear, and lots of dumb decisions]
- the brooding batman-like monk/rogue [married a PC, died defending her]
- the mongrelfolk rogue-fighter [bodyguard to a PC thief]
- the human monk-wizard (related to NWN story-stuff) [had his arm brutally ripped off in place of a PC]
- the epic lunarian/shade cleric [died - many times, actually - tricking an evil god into following him instead of others]
- the ranger named Sin [general guide/tracker/bodyguard for the mages]
- the big dumb fighter-type [a PC love-interest]
- the immortal psion [a PC's best friend]
- the crafty, morally and ethically variable bard [a PC love-interest... unrequited by the PC]
PF
- the previously-mentioned fighter [a PC's best friend, a few moments-of-awesome, a chronicler]
- the honorable, secretly-native-blooded paladin [helping bring about a social revolution legally]
- the fiery pirate captain [saving the PCs lives and political connections]
- the wise, yet unintelligent (and uncharismatic) half-orc ranger [became a PC's cohort, but, as that PC was a goblin, became the local hero instead (much to the PC's pleasure)]
- the irritating-turned-loved mercenary/traitor (helping the PCs) winter tribesman [turned into a fiery creature by a strangely-worded wish, allowing them to kill the bad-guy while said BBEG's attention was focused on him]
- the doppelganger "monk" [saved the a PC's life!]
- the solar and his "son", the lantern archon [became a PC's cohort, and the Chosen and ruler of a goddess' armies]
- the fiery secret avatar mage-priest [became a PC's lover and religious leader]
- the mysterious psion [saved a PC's life!]
- the rough, protective half-orc tracker [a friend/body guard for a PC]
- the mute/deaf shifter oracle [best friend of a PC/fellow witness to a murder]
- her brother, the self-penitent monk [her brother, defeated by a PC, turned ally]
- the elf cleric of Iomedae (originally just supposed to be an NPC) [resisted being recruited for half the campaign]
- the gun-toting paladin of the same, the tiefling sorcerer, and the cruel-yet-loyal magus [all from the same campaign - nearly died multiple times, caused trouble for, but also solved problems for, the others]
- the human paladin of noble descent [supposed to be gone after the first adventure, but retained by the PCs]
- the crass, unpleasant, powerful-but-small tiefling barbarian [went from hated to loved]
- the elf magus [extremely respected advice-giver]
- the dhampir gunslinger [a romantic interest for a PC]
4E
- the badly scarred fire-specialist wizard [was badly scarred saving a PC's life]
- the shield-specialist sun-worshiping monk [ally and mercenary bodyguard for a PC]
- the elf wizard-turned fiery sword-spirit [manipulator, then true ally of the PCs]
- the dragon (also, a dream-lich) [crazed, but allied father of a PC, turned GMPC when raised]
- the mongrelfolk thunder-priest-turned-god (totally not my fault!) [a minor thunder priest recruited by a PC, who was later killed and, by accidental result due to action of the PCs, transformed into a thunder god]
... yeah, that's all of them.
About a quarter of them died, often very badly, sometimes repeatedly.
I wanted them to win, yet I was able to separate that part of me from the GMing part.
Am I more brutal on my GMPCs than the PCs of those that play under me?
Yes, certainly. But the main reason is that I'm more comfortable with it. Because they're mine. I can, then, do what I'd like, have their story get as dark as it wants to be, but still allow the PCs a chance to succeed. The PCs are left alive by the end of it*, they get to do what they want with their story. It makes sense.
And, for better or worse, that's my play-style.
But others have a different one from mine. And that's fine, too.
I probably wouldn't enjoy most of the more brutal games where PCs die constantly, "just because." (Though there are a few GMs who actually make it look tempting!)
I probably wouldn't enjoy many of the house-ruled caster-nerfed games, ("No, those spells don't work that way in our games. We prefer a more balanced approach!").
Which is fine! I don't have to like everyone else's play style.
But while I respect theirs (sometimes disagree with it, but respect it), I certainly want others to respect mine as well. That's only polite.
The difference between a GMPC and a tag-along NPC are fine, semantically, but if we want to ask how I'd differentiate the two, the latter would just be an NPC with NPC class levels that happens to follow the party.
But I strongly disagree with automatically declaring all GMPCs "bad" and then redefining them to be "that bad thing that GMs do". But that's my preferred word associations. In other words,
Semantics.
* Well, mostly. There's this one guy. Look, I swear, I swear I don't try to kill him! I really, really don't! It just keeps happening! Every time!
......
... except the one time that he plays the chaotic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I've lost count of the times I wound up playing some kind of healer/support simply because the party needed it, even though I didn't really want to play that. I tend to join already established campaigns, and by that point, everyone's jumped on the fun roles, and all that's left is the cleanup patrol(healer/buffer).Josh M., you should never have to do this. Any group that requires it of you, rather than requesting it and respecting your choice, consists of self-entitled a$$holes.
This is in some measure an outgrowth of the Adventure Path preponderance. We have to have "a divine caster, an arcane caster, a face, a couple of meat shields, a distance damage doer, etc. blah fu<kin' blah." What a crock. You have to have what you want to play. Then the DM does his freakin' job and rounds out the party as necessary.
The idea that GMPCs are inherently bad has been comprehensively refuted in this thread. If certain posters won't accept that, well ... pearls and swine.
I've never been required to play the support role, but it's just sort of a manners thing;
Me: Hey guys, who are your characters so far?
Group: Well, we have a melee brute, a Wizard, and a skill monkey/stealthy guy. We could really use some kind of healing or support though.
Now, I have the freedom to say "Well, too bad. I made a Barbarian." But, then I sound like the entitled a-hole. It's just sort of been a courtesy, that if you join an already established group, you help shore up what the group is missing. It's never been a codified rule, but heavily implied.
On the other hand, I've played that "Barbarian" before; group needed divine support, I didn't bring that support, and we get slaughtered down the road.
It doesn't even need to be divine; I was in a group that got devastated by a single flying enemy, because NOBODY had a ranged weapon. Nobody. Spellcasters had one or two ranged spells, but everyone else assumed someone else was going to cover ranged. Since then, I have a subconscious compulsion to prioritize group support when I roll up a character.
Sure, it was an isolated incident, and just dumb luck and poor communication, but it stuck with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Me: Hey guys, who are your characters so far?Group: Well, we have a melee brute, a Wizard, and a skill monkey/stealthy guy. We could really use some kind of healing or support though.
...
I still wouldn't play something I didn't like though. I would maybe make a sorc that had some buffs for our guys and some debuffs for the other guys.
Well, I can handle support in addition to hurting the other guys. But I have a really sky high UMD. So and wands or scrolls you want to buy I can use to heal and recover for the group.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree a player should play what he wants. Personally, I sometimes like to play whatever is most missing because I feel like I contribute a lot that way. If I am melee beat stick number 4, it doesn't always seem like I added that much to the game.
But that is still me playing what I want to play. If someone tried to tell me I needed to play a healing focused cleric, I am contrary enough to play anything except a healing focused cleric.
... glance significantly at the DM, and expect him to do his damned job—which is to facilitate EVERYONE's fun by providing, in some fashion (either GMPC, or, for the obdurate paranoids who think such is impossible, a serviceable NPC), what the party requires.
I very much disagree with this.
It is the GM's job to provide a world with challenges. It is the parties job to figure out how they are going to overcome the challenges. If no one wants to play a healer, fine. So how are we going to take care of ourselves when we get hurt, poisoned, deafened, etc...
It is not the GM's job to figure out how we are going to survive. He has more than enough that he is doing without doing our job for us.