What I am claiming is that the emotional investment is the difference between doing it wrong and doing it right. The other symptoms are consequences of that emotional investment. Considering the amount of crazy crap people do on a daily basis due to misplaced emotional investment, ruining a game because of it is strictly little league.
If we are talking convenient explanations, how about "I love doing so, and my players love it when I do it, and anyone who can't do it is a bad GM"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point both sides are pretty much just copying and pasting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I am claiming is that the emotional investment is the difference between doing it wrong and doing it right. The other symptoms are consequences of that emotional investment. Considering the amount of crazy crap people do on a daily basis due to misplaced emotional investment, ruining a game because of it is strictly little league.
If we are talking convenient explanations, how about "I love doing so, and my players love it when I do it, and anyone who can't do it is a bad GM"?
I don't think you get to use absolutes, then dismiss the opposing argument as one. One that no one I've seen use, anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see what you did there, Kalindlara. I see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We aren't supposed to huff the paste... well gonna have to figure out something else to do this weekend... maybe a good old fashioned smurf capturing expedition :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Smurf are over-powered (OP) and the DM doesn't play them right!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How could he? Being immature and emotionally attached as he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smurfs are Mites:-)
At least that's how I portray Mites, really makes the party despise them:-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now we're getting to the sillyness this topic deserves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How could he? Being immature and emotionally attached as he is.
Awww... see he IS emotionally attached to Smurfs! I mean they ARE adorable right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules for making an effective DMPC
1. The DMPC should be un-optimized, and possibly multi-classed, one of those classes should be support focused.
2. THE DMPC should not be allowed to take any loot/glory from any of the players
3. The DMPC should solve/plan 0% of anything happening in the game
....I further have a rule that a GMPC's initiative is always 104. The DMPC is there to keep things moving forward, such as asking another player, what should we do about this?
5. The DMPC is not protected from being targeted by or potentially killed by enemies. I use a random attack roller including the DMPC for who gets attacked....Druid/Wizard DMPC nearly died from a grim-lock greataxe to the chest!
Re # 1 - Though with the caveat that a GMPC that's dead weight is nearly as bad as a GMPC that's a glory hog. If your GMPC is an outright burden to the PCs, you're doing it wrong.
Re # 2 - In my group's games, the GMPC gets a share of treasure, but only after the other PCs make first picks. (Rule of thumb - any items obviously good for the GMPC should also be an upgrade/good for at least one other PC.)
@ Sissyl - in my group's case, it's more "we're all GMS that have taken turns having GMPCs, we find them useful (because having another party member is useful), we leave it up to whoever's currently GMing to decide decide if he wants one or not (because having one DOES add to the GM's workload), and we'll cheerfully call the current GM out on it if he's somehow Mary Sueing it up. But that hasn't been an issue for the 15+ years I've been part of my group."
You seem to be presuming a situation where it's always a tyrant GM shoving an unwanted NPC down the throats of his captive players. Maybe that's how a past group of yours worked, but that's certainly not how mine works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See it all makes sense once you embrace the Smurfyness in life:-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no smurfing idea what's going on or where this change of pace came from...
...But it is less smurfing repetitious than the mother smurfing bull smurf that keeps smurfing in God smurf circles about this subject. Seriously, talk about beating a dead smurf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See it all makes sense once you embrace the Smurfyness in life:-D
Nooooo!
Where is Gargamel when you need him?
"I am not obsessed with Smurfs, thank you. I simply can't stop thinking about the miserable beasts every single minute of every single day!... "
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules for making an effective DMPC
1. The DMPC should be un-optimized, and possibly multi-classed, one of those classes should be support focused.
2. THE DMPC should not be allowed to take any loot/glory from any of the players
3. The DMPC should solve/plan 0% of anything happening in the game
....I further have a rule that a GMPC's initiative is always 104. The DMPC is there to keep things moving forward, such as asking another player, what should we do about this?
5. The DMPC is not protected from being targeted by or potentially killed by enemies. I use a random attack roller including the DMPC for who gets attacked....Druid/Wizard DMPC nearly died from a grim-lock greataxe to the chest!
