| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?Ok.
Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.
I have emotional attachment to all of my NPCs. :3
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amen. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always liked Maduin myself. ^_^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.
S'where Terra got her good looks. ;)
So any NPC who the GM cares about and tries to keep from getting killed is a GMPC? Does that include the BBEG?
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per RAW nothing exists and is merely a dream that was eaten by the Tarrasque.
I have emotional attachment to all of my NPCs. :3By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?Ok.
Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.
It is sad if they get it in the neck, but such is npc life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is sad if they get it in the neck, but such is npc life.I have emotional attachment to all of my NPCs. :3By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?Ok.
Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is sad if they get it in the neck, but such is npc life.I have emotional attachment to all of my NPCs. :3By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?Ok.
Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.
I've seen the "icky GMPC syndrome" occur for major NPCs as well. It's not limited to GMPCs. A lot of GMs are likely to cheat to keep an NPC they put a lot of work or thought into alive or ensure that the BBEG cannot die or something. All of this stuff relates to the exact same problems that lead to GMPCs being an issue for groups. It's all connected at the root.
Honestly it's very hard to find a GM that's worth playing under, GMPCs or otherwise.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you genuinely don't see the difference between making a personal PC that the DM takes control of and has personal vested interest in vs giving your players the ability to call upon allies made in game to work with them on their own terms?Because the former only works if the DM is really, really, good at avoiding personal bias. In my experience a lot of them aren't. I'm conscious of it being a problem, and still would rather avoid it by putting most of the power there into player hands rather than maintaining direct control. Games where the DM insists on running their DMPC isn't...
If you show me a DM who runs a DMPC badly with personal biases and such I would place a bet that the DM also is one of those that has his favorite Big Bad Evil Guy escape at the last moment no matter what the PCs do, and somehow combats last exactly as long as the DM deems it to despite whatever damage the PCs have done, and NPCs seem to always survive as long as he decides they do, and the PCs will be knocked unconscious and taken prisoner when he decides that is what he wants the story to do.....This is all bad DMing. It isn't about a certain aspect of the game being wrong, it's about a DM's inability to properly use a certain aspect of the game fairly without bias. If a DM is gonna lay favorites with a DMPC he is gonna do it with NPCs and BBEGs also. Part of being a good arbitrator(which is what DMs should be) is being unbiased. I roll in the open so the PCs can see that I don't "cheat" rolls for effect. I do not adjust HP on the fly to make things more harrowing. I do not play favorites with BBEGs by making up a last minute way for them to survive the encounter. If a monster is fighting 2 PCs and needs to attack one and neither has stood out as the more imminent threat, I roll to see who he attacks. Fairness. That is what DMing is about and if it isn't done well then the problem isn't in the tool (the DMPC) it's in the user of the tool.
If you show me a DM who runs a DMPC badly with personal biases and such I would place a bet that the DM also is one of those that has his favorite Big Bad Evil Guy escape at the last moment no matter what the PCs do, and somehow combats last exactly as long as the DM deems it to despite whatever damage the PCs have done, and NPCs seem to always survive as long as he decides they do, and the PCs will be knocked unconscious and taken prisoner when he decides that is what he wants the story to do.....This is all bad DMing. It isn't about a certain aspect of the game being wrong, it's about a DM's inability to properly use a certain aspect of the game fairly without bias. If a DM is gonna lay favorites with a DMPC he is gonna do it with NPCs and BBEGs also. Part of being a good arbitrator(which is what DMs should be) is being unbiased. I roll in the open so the PCs can see that I don't "cheat" rolls for effect. I do not adjust HP on the fly to make things more harrowing. I do not play favorites with BBEGs by making up a last minute way for them to survive the encounter. If a monster is fighting 2 PCs and needs to attack one and neither has stood out as the more imminent threat, I roll to see who he attacks. Fairness. That is what DMing is about and if it isn't done well then the problem isn't in the tool (the DMPC) it's in the user of the tool.
