You have met with a issue most people refer to as "DMPC" ( Dungeon Master Player Character ) and the stereotypes this involves you seem to have the most fun-draining one.
Afraid the best deal to handle this is to confront the GM and say that you are not interested in playing anymore if he wants to hog all of the glory, and due to being outshone by his creation you might aswell just him play by himself.
My personal opinion -
A GM should not also play a PC. The story is supposed to revolve around the player characters, the GM controls enough of the game world without having to overshadow PCs by creating an NPC to proxy-play on god mode.
Has anyone tried to gently bring up the concern? I have a feeling that it may be an ego issue that isn't easily resolved.
Dracoknight has it. This is the big pitfall with DMPCs.
Personally as a DM I prefer to have an in-character voice, so I usually run a DMPC but I always make a point of having that creature treated as less than everyone else. They don't (ie. can't) contribute as much as anyone else, don't get an XP share, and any treasure given to the DMPC is chosen by the party. My DMPCs never demonstrate in-game knowledge though they may be wise, and they're great at remembering things the players have been told before. But again, I'm "doing it right".
Your DM is not.
He justifies it because he hasn't played the AP before. The rest of the group don't like having the NPC either and voted me spokesman. Thanks for the advice, I'll point him to the thread. Thanks again.
Doesnt matter if he havent played it before, a DMPC shouldnt be in a game unless its done well as mentioned above... and your DM is not doing it right... quite the opposite in fact as he is the very stereotype on why players hate DMPCs
He justifies it because he hasn't played the AP before. The rest of the group don't like having the NPC either and voted me spokesman. Thanks for the advice, I'll point him to the thread. Thanks again.
Flags on the play:
Flag for him -- He's running the game -- doesn't matter if he's played it or not, if you are running it you aren't a viable party member.
Flag for you -- It's his game. We might understand what's going on and have advice to offer but it's not our communication to be had with him. -- it's yours. If you and your group is having an issue with this you all need to discuss it with him, not use us or a thread to 'prove you right'.
Now I don't think either of you (the GM or yourself) are intentionally trying to have problems, but the group needs to have a talk about expectations.
Let's see...you already have a party of 5, and if none of you like the DMPC...gang up on the DMPC and kill him! Ha Ha Ha Ha...
This. Any game I play in (which is rare, I GM most of the time) I will conspire to kill any NPC that (1) is with the group for more than 3 sessions, and (2) contributes in social or combat encounters.
What 137ben said. If he wants this jerk here, he'll have that jerk there, or replace him with an even more ridiculous jerk.
DMPCs are one of the common and biggest mistakes of a budding GM. You are well within your rights to tell him the GMPC goes or he goes. If he is difficult, simply un-invite him to the group and pick a new GM: you certainly have enough players.
Honestly, a DM using a GMPC sends me warning bells even if it is a background character. The players get to decide who joins their group, not the DM. If they adopt NPCs that is fine, but none should ever be forced upon them.
This isn't a compromise situation. It's bad DMing and if he refuses to fold you will probably have a lot more issues down the line - in which case you are better off without him.
GMPCs can be done well and have their place... typically with small parties where the GMPC fills in a critical role, especially as a healer or tank. A fighter in full plate who sets up opponents for flanking not only fails to overshadow the otherwise suboptimal rogue in the party, but lets the rogue shine extra bright. A healer who keeps everyone alive is vitally important... but is never the one getting a massive critical hit on the orc warlord to be talked about even months later. Consider also that a skill character can play this role as long as the PCs so overcome the actual challenge: Gandalf knew every language and had tons of ranks in Knowledge skills, but he didn't solve the riddle to enter Moria, he just translated the riddle and the appropriate answer.
Your GM is clearly doing it wrong, but it most certainly can be done right. Is it less fun? Yeah, but that's why you need to be the sort of person who enjoys being GM rather than just suffering through it because nobody else volunteered. I love being a GM, and making sure everyone else is having a fun time makes my investment of time, effort, and money worthwhile. It's entirely possible your GM either doesn't want to be the GM or is suffering from perma-GM burnout. It happens to even the best of us. The best solution might be to have someone take over as GM so that he/she can be a PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMPCs can be done well and have their place... typically with small parties where the GMPC fills in a critical role, especially as a healer or tank. A fighter in full plate who sets up opponents for flanking not only fails to overshadow the otherwise suboptimal rogue in the party, but lets the rogue shine extra bright. A healer who keeps everyone alive is vitally important... but is never the one getting a massive critical hit on the orc warlord to be talked about even months later. Consider also that a skill character can play this role as long as the PCs so overcome the actual challenge: Gandalf knew every language and had tons of ranks in Knowledge skills, but he didn't solve the riddle to enter Moria, he just translated the riddle and the appropriate answer.