Re # 1 - Though with the caveat that a GMPC that's dead weight is nearly as bad as a GMPC that's a glory hog. If your GMPC is an outright burden to the PCs, you're doing it wrong.
Re # 2 - In my group's games, the GMPC gets a share of treasure, but only after the other PCs make first picks. (Rule of thumb - any items obviously good for the GMPC should also be an upgrade/good for at least one other PC.)
@ Sissyl - in my group's case, it's more "we're all GMS that have taken turns having GMPCs, we find them useful (because having another party member is useful), we leave it up to whoever's currently GMing to decide decide if he wants one or not (because having one DOES add to the GM's workload), and we'll cheerfully call the current GM out on it if he's somehow Mary Sueing it up. But that hasn't been an issue for the 15+ years I've been part of my group."
You seem to be presuming a situation where it's always a tyrant GM shoving an unwanted NPC down the throats of his captive players. Maybe that's how a past group of yours worked, but that's certainly not how mine works.
Or in other words, please show us on the doll where the bad GM touched your character sheet.
Not everyone plays the same way or experiences the same problems. It isn't a definite that X style of GMing is bad or good; it was good or bad for you on a certain day at a certain time, that's all.
Yeah, keep ignoring what I say, put words in my mouth, make s***f posts, and ridicule me. After all, I must be a bad GM, oversensitive and probably retarded if I think GMPCs are a problem, right?
To sum up, GMPCs are never a problem, unless used by a bad GM, indeed every campaign should have them. Anyone who doesn't agree should just show where the bad GM touched their character sheet. Enjoy your thread.
~hugs Sissyl~
I don't think the um... cartoony derail was aimed at you but rather an expression of people getting tired of the argument from both sides.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Smurf posts are an insult now?
...I was just doing it because I dig blue chicks, and apparently I've been assigned Smurfette for most of my smurf avatars.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, keep ignoring what I say, put words in my mouth, make s***f posts, and ridicule me. After all, I must be a bad GM, oversensitive and probably ...if I think GMPCs are a problem, right?
To sum up, GMPCs are never a problem, unless used by a bad GM, indeed every campaign should have them. Anyone who doesn't agree should just show where the bad GM touched their character sheet. Enjoy your thread.
Like any other discussion, one must first agree on the terms, and then can discuss the DMPC tool and how it can be properly used and improperly used.
A shovel is fine tool for digging holes, but no one wants to be hit over the head with it.
If your argument is basically in my experience thus, and someone else's argument is my experience has been otherwise, then obviously no agreement can be reached.
On the other hand providing feed-back on what the problems/pitfalls are or can be helps to make it a better experience for everyone.
Also posting smurfs is a tension breaker in a thread, meant to moderate hostilities, as no ne can hate on smurfs!
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
S***f posts are an insult now?
...I was just doing it because I dig blue chicks, and apparently I've been assigned S***fette for most of my s***f avatars.
I always liked Maduin myself. ^_^
|
|
I think it depends on why the character is in the game. I only use DMPCs if there is a gap in the party that can't be filled some other way. For example, in my current campaign I only have two players. One is playing a summoner and the other is playing a barbarian. As a result I have been running a heal-bot cleric as a DMPC. His only purpose is to heal the party and assist with undead if needed. To me this seemed like a simpler and more realistic option than having every enemy they battle drop dozens of healing potions ala any fantasy video game out there. Before the game started I explained the character's role to the players and made it clear that he was not going to be anything other than a healer. He is not involved in planning and negotiations; just healing.
No Mt Dew either. Don't have them in my country.
smoki and sinalco
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet if we all work together we can bring forth Zombie Mark Twain
What could be possibly go wrong....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, keep ignoring what I say, put words in my mouth, make s***f posts, and ridicule me. After all, I must be a bad GM, oversensitive and probably retarded if I think GMPCs are a problem, right?
To sum up, GMPCs are never a problem, unless used by a bad GM, indeed every campaign should have them. Anyone who doesn't agree should just show where the bad GM touched their character sheet. Enjoy your thread.
Sissyl... I don't think anybody intended it to come out that way.
GMPC's being used poorly is bad GMing. Knowing whether or not you can pull it off is a sign of being a good GM.