So you genuinely don't see the difference between making a personal PC that the DM takes control of and has personal vested interest in vs giving your players the ability to call upon allies made in game to work with them on their own terms?Because the former only works if the DM is really, really, good at avoiding personal bias. In my experience a lot of them aren't. I'm conscious of it being a problem, and still would rather avoid it by putting most of the power there into player hands rather than maintaining direct control. Games where the DM insists on running their DMPC isn't...
Good Dming, bad Dming is subjective. Some gaming groups place little emphasis on mechanics, with more focus on story and don't mind that the villain gets away, it's more thrilling for them, it creates added drama to the narrative.
I personally don't like GMPCs, because as a player I want the adventuring party to make it or break it on their own. I love the challenge that independence can bring. This is my preference.
Every DM has a bias or personal preference. Who does the monster attack? How is alignment being treated in the game? How does low charisma and social interaction work?
Rolling (or randomness) to make non-bias decisions is fair, yet you sacrifice immersion and the ability to convince the players that this is happening for real.
A goblin is most likely to attack a dwarf over another race based on racial enmity. It's not fair, however that's what goes on in the world of Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read that in a vogon's voice.It is sad if they get it in the neck, but such is npc life.I have emotional attachment to all of my NPCs. :3By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?Ok.
Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.
I see you have understood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that it IS fair because it's what goes on in Golarion.
Dwarves have a bonus against Goblins for a reason, because the two groups are constant enemies.
I don't disagree with you, but fair is not the word I would use, true to the setting and the themes within sure.
What's a +1 bonus anyway, not really much of a bonus in the broader scheme of the power level of class abilities and optimisation; is it a bonus for dwarves if they are going to be frequently targeted by the many enemies they have accumulated over time in the history of fantasy lore.
When I have donned the GM cowled cloak, I stayed true to the setting and the story, which created bias, and I think that's what makes roleplaying games unique, quite different to video games in that the exact same story is often interpreted differently, the experience is always different.
It allows us to share familiar stories (like Adventure Paths) which can be vastly different from each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMPCs by raw do not exist.
I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every badDM has a bias or personal preference.
Fixed that for you.
I can't do a front flip from a standing position. It doesn't mean no one can. I can't breakdance. It doesn't mean no one can. I can't skateboard. It doesn't mean no one can.If you can't put away personal bias and preference as a DM it doesn't mean no one can. Your limitations are your own, not mine, and my limitations don't determine your own.
Rolling to make unbiased decisions doesn't break immersion any more than rolling a saving throw or an attack roll does. Dice rolls determine the random aspects of the game. If you can't separate the dice rolls of the mechanics of the game from your immersion in the game then you are genuinely screwed when you have to roll your 3 attacks and reflex save this round in combat. But sure, the DM rolling to determine who a baddie attacks is breaking immersion...
I don't think people are understanding personal bias. Personal bias doesn't necessarily mean favoring a GMPC over the players, although that is a form of it. Every decision is colored by your own take on things and that is what personal bias is. Good personal bias might be favoring the PCs over any monsters or NPCs, saying yes instead of no by default when a player suggests something, or even favoring heroically themed adventures over villainous ones. Everyone has some form of personal bias by being human.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire thread is full of personal bias being represented as empirical data. Which is what I was mocking.
EDIT: I should says that I agree with Sissyl more often than not, and enjoy her insights on a great many things. This instance was just me mocking the defender of the (imho) absurd. I'm sorry if it seemed personal, it truly was not. My inner troll likes come out and play sometimes ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people are understanding personal bias. Personal bias doesn't necessarily mean favoring a GMPC over the players, although that is a form of it. Every decision is colored by your own take on things and that is what personal bias is. Good personal bias might be favoring the PCs over any monsters or NPCs, saying yes instead of no by default when a player suggests something, or even favoring heroically themed adventures over villainous ones. Everyone has some form of personal bias by being human.
I think I have an issue with personal bias being equated with judgment. Most notably...
noun
1. a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography; our strong bias in favor of the idea.
noun
1. an act or instance of judging.
