| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean as a PC rather than a NPC?
I do it all the time, but it's not optimal. I don't really get to try out a character concept or build because I know the encounters and challenges even if the rest of the party doesn't.
I am now doing my best to just handle NPCs and leave the adventuring to the players in my group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, theres nothing against it in the rules. But players rarely appreciate it unless if fulfills a role that no one else can do. If it competes with a character that exists then you have two possible outcomes:
1) The GM PC is worse, so there is no need for them to be there
2) The GM PC is better, so the player feels unimportant
A GM PC should never be brought it to excel as a damage dealer or combat specialist.
The only appropriate roles for such a character, in my opinion, are combat support, trap disabler, and healing (assuming someone didn't specifically create a character focused on these). By combat support I mean something like a bard which just gives bonuses to everyone else in combat, but remains outside combat (for the most part) otherwise.
If the GM PC starts hogging the spotlight at all, you've done a bad job.
Giving the players control of the GM character is also a possibility. They might kill him by dumb positioning but hey that's how it plays.
Is this for PFS Organized Play? If it is, I believe you are only allowed to bring in one of the official pregenerated characters and only when required in order to make a table of 4.
The reason I ask is your mention of scenarios.
You don't want to just have another member of the party who just happens to be the character you'd play if you were playing who just happens to have all the best stuff, maybe be a level ahead of everyone, and just happens to always be the one to save the day.
If you want to have the group encounter another person or group of people that they have to work with for a short duration - go for it. Say they need to traverse the Haunted Grove of Inexplicable Horror, maybe they need the damphir scout who is the only one who knows the land to help guide them through without accidentialy awakening the draco-lich. Or maybe they are hired by an archivest to escort her to an ancient temple to recover a lost artifact. Or maybe they are breaking into the long lost vault of the ancient dwarven kingdom and need a halfling skilled in trapfinding and sneaking to recover their lost treasure.
Make it story-based, give the character a single thing they're good at but rather sucky in combat, and let the PCs take the spotlight.
To many RPG gamers, GMPC is a dirty word. To me, its like who is wiling to run a game with no players, just a single person as both GM and player - would that fun? I don't think so, and running a PC when you're the GM (even with other players) is hardly different. I have nothing against running a party friendly NPC, and I'll treat it as an NPC without the personal connection to a PC. Do what you want in your game, and as stated above, doing so is perfectly legal as far as game mechanics go, but personally, as a GM, I'd never do it, nor play on a table with the GM also as a player (where I'm not the GM).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This can definitely be a touchy issue for some people, myself included.
Many GMs make the mistake of trying to get "the player experience" by running their own PC in their campaign. This can have disastrous results on the GM's ability to remain impartial, which is probably the most important skill for GMs.
In some situations, a GM really should create a likable NPC ally to accompany the party. For example, you might have too few players, or you want to try and increase tension by placing an ally in peril. This is very similar to a Player Character, but it's still an NPC because the GM is controlling it. This is fine to do, but you do still run the risk of getting too attached and ruining your own impartiality -- so keep an eye on it.
Ask yourself honestly if you would rather be a player or a GM. If the real reason you're looking to run a GMPC is because you'd rather be playing than running, that's a bad sign. If that's the case, you're far better off spending the energy on locating a committed GM. Trying to GM when you'd rather be playing is the source of many a failed campaign.
If you'd rather be a GM but you're just looking to run a deep NPC, do that, and call it what it is: a likable, allied NPC. Check yourself periodically to make sure that this character isn't stealing the spotlight from the players!
Hi guys, this is my first post.
I was wondering if, as a gm, I could have the characters in my scenario team up with another character?
P.s. it's a character I created
Thanks,
rfisk123
I vote no. GMPCs are a Classic beginners mistake. I have never seen it done well.
And welcome:)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, it sounds like you guys don't know what you are talking about. I have had GMs for many games over the years who bring in their own characters. This isn't just local, but up at college back in the 90s. The GMs knew what they were doing and still do, otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to play their own characters.
I would say that if you have GMed ANYTHING once or twice then it probably isn't a good idea because you are still working on keep your eyes on the table AND your character. If, on the other hand, you have lots of experience running D&D or other games then you probably can multi-task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've done it, and I don't think I've ever annoyed anyone with it.