I can't do it, but I still consider myself a good GM because I refrain. I'd say that - assuming you do well in the standard GM fields - you're a good GM as well despite the inability to GMPC.
And there's the rub: what makes a "good" GM and a "bad" GM seems to differ from person to person, based on experience and personality (and sometimes the day of the week.)
My comment regarding the bad touch may have come across as snarky; however, some of the conversation has gotten to the point where, if this were a TV show or movie, I would expect a flashback to whatever traumatic event has colored some of the poster's opinions to the point that we are questioning maturity or using absolutes that things are ALWAYS bad (or always good for that matter.)
Anything can be abused, GMPCs included. I've seen miniatures abused for goodness sake. People change whiteboards. Favoritism that is utterly blatant. If there is a GM that wants to hog the spotlight or otherwise mess with the party, there will be signs all over the place.
A GMPC isn't a bellweather of anything more than there is an NPC there. Emotional attachment [i]could[/] mean something, or it could mean that the GM gets emotionally attached to everything they touch, from giving waaaay too much detail to the local village tavern owner to developing a fondness for the Big Bad at the dungeon and finding a way to save them from you.
tl;dr: It's a tool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Related to my exchange with the good doctor above ...
Here's something else to consider, one and all: What if one player has an issue with it, while the other players think the DMPC is great and that the complaining player has brain damage and/or an axe to grind?
I do think some players would never complain out of friendship, loyalty, or the fact that they don't want to blow the only game in town, either literally or figuratively.
But I also think there are players, some of whom have posted in this very thread, who'd complain about a DMPC with whom they'd not had an issue just because they have a bug up their ass about the very idea of it the size of a scarab beetle.
Good Doctor? "GOOD"!?! I didn't put myself thru eight years of Evil Dark Lord Necromancer School to be called "Good".
;-)
The thing to do- in that case or in any case with a DMPC running DM (you're exempt Jaelithe, since you run a solo campaign, so that's special) is to discuss the issue with all the players, sit down like adults and talk it out. The objecting player can explain he has had bad experience in the past, the DM can explain why, the other players can say they dont really mind, etc.
I actually have no huge objections to a DMPC if the DM in question just admits he/she is doing it to add to his/her enjoyment- since of course the DM gets to have fun also. AND they don't abuse it and make it a Mary Sue or the spotlight PC. (and we all agree on that, yes?)
In fact one of our DMs, a rather famous Game writer, did run DMPCs almost always. But they were just macguffins or roleplaying guides they didnt participate in Combat, they cast no significant spells, they didnt take a share of loot, in fact often they didnt even really have a set of stats. When combat came they'd just go into a corner and be defensive, maybe stabilizing a PC if it came to that. She often had her DMPCs have relationship with another PC or be the "Princess in need of escort" or something like that. Not a full fledged PC, a walking, talking plot point.
But anyway- just sit down and discuss it like adults. The DM should bring it up. That's all I am asking- ask yourself "WHY" and discuss it with your players.
On the other hand ... no DM running DMPCs is going to be aware that he or she should cease and desist if no one's called him or her on the issue, assuming one exists. Players who don't speak up don't effect change ... and that's the likely consequence of their reticence.Pro-DMPC DMs in this thread have conceded that they've seen it done wrong, that they themselves have done it wrong in the past, and that it's not something that players who don't like it should subject themselves to after a reasonable attempt at accommodation.
Which is why the DM needs to bring up the issue and ask the players. And if they seem hesitant, get a secret ballot.
Regardless, I'll quote a few posts I made upthread to answer your question about having positive experiences with someone else's GMPCFirst campaign I ever played, for example had two GMPCs from two co-GMs. Each of them were mutual party members and neither of them pulled any of the horrible GMPC stunts you see discussed in these threads.
One was a debuff evil cleric and the other a Neutral Good THW Fighter.
Tons of fun and the GMPCs really contributed to the party's dynamic, while being 'just another party member' in combat.In short, these two characters were no different from my own, the Rogue or the Druid. They were just a Personal Character of a player at the table.
EDIT: just to be clear, although the Co-DMs did rotate 'primary DMship' between sessions, both played their character in every session they were able to get to, including while they were the primary DM.