2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion:
a man of sound judgment.
3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity:
The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.
What you describe as good personal bias I see as a very bad thing as well. As a GM, I will not favor my PCs over monsters and NPCs, say yes instead of no by default, etc. In fact, I will not do the opposite of those things either. I will, however, judge each situation as fairly as possible. This is not bias, it's doing your job.
By accepting the risk of bias one can overcome it. There are many very negative things that are innate aspects of our humanity, including but not limited to destructive instincts and behaviors that we can rise above. Even the mere fact that some people here note that even if they think that GMPCs could work but that they themselves do not feel they can pull it off shows a great deal of higher thought process from these people as they can evaluate their situation and make a well thought judgment on it, recognizing their own strengths and playing better to those.
But I apologize, I just do not agree with your proposed bias.
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?
I added back the rest of the statement. Don't scold me with part of an idea.
I added back the rest of the statement. Don't scold me with part of an idea.
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?
Doesn't change anything but to disambiguate the question I was asking. What does "rules as written," have to do with GM's running player characters in their own games?
Let me illustrate what I'm getting at.
GM: After Gargamel tosses you out the window you land in the moat.
PLAYER: Gargamel isn't RAW.
GM: ???
Every badDM has a bias or personal preference.
Fixed that for you.
I can't do a front flip from a standing position. It doesn't mean no one can. I can't breakdance. It doesn't mean no one can. I can't skateboard. It doesn't mean no one can.
If you can't put away personal bias and preference as a DM it doesn't mean no one can. Your limitations are your own, not mine, and my limitations don't determine your own.
Rolling to make unbiased decisions doesn't break immersion any more than rolling a saving throw or an attack roll does. Dice rolls determine the random aspects of the game. If you can't separate the dice rolls of the mechanics of the game from your immersion in the game then you are genuinely screwed when you have to roll your 3 attacks and reflex save this round in combat. But sure, the DM rolling to determine who a baddie attacks is breaking immersion...
A saving throw or an attack roll (rolling the dice) is not a decision. For example "Sorry GM I'm deciding not to roll a saving throw against that Charm Person spell." I have never seen it happen, because you don't have a choice.
What I was getting at in my post is there are pros and cons in GMing, not always bad/good Gming.
GMPCs produce a certain play style, and/or influence play style, and posters such as Jaelithe and Kyrt-Ryder have used them or experienced them being used to much good effect.
Just because the GMPC play style conflicts with your current play style or perspective and your PREFERENCE is not to use them or play in games they are being used does not mean it shows your limitations as a GM.
Game mechanics and how they relate to specific characteristics (immersion) in the game has been going on since the very beginning of RPGs, even in influential games before that like Chainmail and the class 'fighting men'.
I added back the rest of the statement. Don't scold me with part of an idea.
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?Doesn't change anything but to disambiguate the question I was asking. What does "rules as written," have to do with GM's running player characters in their own games?
Let me illustrate what I'm getting at.
GM: After Gargamel tosses you out the window you land in the moat.
PLAYER: Gargamel isn't RAW.
GM: ???
Any character the GM runs is an NPC. Not a PC. When I run an NPC as part of a party, I keep reminding myself of that.
Since I and everyone else keep repeating the same points, I'm going to hide this topic. Don't DM me about this.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people are understanding personal bias. Personal bias doesn't necessarily mean favoring a GMPC over the players, although that is a form of it. Every decision is colored by your own take on things and that is what personal bias is. Good personal bias might be favoring the PCs over any monsters or NPCs, saying yes instead of no by default when a player suggests something, or even favoring heroically themed adventures over villainous ones. Everyone has some form of personal bias by being human.
There is a problem with this stance as humans have agency and can be quite reflective/reflexive.