I play somewhat sub-par, but still useful charecters.
I use them to point the right way or give hints from time to time if no-one figures it out after a while.
I don't participate in the puzzle solving, unless they're really, really stuck. (Not stuck as in failing, stuck as in can't make a decision.)
Usually, I make the character selfless, and gives some of his share of the wealth to the characters that could use it better.
I (now) try and avoid anything terribly unique, as to avoid taking things away from the other, unique, pc's.
If in doubt that you can manage to play someone of relative unimportance and enjoy it (note. They don't have to be useless. Just not as good as everyone else.) then you Probably should refrain.
Done well, and it can, to some degree, allow you to be a PC and a dm.
People may be skeptical at first, but if you make an interesting, non-intrusive charecter, it cha be fun for everyone.
But... The most important thing, and I can boil it down to this-
you are a DM first, PC second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen it done well, and not-so-well. Once in the same campaign, where the two co-GMs both had their own PCs.
My advice in combat: don't take the kills. If you roll damage and see that you killed the baddy, fudge it to leave him at a few HP, and let someone else take the glory. (Unless the party is in serious peril.) If you're just taking out the occasional minion/mook then that is fine, but I remember one session where it just seemed like the GMPC ended up finishing off every enemy, and it was a bit frustrating.
Out of combat: don't give advice, don't make suggestions, or anything. The players will never know when you're metagaming or not, and it's annoying to have to worry about that as a player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
goggle the horror stories by looking up the term DMPC.Hi guys, this is my first post.
I was wondering if, as a gm, I could have the characters in my scenario team up with another character?
P.s. it's a character I created
Thanks,
rfisk123
And then realize you don't have to be like that.
I have seen it done well, and not-so-well. Once in the same campaign, where the two co-GMs both had their own PCs.
My advice in combat: don't take the kills. If you roll damage and see that you killed the baddy, fudge it to leave him at a few HP, and let someone else take the glory. (Unless the party is in serious peril.) If you're just taking out the occasional minion/mook then that is fine, but I remember one session where it just seemed like the GMPC ended up finishing off every enemy, and it was a bit frustrating.
Out of combat: don't give advice, don't make suggestions, or anything. The players will never know when you're metagaming or not, and it's annoying to have to worry about that as a player.
That last one is a really, really important one.
I've done it if my players get really suck, and they don't seem to mind, but that's a table by table thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing about DMPC's...
Don't give them any special treatment... don't hesitate to kill them off if circumstances demand it.
This too.
In games where there's only two or three players I'll play as a character as well as DMing, and it's not that bad. I just make sure to play an average character who can help fill in gaps, or nudge the plot forward a bit if the players get really stuck (which can happen when there's only a few people playing.)
But I don't ever try to make the plot about him, or anything like that. He's just along for the ride and happy to help.
It's a really bad idea. Note that a lot of the people claiming GMPCs are ok are DMs who have run them. A lot of GMs don't even realise how obnoxious their special snowflake character is. Even if the character isn't offensive, it removes player agency simply by existing (they didn't choose to work with your NPC: you forced it on them) and often a lot more than that if you start treating that character as more than a blank 'fill the gaps'... at which point, who made YOU the person who decides the party needs more people to fill in the gaps?
Yes, you can play a character as a GM. Yes, it can be done well so that there is no conflict. But, 9/10 times it is not done well, and especially as a new GM it is something you should try to actively avoid.
Note that playing NPCs the party decides to bring along on their own judgement is totally OK.
If you have enough players at your table, then do not do this thing. Use your creativity to role play great NPCs instead.
As you can see, emotions run high on the topic of GMPCs.
IMHO, if you have four or more players, you should *never* use a GMPC. You can arrange for the group to hire or otherwise negotiate for the services of an NPC, but one of the players should be running the guy, with possible exceptions if they try to make him do implausible things. With four or more players around the table, the group is already plenty big enough as it is, especially if some of them have pets, familiars, summoned monsters or other critters to add to the number.