Rotating DMs- much like Jaelithe and her solo campaign- are exceptions.
These weren't rotating GMs in the way rotating GMs are normally thought of. They Co-GMd and pretty much rotated session by session running the same campaign.
EDIT: that being said, may I inquire the specific details of why they're an exception? Is it assumed the other GM will keep them in check or something?
Yep. And in many cases, everyone is taking a turn, but not in yours.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This IS the insidious nature of the GMPC trap, every boon you grant your GMPC is perfectly rational, perfectly meant to help the party, and makes perfect sense in your eyes. What you don't see is the resentment each GMPC boon places in the eyes of your PCs, they see a story about the GMPC with them as sidekicks where you see a helpful GMPC moving the story along and keeping them alive.
Ahem.
This IS the insidious nature of theGMPCSO-PC trap, every boon you grant yourGMPCSO-PC is perfectly rational, perfectly meant to help the party, and makes perfect sense in your eyes. What you don't see is the resentment eachGMPCSO-PC boon places in the eyes of your PCs, they see a story about theGMPCSO-PC with them as sidekicks where you see a helpfulGMPCSO-PC moving the story along and keeping them alive.
(That's "Significant Other's-Player Character" for the record.)
((That's a PC that belongs to the GM's significant other.))This IS the insidious nature of theGMPCBFPC trap, every boon you grant yourGMPCBFPC is perfectly rational, perfectly meant to help the party, and makes perfect sense in your eyes. What you don't see is the resentment eachGMPCBFPC boon places in the eyes of your PCs, they see a story about theGMPCBFPC with them as sidekicks where you see a helpfulGMPCBFPC moving the story along and keeping them alive.
(That's "Best Friend's Player Character" for the record.)
((That's a PC that belongs to a GM's PC.))This IS the insidious nature of theGMPCFNPC trap, every boon you grant yourGMPCFNPC is perfectly rational, perfectly meant to help theparty, and makes perfect sense in your eyes. What you don't see is the resentment eachGMPCFNPC boon places in the eyes of your PCs, they see a story about theGMPCFNPC with them assidekicksirrelevant where you see a[n]helpfulGMPCFNPC moving the story along and keepingthem alivethings going correctly.
(That's "Favored Non-Player Character" for the record.)
((That's an NPC that likely only appears every once in a while, that does all of the important things off screen. This can also be a villain.))There is nothing within this post that applies to GMPCs by nature of GMPCs.
All of those have Sissyl's issue of "emotional attachment".
But "emotional attachment" isn't the problem. A GM absolutely can feel free to have "emotional attachment" to: NPCs, their significant other's PCs, their best friend's PCs, their own PCs.
That is never the actual problem.
The actual problem is the inability to control oneself or view the situation with an honest eye.
I have seen all of those done well, and I've seen all of them tank a game, hard - yes, GMPCs, too.
Before I ever GM'd, I was a player with GMPCs. (Not every time, but more than once.)
As a player, as one who had never GM'd, I loved them.
Incidentally, one of the reasons I liked them is because they allowed me to interact with my friends' character in a more persistent and consistent way while gaming.
The GMs were nice and reasonable, and I was the most vocal proponent at the table for giving the GMPC stuff (as the GM was reluctant to give them anything; I found that dumb), though, generally, the group agreed with me.
When I first started GMing, I notably did not GMPC from the beginning. Rather, I did so when we were at a low number once, were eager to play, no one wanted to run multiple people (their real lives were really busy and new players), and I didn't have the technical skill at the time to reduce or alter the CRs or encounters enough, despite it being homebrew - at the time, I knew how to make encounters well, but only balanced around the four main groups, even if they were built in a sub-par manner - and, you know, I wasn't interested in a brutal, "and here's how all of your characters died" game as their first time gaming. This was a recognition of my own GMing skill, and my first GMPC was a decision based off of this.
That first GMPC came to be viewed as integral to the party by the players. He was important, and was required to step up. I, too, made the halting, hesitating GMPC, who remained quiet and wanted to stay in the background. My players didn't like that. I was called out when the GMPC - who was really more of a tagalong NPC - was not living up to his charisma, his knowledge, or his skill set. They came to him for advice around his chosen specialty, and I had to really quickly learn how to handle the fact that I had knowledge that he didn't, and vice versa. He ended up a bit on the too-dumb side, and my players called me on it.