Your GM is clearly doing it wrong, but it most certainly can be done right. Is it less fun? Yeah, but that's why you need to be the sort of person who enjoys being GM rather than just suffering through it because nobody else volunteered. I love being a GM, and making sure everyone else is having a fun time makes my investment of time, effort, and money worthwhile. It's entirely possible your GM either doesn't want to be the GM or is suffering from perma-GM burnout. It happens to even the best of us. The best solution might be to have someone take over as GM so that he/she can be a PC.
The only time I have ever used what I would call a DMPC was when I had a group of 5 and they had literally no healing capacity. They asked me if they could hire a cohort to come along. I told them that I would run a cleric but that she would wear full plate and carry a tower shield both without proficiency. She would consistently use sanctuary in combat. She would provide no buffs. She would hide if the fighting got anywhere near her. But she would carry a bunch of CLW wands, and prepare status removal spells.
The party seemed pretty OK with it, but I still felt icky. :(
GMPCs can be done well and have their place... typically with small parties where the GMPC fills in a critical role, especially as a healer or tank. A fighter in full plate who sets up opponents for flanking not only fails to overshadow the otherwise suboptimal rogue in the party, but lets the rogue shine extra bright. A healer who keeps everyone alive is vitally important... but is never the one getting a massive critical hit on the orc warlord to be talked about even months later. Consider also that a skill character can play this role as long as the PCs so overcome the actual challenge: Gandalf knew every language and had tons of ranks in Knowledge skills, but he didn't solve the riddle to enter Moria, he just translated the riddle and the appropriate answer.
Your GM is clearly doing it wrong, but it most certainly can be done right. Is it less fun? Yeah, but that's why you need to be the sort of person who enjoys being GM rather than just suffering through it because nobody else volunteered. I love being a GM, and making sure everyone else is having a fun time makes my investment of time, effort, and money worthwhile. It's entirely possible your GM either doesn't want to be the GM or is suffering from perma-GM burnout. It happens to even the best of us. The best solution might be to have someone take over as GM so that he/she can be a PC.
This is still the wrong way to do it, sorry. If the players feel like they need a healer or tank they can ask for or seek one out for themselves as per bigDTbone's example. You coming in and deciding they 'need one for their own good' is EXACTLY the kind of loss of player agency that makes GMPCs and the DMs that use them so reviled.
A 'GMPC done well' is not a GMPC at all: it is an NPC cohort. The term GMPC has strict negative connotations.
This is still the wrong way to do it, sorry. If the players feel like they need a healer or tank they can ask for or seek one out for themselves as per bigDTbone's example. You coming in and deciding they 'need one for their own good' is EXACTLY the kind of loss of player agency that makes GMPCs and the DMs that use them so reviled.
A 'GMPC done well' is not a GMPC at all: it is an NPC cohort. The term GMPC has strict negative connotations.
Even TVTropes disagrees with you, but I'm going to point out the obvious problem with your argument: an NPC cohort is a GMPC.
- Is it a character run by the GM? Yes.
- Is it part of the adventuring party? Yes.
- Does it have the potential to overshadow the whole party if not handled carefully? Yes.
Even a lower level cohort, if carefully optimized, can outshine a suboptimal PC. GMs, by their nature, tend to have a far better grasp on the rules and thus a better ability to create highly optimized characters, especially compared to new players. Thus, an 'NPC cohort' runs all the same risks... because it is just a GMPC with fewer class levels.
BigDTBone is entitled to his opinion, so I won't say he's wrong per se, but he's going to end up murdering Ameiko Kaijitsu if he ever plays Jade Regent.
This is still the wrong way to do it, sorry. If the players feel like they need a healer or tank they can ask for or seek one out for themselves as per bigDTbone's example. You coming in and deciding they 'need one for their own good' is EXACTLY the kind of loss of player agency that makes GMPCs and the DMs that use them so reviled.
A 'GMPC done well' is not a GMPC at all: it is an NPC cohort. The term GMPC has strict negative connotations.
Even TVTropes disagrees with you, but I'm going to point out the obvious problem with your argument: an NPC cohort is a GMPC.
- Is it a character run by the GM? Yes.
- Is it part of the adventuring party? Yes.
- Does it have the potential to overshadow the whole party if not handled carefully? Yes.Even a lower level cohort, if carefully optimized, can outshine a suboptimal PC. GMs, by their nature, tend to have a far better grasp on the rules and thus a better ability to create highly optimized characters, especially compared to new players. Thus, an 'NPC cohort' runs all the same risks... because it is just a GMPC with fewer class levels.