For example, a dm can identify their own biases and go directly against them to ensure all their games aren't the same, go the same way, have the same villains and heroes. It is defying established conventions, and one's own biases. We can identify our biases and counter them (e.g. I like to have betrayals, plots, scheming and death traps, but I also ensure these aren't spammed all the time and while sometimes there are betrayals, plots etc, sometimes there is loyalty, characters acting without plotting and scheming and quite safe areas - some would-be dungeons actually turn out as safe havens or potential bases. This is certainly a relief for pcs on the run). We can fight our biases after we recognise what they are, we are not destined to repeat them unthinkingly.
Think of it this way and ask has this ever happened for you. There are types of characters you like and those you do not like. Have you ever put in those you don't like but given them attention and a place ensuring they were well-rounded and not just caricatures? If you are biased against certain types of people, certain characters you could present them in a wholly negative light or they never even exist, or you could defy your own biases and push yourself as a storyteller.
If you have done that, you have escaped your bias. There are other ways as well, this is simply illustrative.
I added back the rest of the statement. Don't scold me with part of an idea.
GMPCs by raw do not exist. If you were talking about NPCs adventuring with characters, I doubt most of you would be making these broad assumptions.I am curious what exactly you thought this was adding. Care to eloborate?Doesn't change anything but to disambiguate the question I was asking. What does "rules as written," have to do with GM's running player characters in their own games?
Let me illustrate what I'm getting at.
GM: After Gargamel tosses you out the window you land in the moat.
PLAYER: Gargamel isn't RAW.
GM: ???
Any character the GM runs is an NPC. Not a PC. When I run an NPC as part of a party, I keep reminding myself of that.
Since I and everyone else keep repeating the same points, I'm going to hide this topic. Don't DM me about this.
If it's part of the party then it isn't non-player anymore. It's definitely a player character. Who's player character is it? The GMs, thus GMPC.
I still don't understand why you brought "RAW" into the discussion. It isn't a related concept.
Also, this topic and your opinion aren't valuable enough to me to PM you. So, no worries for you there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assure you my nose is slightly bent due to that a###@~#'s cheap shot in high school, not because of GMPOVDMZ threads
It does crack me up how many times it's gone around in circles.... even the Merry Go Around got off a couple pages back......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people are understanding personal bias. Personal bias doesn't necessarily mean favoring a GMPC over the players, although that is a form of it. Every decision is colored by your own take on things and that is what personal bias is. Good personal bias might be favoring the PCs over any monsters or NPCs, saying yes instead of no by default when a player suggests something, or even favoring heroically themed adventures over villainous ones. Everyone has some form of personal bias by being human.There is a problem with this stance as humans have agency and can be quite reflective/reflexive.
For example, a dm can identify their own biases and go directly against them to ensure all their games aren't the same, go the same way, have the same villains and heroes. It is defying established conventions, and one's own biases. We can identify our biases and counter them (e.g. I like to have betrayals, plots, scheming and death traps, but I also ensure these aren't spammed all the time and while sometimes there are betrayals, plots etc, sometimes there is loyalty, characters acting without plotting and scheming and quite safe areas - some would-be dungeons actually turn out as safe havens or potential bases. This is certainly a relief for pcs on the run). We can fight our biases after we recognise what they are, we are not destined to repeat them unthinkingly.
Think of it this way and ask has this ever happened for you. There are types of characters you like and those you do not like. Have you ever put in those you don't like but given them attention and a place ensuring they were well-rounded and not just caricatures? If you are biased against certain types of people, certain characters you could present them in a wholly negative light or they never even exist, or you could defy your own biases and push yourself as a storyteller.
If you have done that, you have escaped your bias. There are other ways as well, this is simply illustrative.
Excellent point. I didn't intend to imply we were locked down by our biases. Only that they exist and should be noted. Only when we are aware of them can we overcome them.
I didn't intend to imply we were locked down by our biases. Only that they exist and should be noted. Only when we are aware of them can we overcome them.Or, alternately, decide they're entirely appropriate.
~laughs~
Yes that as well.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....not much more to say about this
-pappy smurf
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This entire thread is full of personal bias being represented as empirical data. Which is what I was mocking.
"Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation." wiki.
I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, in dozens of groups, with dozens and dozens of DMs- that DMPCs are usually a bad idea. This includes the times when I ran the DMPC, and found out later- it wasn't a good idea.
I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, that in the cases where the DMPC was a bad idea, that the DM was always clueless and had no idea it was annoying the heck out of his players, or that was why so many were leaving.
I have also seen a few times where they were no big deal, and added to the DM's fun- which means they made the game more fun for everyone.
So there's "empirical data" for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you praise empirical evidence so strongly, how do you respond to the empirical evidence of the other side?
If there is a whole other course and a series of observable events from multiple people with experiences entirely different to your own, that you claim cannot happen because they didn't happen to you, how do you respond to that empirical observed evidence?
I put it like this. We can do better and we can improve, and we can learn to use dmpcs well to the benefit of the game and its players. My players have said they don't want their dmpcs to go, they want the dmpcs to continue to tag along, to share the light and successes with them because they are well fleshed out npcs that have their back. With roleplaying connections to them and stories they build with these forms of npcs, they don't want to discard them. This isn't really so hard to grasp, but in running a dmpc a dm has to take some of the great advice on this thread to heart, and be conscious of it when running one or many dmpcs.
P.S to provide a further example. In a recent political rpg game very similar to kingmaker, two of my players rose to prominence and power by supporting two dmpcs. Perhaps they realised what types of characters they were and trusted them to gain great power alongside the pcs. Yes, the attention was on the players, it was all about their actions and how they shape events, but they helped the dmpcs gain more power than them - it truly became a story of kingmaker (one dmpc became queen, so queenmaker). Possibly allies that would help you if supported gave the players (including one timid one) an ally to focus on aiding while improving themselves and their base of power. In Jade Regent we also find npcs that accompany the players and Ameiko Kaijitsu is a central focus of the story, as she is aided in her attempts to save her people and assume the throne. Dms are quite attached to her, as she is dmpc-ed through the campaign in her grand quest. Dmpcs are already in the adventure paths, they are already here and it is illustrated across multiple groups according to their empirical evidence that it can be done and done well. Thank you for reading.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you praise empirical evidence so strongly, how do you respond to the empirical evidence of the other side?
If there is a whole other course and a series of observable events from multiple people with experiences entirely different to your own, that you claim cannot happen because they didn't happen to you, how do you respond to that empirical observed evidence?
Well, since in most cases it's DMs who say "I run DMPC's and my players love them!" I respond with "I have personally observed, thru forty years of playing and DMing, that in the cases where the DMPC was a bad idea, that the DM was always clueless and had no idea it was annoying the heck out of his players, or that was why so many were leaving.".
So, I get to dismiss the biased evidence of DMs praising their own use of DMPCs, since I did it , and I found out I was deluded myself.
But again, like I said: I have also seen a few times where they were no big deal, and added to the DM's fun- which means they made the game more fun for everyone.
So, by no means are DMPCs always bad. Just dont think that just because your players aren't complaining TO YOU about your DMPC that they love it.
It costs nothing to discuss the issue with your players. Also, think about games where you were a player and the DM ran a DMPC- did you like it?
As I once posted:
"Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.
Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.
Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.
Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.
I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.
I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run."
Again- by no means are DMPCs always bad. Just think about it, talk about it with your players. Dont assume.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In science, a traditional study is more valid than a case study.
Similarly, the opinions of 40 people who played 1 year are more valid than the opinion of 1 person who played 40 years.
That doesn't mean your opinion is invalid, but you can't disregard dozens of people saying stuff contrary to your opinion just because they haven't played as long as you have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In science, a traditional study is more valid than a case study.
Similarly, the opinions of 40 people who played 1 year are more valid than the opinion of 1 person who played 40 years.
That doesn't mean your opinion is invalid, but you can't disregard dozens of people saying stuff contrary to your opinion just because they haven't played as long as you have.