(My second ended up a bit on the too-knowledgeable side, and my players called me on it as well.)
I like to think I've improved from then, but I obviously can't say for sure, at least not with my own assessments.
I've enjoyed some GMPCs more and some less since I've GMPC'd. It's allowed me to see some done better and some worse, because I have my own experience to go, "That's a good idea, I should do that when I run similar." or "That's... not a good idea, and harms the play experience. Note to self." and then I go on with gaming.
This is true of SO-PCs, BFPCs, GMPCs, and NPCs. This is true of railroad plots (they can be great, but I feel that I can't do them well), and sandboxes (oh, man, can these implode... or be AWESOME); magic, psionics, guns; fantasy, sci-fi, modern, eastern, western medieval, romance, steam punk, mana punk, or other genre; or combat heavy or RP heavy; a game can even be ruined or exalted by a setting or characters in it.
(There are more options - I've just forgotten them.)
None of this inherently reveals an immature, weak, poor, or confused GM. None of it shows a bad, unskilled, new, or old GM. None of this inherently displays a good, mature, clever, strong, focused, skilled GM either.
This is all "correct" and it all works or fails based exclusively on collective total Player (including GM) preferences and maturity and social interactions and skill.
Demanding one thing that others have proven successful "always bad" and "should always be avoided" is myopic and self-absorbed. I've definitely been guilty of this myself.
What can be said are things ranging from, "I don't like it." to, "I'm very grateful I'm not part of that experience, as it hits all of the 'that's terrible' buttons; I'm glad you have fun, but let's mutually agree not to play like that together, 'cause daggum."
Both of these are valid, as they express something factual.
Certainly anyone can say, "I doubt such, due to my own experiences." which is fine, and human.
But to insist that someone else's claims are invalid and demand that people change their terminology for your own convenience? No, that's rude and close-minded.
Feel free to continue to use your terminology. That's totally you're right, even if I don't like it.
Similarly, I'm going to use mine and to argue with those who reject it, because I believe in my terminology. I've lived it to. It's a shame if it conflicts with yours, but that's how people roll sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no smurfing idea what's going on or where this change of pace came from...
...But it is less smurfing repetitious than the mother smurfing bull smurf that keeps smurfing in God smurf circles about this subject. Seriously, talk about beating a dead smurf.
I do!
Watch:
At this point both sides are pretty much just copying and pasting.
At this point both sides are pretty much just copying and pasting.
** spoiler omitted **
I see what you did there, Kalindlara. I see it.
We aren't supposed to huff the paste... well gonna have to figure out something else to do this weekend... maybe a good old fashioned smurf capturing expedition :-)
BAM. Smurfin' derailed in four, easy posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip> Sissyl's issue of "emotional attachment".
Oops.
Uh, okay, so, I sometimes make bad word choices and this was one of them.
I wish to clarify: I am not saying that Sissyl has an "emotional attachment" problem, but rather I was pointing out the argument that Sissyl made - the problem she mentioned being "emotional attachment" of a GM to their GMPC.
This was meant neither as an attack nor demeaning statement about anyone.
I apologize if this comes off in any way other than its intent. :/
EDIT: I mean, I'm also embarrassed by my near-constant spelling errors (which I mentioning here, 'cause, um... look, a distraction!), but those are not nearly as egregious as belittling someone in such a manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to the OP question.
I love the tool and the betterment of the game that the DMPC brings and henceforth there will be one in every game I DM.
Smurfs
...wall of rant...
Um... I know that started out aimed at me... but the later stuff, some of it I never did. So I am hoping this wasn't completely aimed at me or you are lying.
The first part however... we aren't talking about SOs, BFFs, or railroads, ect. Those are completely separate issues. We are talking about GMPCs. I have clearly stated the following
1- They CAN be done right. It is just rarer than them being done wrong.
2- Posted a list of helpful restrictions to avoid some of the biggest pitfalls of using a GMPC. no one has to use them all or even any of them they are just an example used by my group.