If you only have 2 or 3 players, a GMPC is possible, but only if:
- the players make all decisions for the GMPC during the game, effectively treating him like a lackey (you basically hand over the character sheet for the session);
- the GMPC in no way outshines the other PCs;
- the players make all their decisions based on things they found out on their own, without benefitting/suffering from constant spoilers delivered by the GMPC.
We played a 5-year DD3.5 campaign with rotating DM. Often there were only 3 of us - 1 DM + 2 players. The DMPC was a welcome addition at first (with the caveat that the DM du jour had no input as to the DMPC's actions or decisions). As the campaign progressed, we managed to recruit an extra player or two, and we reached higher levels, and the DMPC was not only no longer necessary, but often a liability. We just made up excuses why the DMPC was "back at camp" or busy crafting, or off scouting or something. Worked fine.
NPCs, whether true NPCs or DMPCs or whatever, should always be the "red-shirt" guys. The ones who die first, to strike the fear of death into the heart of the players. Many DMs simply don't have the b@lls to kill off their own character with malice and forethought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMPCs suck. NPCs, however, are fair game, even if they travel with the party. The difference is you're not trying to get a player experience through the NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the guy who said GMPCs are shoehorned in and the party didn't choose to work with them...
...that's different from literally every PC ever how?
Oh but we roleplayed and/or wrote them in!
Yeah, and that can't be done too?
I've seen GMPCs done terribly, and wheen it's bad its SO bad that the revulsion associated with it is such that instant assumption it can never be done right is understandable. However, I've also seen it done right, where the character contributes without stealing the spotlight.
Major tips, most of which have been mentioned, are...
Don't pull punches on the GMPC - Murderer him if given the opportunity like the guy just started dating your saughter and was bragging to his boys about going through condoms like quarters at an 80s arcade.
Don't make him more powerful than the party. This is a tough one.
STFU during puzzles, mazes, diplomatic events, and other areas where player-not-character action and knowledge are required.
Honestly, if you're a new GM, of it's a big party, or if you don't think you can help outshining the others, I wouldn't do it. If it's a small group, you're an experienced GM, and you don't mind toning down, it'snot a horrible idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murderer him if given the opportunity like the guy just started dating your saughter and was bragging to his boys about going through condoms like quarters at an 80s arcade
What? No! That's the guy you want her around, at least he's fundamentally responsible.
Oh, wait, sorry, this is totally irrelevant to your point.
My GM puts NPCs in our group fairly frequently. And I'd say he does a good job of it.
Amusingly, for one campaign, our group does complain about her (In-character) not because she hogs the spotlight, but because she never seems to do anything. I don't know her class specifically, but I believe she's an arcane trickster. And most fights she casts invisibility on herself and then does nothing, appearing after the fight to complain that we kept letting the enemies move. When she doesn't hide, she throws piddly little throwing knives. We already have a rogue-type for traps and locks, and she lacks any flashy magic, so we mostly complain about her presence. (I asked the group if we still wanted to keep her around, and the vote was yes. Still not sure why.) She does serve some useful tasks, notably in knowledge skills which our group sorely lacks.
The other GMPC (same GM, different campaign.) I can recall is a dwarven cleric (as far as I know. The DM doesn't share their character sheets.) who prefers his crossbow and hammer to spell lobbing. So no worries on stepping on toes.)
I have found that GMPCs can be handy not just to fill gaps in party composition, but also as a way for the GM to guide the PCs back on track. This takes skill to do tactfully without having th GMPC step all over player initiative. But I have seen our group paralyzed with indecision and discussion of all options and potential consequences, until we lose sight of what out goal was. The GMPC never dictates actions, but does offer a suggestion or mention a course that can break up the logjam our group finds themselves in.
I'm generally opposed.
I've run one or two. When I was new at this (and 13), I made all the classic mistakes of playing a character that was too cool and too powerful.
Later, after a few years of regular GMing, I cameo'd a boring human fighter PC focused around battlefield manipulation and tactical assistance. I introduced him as a guy who needed rescuing/ an escort. His damage output was atrocious, but his numerous tactical feats gave _them_ the opportunity to really shine. What's more, he was added for a brief leg of an adventure, the players knew his tenure would be short, and he added to helped to change up the story and combat. Even though it wasn't a train wreck like my first effort, I would not do this today because at its core the motivation was "I want to run a DMPC" not "this character needs to be introduced for the sake of the story or play experience."