Sure. As long as they have played both as DMPC running DMs and as Players in several campaigns with DMPCs.
I can disregard those who have only run DMPCs and have never seen it from the other side.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.
Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.
Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.
Now DMPCs are NPCs, a definite change in goal posts.
NPCs are a supporting cast for the players, DMPCs are quite different as NPCs don't normally join an adventuring party.
It also depends on how you play the Pathfinder game, pvp or tabletop, DMPCs would function quite differently in both of these methods of playing the Pathfinder game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.
Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.
1. Your "definition" of DMPC is pointless, because it's essentially vague to the point of meaninglessness. In addition, it runs counter to the concept expressed in literally dozens of posts in this thread. DMPC is not a term of quality, but rather purpose. Not all good NPC's are DMPC's (I know this, because I've both seen and played good NPC's that would not typically be called DMPC's) and not all DMPC's are good (I know because I've had games ruined by them).
2. Talking about verisimilitude is pointless. The line of demarcation for what is believable for one person is not the same as the next. Even similar concepts of believability will become radically different from one gaming table to the next due to small differences in RAI or house rules.
I've come to the belief that verisimilitude is a shield (maybe unwittingly) to defend ones viewpoint in an attempt to make it unassailable, even when it can be provably shown that something IS realistic (as in it has happened in the real world) but people refuse to allow it in their games.
I've dealt with enough bad DMPC's that several friends and I have a code word for when we're planning on turning on them and killing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now DMPCs are NPCs, a definite change in goal posts.
NPCs are a supporting cast for the players, DMPCs are quite different as NPCs don't normally join an adventuring party.
It also depends on how you play the Pathfinder game, pvp or tabletop, DMPCs would function quite differently in both of these methods of playing the Pathfinder game.
Exactly.
From reading through this thread, it’s glaringly obvious that there’s a vast chasm of understanding between the two sides as to what constitutes an NPC and what constitutes a GMPC.
This is how I see it:
A major, story-significant NPC is not the main character of the story, nor even one of the main characters of the story. They are supporting cast. They may tag along with the PCs for a while. They may have to ... there are even Adventure Paths released by Paizo that uses this idea and uses it well. They are central to the plot, they can't be casually disregarded or forgotten about and the GM gets to roleplay them both extensively and in depth.
They are still, however, NPCs.
A GMPC is when the GM creates a Player Character. Not a Non-Player Character. It is when a GM wants to be one of the players and makes a character to adventure alongside them on equal terms.
But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.
No matter what the arguments in favour of GMPCs may be, this is an irrefutable, incontestible fact. The GM, being the person running the game, will always have a huge advantage over ordinary players, in that he or she knows the entire story, every trap location, every weakness of every monster, every secret door, every cleverly disguised NPC subterfuge and every location of every piece of loot.
Which is just for starters.
And don't even get started on the incredible awkwardness of watching an actual NPC and a GMPC leading a conversation with the same person making up both sides of the talking. That's one way to instantly reduce the players to spectators. And when the GM actively tries not to ask the "right" questions to avoid abusing his story-related knowledge, it gets even weirder, with players either wondering why the GMPC is not asking the obvious questions, or they can deduce what the obvious questions would be, based on the sheer awkwardness of the conversation going on.
I do not believe in the existence of a well run GMPC. I believe that a lot of players don't want to hurt their GMs feelings. I believe that a lot of players somehow manage to convince themselves it's not entirely horrible. But I don't believe an actual GMPC is ever beneficial to the game, or that it is appropriate.
I do believe that very major NPCs, with the limitations normally applied to NPCs, are entirely appropriate. I do believe that GMs can influence the game in a significant manner through the way he or she roleplays their major, story-significant NPCs, and that this is the way to go.
I think that a lot of the arguments and the "empirical evidence" (a term I find incredibly hard to apply to this debate in the first place) provided by both sides, shows that there's simply no consensus as to what is an NPC and what is a GMPC.