3- Continued to warn people to be careful about using them. Since the trap (you obviously missed the point in the part you quoted) IS that you can be completely blind to how unfair they might seem to players. You do something through the GMPC to help the group and it looks like you just gave the GMPC something they didn't have, it doesn't have to be a physical boon (perhaps that word was poorly chosen) it could be something like helpful knowledge for the PCs to use to complete the mission or an item they will need later. But then it's just a warning... I am certainly not saying ALL players see stuff this way, just that it CAN happen and to be careful.
On loot for dmpcs, one player treated a dmpc like his champion of sorts. He would turn over his loot to the dmpc so that the dmpc was stronger and could more capably have his back. Given how much loot can be in the game, it isn't hard to have enough to upgrade dmpcs, and given how item dependent the system is, it is a wise investment.
Humble dmpc accepted and his relationship with the pc improved - meaning he would protect that player with his support abilities.
|
I dislike GMPCs. If there's a legitimate need for an extra party member, I prefer to give the players the ability to run a second character to fill out the gaps.
For my upcoming campaign, since we have 3 players, what I'm doing is starting out with just those 3, but working in a stable of PC-caliber allies, that the party can call in to help out as needed/desired (I have about 7 prepared so far that they will meet on their way to level 4). These allies all fade to the background when the PCs don't want their help, and play minimal to no part in the story after their introduction. The players will control all of their actions within certain bounds while they are within the party (those bounds will basically be "Don't make them act wildly out of character").
I also plan to let the players introduce any potential backup characters they want in case of PC death to add to this roster, so it feels a little less out of nowhere when a PC dies and his replacement automatically shows up. And of course if a PC who dies wants to take over one of the NPCs, they're welcome to adopt it as their new PC, at which point any restrictions I did have on them are gone.
"I dislike DMPCs but I created a slew of them for the party, but wait it's different, THEY control the DMPC...."
Yeah, glad to hear that your flavor is the right one but almost the same flavor is bad/wrong.
Two chars can be enjoyable for small groups. Not everyone goes for it though, but sometimes I would love to have a bot to cover my main character. :D
Like an archer doing a bland arrow spam. Your main char gets most of the glory, the other one just mops up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?I think it's so self-evident it doesn't need to be conceded but ... since you're still on about it: I readily concede that point. You are correct on that aspect of the issue, DrDeth.
Dude ... no one's saying you haven't made valid points.
On the other hand ... no DM running DMPCs is going to be aware that he or she should cease and desist if no one's called him or her on the issue, assuming one exists. Players who don't speak up don't effect change ... and that's the likely consequence of their reticence.
Pro-DMPC DMs in this thread have conceded that they've seen it done wrong, that they themselves have done it wrong in the past, and that it's not something that players who don't like it should subject themselves to after a reasonable attempt at accommodation.
That's as close as the two sides are likely to get.
Honestly speaking, there's no way for a GM to know they're doing anything right without feedback from the players. If players secretly hate that the GM uses puzzles but when he asks for feedback they explicitly never mention their distaste for puzzles then they'd best get used to seeing more puzzles.
I tend to ask for feedback on my games from my groups frequently if not after each session. Common questions include things like:
1. What was your favorite part of the game? Why?
2. What was your least favorite part? Why?
3. For your least favorite part, what would you have liked to have seen or how might it be better?
4. Are there themes or elements that you'd like to explore or have the opportunity to explore?
Stuff like that. In all honesty, the argument that the GM may be running one and his PCs not telling him they don't like it is about as silly as suggesting that GMs are probably bad because they use orcs, because the players may not like orcs but won't tell you. Replace "orcs" with literally any aspect of the game ever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when used poorly and well, was that in any way related to the GM rooting for the GMPC as THEIR CHARACTER IN THAT GAME? See, that is the only relevant distinction. If you consider a GMPC to mean a character traveling with the party, of course they can enrich a campaign whatever their power level. But once the GM indulges his/her desire to play as well, things go south fast.
I root for all the PCs in the game, and then I drop a beholder on them. I still hope they win though. :)
EDIT: A summary of Ashiel the GM as follows.
When Assisting Players: Lawful Good. I want to ensure everyone's having fun, and I'm perfectly open to examining homebrew content or making some for you to help you have your character be healthy and happy.