Basically, your job is to tell a story and make the players excited or scared, to make them laugh, and to make them feel awesome. If adding your character to the game won't do those things, then you should think hard about why you are doing it. If you are thinking of him as something other than an NPC, you should ask yourself what the difference between him and your other NPCs are and if those differences are going to make the game better.
|
My group has several NPCs that they can bring along with them, and interact with during downtime. (it's Jade regent and I built every single member of the Caravan). Some of the NPCs should NOT be brought along for combat, like the Oracle who's sole purpose is to be be best wainwright ever. Or the wizard who makes any magical item that the party wants. Each NPC has full stat blocks and is as powerful as the PCs. However only a few are useful to bring along. One is a cleric (the party has no dedicated healer) who I built to be good at only one thing, and that is healing people.
None of the NPCs are built to step on the PC toes, and in fact I've built them to combo with the PCs and make the PCs all the more awesome.
GMPCs are usually a bad idea. The only time I have seen them work well is when they are in the support role. Heal-bot cleric/oracle or buffing bard are the two that work best.
The other thing about DMPC's...
Don't give them any special treatment... don't hesitate to kill them off if circumstances demand it.
I've done this, too. Since I try to not kill my players, I have used my GMPC as the "example" character. Is this creature too tough? My toon dies at its claws/fangs/whathaveyou. I let him/her bear the brunt of unusual attacks or abilities the "boss" creature may have so that the players can see it and plan accordingly.
Funny, I'm more prone to kill off a GMPC than a NPC because my NPCs are more story essential!
To the OP:
It is never the best option to have a GM PC but if your group of players is not large enough (anything with 3 or less players) then a GM PC is needed in order to make a valid group.
If you have four or more players then I would not run a GM PC. Those IMO should be reserved for situations where there simply is not enough players to make a valid party.
It can be done, and done well. Unfortunately, that's not often the case. The group I play with does it all the time. When I GM, I always try not to make my own character, but my players always end up talking me into it anyways. When I do make a character, it is almost always for the comic relief. Also, I've killed myself on multiple occasions, so my players know that I don't pull any punches when it comes to my "special snowflake". No matter what you choose, as long as everyone is having fun, it is all that matters in the end. Good luck!
All of my NPC characters are fully fleshed out PC's. Anybody could sit down at the table and play one. I run a group of three players. My campaign is sandbox, so every story thread I have established is tied to a unique NPC who first introduced the group to that particular storyline.
I've created a pool of "heroes" my group can call on at anytime to assist them. Most are 1 level lower than the group and are easily geared with about 3/4 the money. Still effective, but rarely (barring terrible dice luck or dumb decisions) take any kind of spotlight.
I even let one die, and they went out of their way to have him raised- because they liked him! I didn't even care and never implied it was needed (it wasn't) but it became a pivotal part of one players story that she save him. It can work perfectly well if done right. Especially for a small group.
Use them more as a guide, a storytelling tool. Fill a missing role (like healer) so the players can have fun and not be forced into anything. Just don't make them the focus in any other way than story.
... and that's what I have time for right now with crying baby in my arms. Please look at those for my arguments and ideas.
(Note: I normally agree with Evil Lincoln, but this is one category that he and I have relatively sharp disagreement on. We're still cool, though. :D)
My advice- if you insist on running a GMPC, don't fill out any character sheet or stat block for it. Create an interesting character that tags along, and adds to the story. If it would be beneficial for the story that this character do something, roll a random dice and describe what they do. That way you don't get attached to a concept and run it as a background for the PCs to shine against.
If I insert a full-time NPC, I would make it some kind of plot device. A friend doomed to be killed and avenged, a spy tricking and leading them on, a celestial being in disguise testing the PCs.
I'd make the pc not very bright. Maybe a 8 intelligence. That way he isn't the idea guy when the party comes up against a puzzle.
But beyond that a dmpc should never be the star. It's best/smoothest for him to be the stoic. Someone who is dependable but not powerful.