BigDTBone is entitled to his opinion, so I won't say he's wrong per se, but he's going to end up murdering Ameiko Kaijitsu if he ever plays Jade Regent.
I don't particularly mind TVtropes disagreeing with me. TVtropes is not a good citation source. The article itself is pretty contradictory. However, in this case, TVtropes pretty much does agree with me: the defining characteristic of a GMPC is that the GM is the one who makes the NPC part of the party (IE a 'PC'), instead of the players asking an NPC to join them.
Besides, by your definition a summoned or bound monster is a GMPC. That's a poor definition.
As an aside, it's pretty common knowledge that Ameiko is often tugging dangerously close to murder in a decent amount of groups. Jade regent suffers in general from special snowflake NPC syndrome.
|
I've run a few Gmpcs in my time (we don't have a lot of players here. The most important rule I've learned doing this is no matter how hard you try you can't separate your role in running the world and that character 100%. So when I run them I never contribute unrolled advice. What I mean is if it's a generic knowledge creature that any pc could roll on go ahead. If it's a debate about whether to go left or right in the maze my character's distracted by the marvellous architecture and has no opinion on a direction (npcs hired for local knowledge are differen) The reason being I will know (to use an above example) there's treasure in them there boars and whether I decide to attack to attack or avoid my knowledge will affect that choice. The only way to avoid that problem for me as I said is any time a decision comes up my Gmpc only contributes general knowledge e.g. Rolled information.
I'm really more concerned that they're apparently using this to influence other party members than by the Xp/treasure issue. We don't have the full story but from what was posted he shouldn't have stopped the rogue finding the treasure as he shouldn't have known it was there. With a party of 5 I agree there shouldn't really be a need for a Gmpc at all.
I don't particularly mind TVtropes disagreeing with me. TVtropes is not a good citation source. The article itself is pretty contradictory. However, in this case, TVtropes pretty much does agree with me: the defining characteristic of a GMPC is that the GM is the one who makes the NPC part of the party (IE a 'PC'), instead of the players asking an NPC to join them.
Besides, by your definition a summoned or bound monster is a GMPC. That's a poor definition.
As an aside, it's pretty common knowledge that Ameiko is often tugging dangerously close to murder in a decent amount of groups. Jade regent suffers in general from special snowflake NPC syndrome.
Summoned monsters don't have names, backstories, or persistence. They stick around for a few rounds and then *poof*! Never heard from again. Your point about Ameiko ignores the whole topic of conversation though, which is the issue of making sure that GM-run characters avoid overshadowing characters or otherwise making the game less fun. The party in Jade Regent isn't tagging along as Ameiko single-handedly destroys every monster between Sandpoint and Minkai, they're escorting her there by dealing with each and every threat themselves. If they need a hand now and then, she's there, but a good GM should really only be using her just like I described before: to set up monsters for flanking, to help out with skills the party doesn't have, and maybe to help haul all the loot they find back to the caravan.
I suggest confronting the GM with this issue, before the next session. A well run DMPC can be extremely fun and rewarding, but that is obviously not what is happening.
Tell your GM that the DMPC is detracting from the campaign and you'd prefer he was not there. Hopefully your GM will be mature enough to handle it, and roll.
-Nearyn
This is still the wrong way to do it, sorry. If the players feel like they need a healer or tank they can ask for or seek one out for themselves as per bigDTbone's example.GMPCs can be done well and have their place... typically with small parties where the GMPC fills in a critical role, especially as a healer or tank. A fighter in full plate who sets up opponents for flanking not only fails to overshadow the otherwise suboptimal rogue in the party, but lets the rogue shine extra bright. A healer who keeps everyone alive is vitally important... but is never the one getting a massive critical hit on the orc warlord to be talked about even months later. Consider also that a skill character can play this role as long as the PCs so overcome the actual challenge: Gandalf knew every language and had tons of ranks in Knowledge skills, but he didn't solve the riddle to enter Moria, he just translated the riddle and the appropriate answer.
Your GM is clearly doing it wrong, but it most certainly can be done right. Is it less fun? Yeah, but that's why you need to be the sort of person who enjoys being GM rather than just suffering through it because nobody else volunteered. I love being a GM, and making sure everyone else is having a fun time makes my investment of time, effort, and money worthwhile. It's entirely possible your GM either doesn't want to be the GM or is suffering from perma-GM burnout. It happens to even the best of us. The best solution might be to have someone take over as GM so that he/she can be a PC.
Or better yet, the GM can adjust the playstyle and pace of the game to account for the capabilities the PCs have (which is GMing 101 anyway).