When Arbitrating: Lawful Neutral. I liked that character too but it failed its save. That's the breaks.
When Making Encounters & Challenges: Lawful Evil. 'Nuff said.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, though off-topic, I'll defend my post.
I apologize if it comes off as attacking you, specifically, somehow, instead of just the specific argument I quoted for the reasons I quoted.
...wall of rant...
Um... I know that started out aimed at me... but the later stuff, some of it I never did. So I am hoping this wasn't completely aimed at me or you are lying.
"Aimed at" you? What?
The only thing I quoted was the part that I had a problem with.
I have no idea what you mean here. What could possibly be construed as "aimed at" you?
After rereading this part, a lot in making this post, I'm guessing you took this personally somehow, like I was accusing you of doing all those things. I've no idea why you'd read them as an accusation, but that's how this part comes off to me.
I'm sorry it came off that way, but... that's a very different take on what I wrote, when I engaged in a common practice of "strikethrough-and-replace text to make a point"; when I never mentioned that you did anything within that, only that your argument was flawed based on its premise.
Any use of the term "you" in said segments is literally only what was already within your own post, hence, any possible take from that is purely a reflection of the way you read what you wrote and none whatsoever on the intent of anyone else.
In other words, if you've a problem with the wording, I would strongly reconsider the way in which you word your posts.
I would also strongly reconsider (though not necessarily avoid) accusing someone or even strongly implying the strong likelihood, of lying. That's exceptionally provocative language.
Please go through my posting history at your leisure. I am not generally the kind of person who seeks to impugn others unless they've done something extreme.
The first part however... we aren't talking about SOs, BFFs, or railroads, ect. Those are completely separate issues. We are talking about GMPCs.
It feels like you really missed the point.
Of course we're not discussing those things. I know what we're talking about. It's self-evident that it's the title of the thread, and in the post of yours that I quoted.
The problem, as I pointed out in my post, is that the part of your argument that I quoted - the only part that I quoted - literally applies to any of those things when done poorly.
For insight into my post, I built off of that argument later, to include other problems listed, i.e. the "emotional attachment" argument that Sissyl had forwarded earlier, because it was a reasonable argument with solid points, though I did not draw the same conclusion, and thus I wanted to address it, and, linguistically ("narratively"? I'm not sure of the correct word, exactly), it felt like it logically flowed from your own example/argument.
Obviously, to your perception it did not, and somehow felt like I was accusing you of doing those things (or something, I waffle back and forth as to what you mean).
I have clearly stated the following
1- They CAN be done right. It is just rarer than them being done wrong.
2- Posted a list of helpful restrictions to avoid some of the biggest pitfalls of using a GMPC. no one has to use them all or even any of them they are just an example used by my group.
3- Continued to warn people to be careful about using them. Since the trap (you obviously missed the point in the part you quoted) IS that you can be completely blind to how unfair they might seem to players. You do something through the GMPC to help the group and it looks like you just gave the GMPC something they didn't have, it doesn't have to be a physical boon (perhaps that word was poorly chosen) it could be something like helpful knowledge for the PCs to use to complete the mission or an item they will need later. But then it's just a warning... I am certainly not saying ALL players see stuff this way, just that it CAN happen and to be careful.
And I accept that. I didn't respond to that because it wasn't relevant to the point that I was making or the part of your post that I was referring to.
You created a poetic statement that was, to my way of reading, incidentally (not purposefully, as that would be lying) deceptive in the manner it spun the arguments.
Therefore I responded to that part and that part alone, used that to build my own arguments, and then go on to the rest of my point.
I do hope that you, Aranna, do well and enjoy your games.
I have said nothing to purposefully impugn or reduce your positive arguments, and have avoided doing so on purpose. I also haven't addressed arguments of yourself or others that I felt were adequately covered or had nothing, personally, to contribute to that line of conversation.
Please do be aware that I am not a poster who tends to attack others. If something seems aimed at you, please question if it is, but more than likely it is not.
(And if it is, or definitely can come off that way, I will publicly apologize, as I did with the strange use of wording I used when referring to Sissyl's argument above.)