I actually have a DMPC in the current Pathfinder game that I'm running due to the players demanding that I include him. He was intended to be a one-shot NPC who asked the PCs to help his village with a bandit problem in an introductory session near the start of the campaign. I didn't put much effort into his build - single-class fighter specialized in 'I hit it with my sword'. After the session, my players in and out of character insisted he come along and adventure with him - which really surprised me, seeing as how the common wisdom is that everyone hates DMPCs.
Since then, I've tried very hard to play him as neither spotlight-stealing in any way, nor so weak and useless that he's a burden on the party. He also never has any major opinion on overall strategy or goals, just goes along with what the party consensus wants to do. (Low Charisma and Wisdom anyway, so he's really not the leader type). I'll kill him off in a moment in combat if the dice go that way, but at this point I suspect the players would actually pool their meager wealth for a Raise Dead if I did.
What you've described there is a likable, allied NPC.
You're not attempting to "be a player" with that character. You're not trying to win the glory, up his stats, and overcome the obstacles with your own cunning. Those are the things that define the player experience, and so those are the things that make a DMPC.
In many ways, it seems like what the PCs must have liked about this guy is that you weren't attached to him, they were. That's exactly how it should be.
So congratulations, disaster averted, carry on!
... and that's what I have time for right now with crying baby in my arms. Please look at those for my arguments and ideas.
(Note: I normally agree with Evil Lincoln, but this is one category that he and I have relatively sharp disagreement on. We're still cool, though. :D)
Yes, I do get very picky about the terminology.
For me it is just easier to advise people and get their campaigns back on track if I have two separate terms: one for the acceptable and sometimes desirable practice of running an allied NPC, and the other for the usually catastrophic practice of trying to play in your own game. It's all in the name: "Game Master's Player-Character".
A lot of people insist on something called "a GMPC done right", but I feel that by definition that is impossible. If you use a definition where that is possible, then the term isn't very useful. Unlike the term NPC, GMPC refers to a GM who is trying to have the subjective experience of a player while also controlling the action.
I really feel that this nomenclature helps to illustrate the pitfalls of getting attached to NPCs, and that calling likable, allied NPCs "GMPCs" is confusing. One is a "player-character" the other is not.
I apologize, I don't know what it is about this one issue, but I'm adamant.
I GM for a group of three players, and for various reasons, I run a GMPC in the current adventure. He's a fighter, and pretty good at it.
I have a few ground rules for playing him, though. The most important one is that if we're roleplaying a social scene, he's pretty much in the background or not there: I have enough on my plate managing plot-relevant NPCs, and don't want to get involved in concentrating on more characters than I absolutely must. In addition, I will never propose a course of action for the party, but will freely offer an opinion on other players' ideas.
He's basically there to make up party numbers and to offer me more options for using character backgrounds in plotlines.
One skill I've developed over the years is to disengage my "GM brain" and switch to "player mode" for tactical discussions, which allows me to help the party in combat without metagaming as the GM. I do this whether I'm playing my GMPC or not, and is really good for ensuring there's no "players vs GM", since I'm actively trying to help them in between the times when I'm running the characters that are actively trying to kill them.
It can be done right, but I'd agree that not doing it is generally the better option.
Murderer him if given the opportunity like the guy just started dating your saughter and was bragging to his boys about going through condoms like quarters at an 80s arcadeWhat? No! That's the guy you want her around, at least he's fundamentally responsible.
Oh, wait, sorry, this is totally irrelevant to your point.
Irrelevant to the general talk at hand, but I just wanted to come back to this point. If "Bob" has just started dating my daughter and they're going at it like rabbits, he clearly isn't looking for a deep and multifaceted relationship. He's just using my daughter to get his jollies off so you can guarantee I'd do something drastic about that.
Getting back on topic, I've always found that the largest difference between a GMPC and a fleshed out and vibrant NPC is how much metagaming they do. For whatever reason GMs seem to have a harder time not metagaming with their PCs than their NPCs. I'm not opposed to GMPCs if the party is small or if the players are having a hard time keeping track of all of their minions (cohorts, eidolons, animal companions etc can be hard to manage for new players so letting the GM control them can be totally fine) though.
I'm not taking the bait on the sexual politics thing. Nobody else should either. Keep it on topic, and use protection folks!