But because of the inherent, automatic and, in my opinion, incontrovertible fact that GMs know all there is to know at any given time within the narratives of the stories they are telling, GMPCs can never, under any circumstance, for any reason or through any legerdemain, subterfuge or skulduggery be equal to the other PCs, and this means that either the GM has to constantly take a back seat (which effectively reduces their GMPC to an NPC ... and which in my opinion is the way to go), deliberately dumb down their play to a point where it becomes both akward and obvious to the players in order to avoid taking advantage of their additional knowledge of the campaign (which seems counter to the entire idea of making a GMPC in the first place) or they will be the Mary Sue that my experience shows that they tend to end up being, solving every riddle the other players can't immediately figure out, procuring every good deal, every diplomatic breakthrough and every killing blow against great and overwhelming monstrosities, thereby reducing the PCs to bit players in their own story. Effectively making them the story-equivalent of walk-on extras with the occasional line.
Again, let me stress this and underscore it with the thickest line imaginable: NPCs that are an awesome tool for any GM. They can and should be RP'd as much and as vividly as the GM feels comfortable with, and they should certainly have enough personality to set them apart from other NPCs. They can, and occasionally should, come along on adventures ... for example, a drop of fresh blood from a specific person is required to open the final seal leading into the Tomb of the Horrific Blancmange of Doom. It's not enough to bring that drop of blood in a vial. It has to be fresh from the wound.
Tadahh ... behold, a reason to let that NPC tag along for an adventure. Death to Blancmanges!
The NPC may very well, over the course of this adventure, form lasting and deep friendships with the PCs and will be a recurring friend over the next many adventures the PCs undertake, where they set out to thwart the Pixie Menace threatening the friendly Storm Giants, destroying the Gingerbread House of Weight Gain, and killing the pink dragon Snybblefluff the eightyfourth. The NPC may even have an active role to play in one of those adventures.
But not in every single one of them, and not a plot-central part every time.
That's when an NPC insinuates themselves into a group and become the central focal point, and that's when they become GMPCs, where the GM slowly takes over the narrative, making it about his or her own character, to the detriment of the players.
In science, a traditional study is more valid than a case study.
Similarly, the opinions of 40 people who played 1 year are more valid than the opinion of 1 person who played 40 years.
There haven't been any case studies carried out. All we have is anecdotal evidence and personal experience.
There have clearly been dozens of campaigns spoiled by bad GMPCs. Other campaigns have been improved by them, or at least not made worse. I would suggest that the potential damage greatly exceeds the potential benefit. On this basis alone, I think a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't have a GMPC.
A good GM knows to stick to the rules of thumb. Don't go outside normal CR limits. Don't let PCs exceed wealth by level. Don't allow PvP conflict. Don't let the group split up. Don't break the game rules for the sake of a story you want to tell. Don't use the players as an audience, only as active participants. Make sure they know your decisions are not up for debate. Always prepare in advance so you don't have to improvise.
A great GM knows when and how to break these rules. A great GM can have a powerful ally follow the party around, be the centre of the plot, save the day, talk to the other NPCs, and be incredibly entertaining the whole time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a word for a synonym of entire paragraphs? You know how a synonym is essentially the same meaning, but a different word? Seeing a lot of those, but with paragraphs, back and forth. A lot of lengthy, well articulated reiterations of:
"It can't be done right. I've seen it failed many times."
"It can be done right, either I or a GM I was a player under has."
"Nah uh! See what I just said? About how it can't? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
"Ya huh! See what I just said? About how it can? Let me just say that again in a considerably more complicated manner to essentially emphasize exactly what I've already said!"
Well yeah, this thread has been going on for exactly 600 posts as of when I hit the submit button. The topic also doesn't allow for much of a breadth in opinions - It really seems to come down to a)yes, GMPCs can work, or b)no, GMPCs cant. Naturally there is going to be a lot of repetition.
On that note...*insert long lengthy paragraph about cautiously agreeing with a) here*