| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread makes me wonder how anyone runs cohorts. ^_^
Or how they handle someone playing in a module that they've run before. (Which is something TOZ brought up earlier.)
But I'm kind of bemused at BigDTBone's claim that it's beyond human capability to to decide "my character doesn't know ____, and therefore isn't acting on ____."
That can come up when just being a player, let alone being the GM.
That's really more a person-by-person thing. Some people in my group really struggle to keep their OOC and IC knowledge separate (to the point they'll actually have to reminded "your character can't possibly know that"), and some people don't.
Though to answer Kal's question: I let the player handle their cohort, only stepping in if the player is getting something obviously wrong (i.e., overriding if the cohort is about to do something that character wouldn't actually do. For example, vetoing the good-aligned cohort (well, mythic familiar, actually) dropping prismatic spray on a group of mind-controlled soldiers.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that my DMPC is the only one that has taken stat damage (so far) in the game I'm running. I must not be remembering the stat blocks correctly, or I'm super human.
YOU DECIDE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't trust ANYONE (including me) to mentally compartmentalize information in front of them in the module / on the stat block, and not use that knowledge while at the same time actively engaging the module and being a fully-realized party member contributing equally to the scenario.So long as you realize that means it's a trust issue for you, not that no one is capable of doing it.
Moreover, do you trust the GM not to use the information they have on the characters at the table in a fair manner and not use the meta-knowledge to target people unfairly knowing their weak scores, poor saves, gear choices, current buffs and so on?
Trust is a big deal in games, as in life. If you cannot trust the GM not to screw you over then you probably shouldn't play with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who knew I had super-human capabilities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your mom probably :-)
I don't trust ANYONE (including me) to mentally compartmentalize information in front of them in the module / on the stat block, and not use that knowledge while at the same time actively engaging the module and being a fully-realized party member contributing equally to the scenario.So long as you realize that means it's a trust issue for you, not that no one is capable of doing it.
What is amusing is that the few people who have responded have only keyed into half of my statement.
I didn't say people couldn't avoid metagame issues. I said that the person with the module in front of their face cant avoid metagame issues be fully-realized party member who contributes equally to the scenario.
The line you are trying to walk is beyond fine, the borders cross each other and the "line" you are looking for exists in negative space.
Part of scenarios is the mystery. It is actively trying to put pieces together to solve a puzzle. You CANNOT be actively engaged in solving a puzzle that you already know the answer to. IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, then your choices are (1) Say the answer outloud [metagame] or (2) Don't say the answer outloud [deadweight].
Trust has absolutely no consideration on the topic. What I describe is a human limitation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a party member that doesn't know the answer must be deadweight?
Could the GMPC be responsible for inventorying the clues up to that point for the group? That seems like an asset to any party trying to solve a puzzle and one extremely suited for a GMPC.
I don't trust ANYONE (including me) to mentally compartmentalize information in front of them in the module / on the stat block, and not use that knowledge while at the same time actively engaging the module and being a fully-realized party member contributing equally to the scenario.So long as you realize that means it's a trust issue for you, not that no one is capable of doing it.Moreover, do you trust the GM not to use the information they have on the characters at the table in a fair manner and not use the meta-knowledge to target people unfairly knowing their weak scores, poor saves, gear choices, current buffs and so on?
Trust is a big deal in games, as in life. If you cannot trust the GM not to screw you over then you probably shouldn't play with them.
Indeed. But it isn't what I'm talking about. Jaelithe selectively edited my post in the quote to remove my full context. I included the full context to avoid just such a comment.
But you also ignore part of my comment that is quoted, so I will go into it.
I'm not saying that I don't trust GM's, I'm saying that the task you lay out to accomplish by playing a full-on party member character in a game you are running cannot be achieved by any human person.
As a GM part of your job is to create puzzles. (Just to be clear, I mean this in the most disambiguated sense possible. Ie, a "puzzle" is everything from a story plot to a hidden switch in scope) In order to do that you have to know the answer.
As a player part of your job is to solve the puzzles the GM gives you. IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER then you can't solve the puzzle. Your choices are to (1) say the answer, or (2) not say the answer. Both of those choices have issues as stated in my previous post.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a party member that doesn't know the answer must be deadweight?
Could the GMPC be responsible for inventorying the clues up to that point for the group? That seems like an asset to any party trying to solve a puzzle and one extremely suited for a GMPC.
Regarding puzzles - I just assume the NPC (cohort or DMPC) can't figure it out. ^_^
There's tons of people who can't figure out a seemingly simple puzzle, no matter how smart they are - it's just not a skill they possess.
So a party member that doesn't know the answer must be deadweight?
No, but a *PLAYER* who isn't trying to solve the answer *IS* deadweight.
Could the GMPC be responsible for inventorying the clues up to that point for the group? That seems like an asset to any party trying to solve a puzzle and one extremely suited for a GMPC.
If the party wants to hire a scribe, and the GM wants to run the scribe, then go for it. That is an NPC role. That person gets paid 1sp a day (maybe a gp per week, if they are lucky), that person doesn't contribute to social encounters, that person stays back and away from combat encounters, and that person is level 2 at most. That is a hireling.
I'm talking about full-on party members, who have skills of their own (PC class levels) equal to the rest of the party (same level), and who get an equal cut of the loot (be it treasure, glory, or fame).
I dont have a problem with hirelings.
So a party member that doesn't know the answer must be deadweight?
Could the GMPC be responsible for inventorying the clues up to that point for the group? That seems like an asset to any party trying to solve a puzzle and one extremely suited for a GMPC.
Regarding puzzles - I just assume the NPC (cohort or DMPC) can't figure it out. ^_^
There's tons of people who can't figure out a seemingly simple puzzle, no matter how smart they are - it's just not a skill they possess.
Just to be clear, I mean this in the most disambiguated sense possible. Ie, a "puzzle" is everything from a story plot to a hidden switch in scope
I know you likely replied to pres man before I posted that, so I wanted to draw a clear line to what I meant.
Adventures who "just dont possess" the skill to solve puzzles within the bounds of how I have defined it here, aren't helping you. [dead weight]
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those of us who have tutored in areas of study like mathematics often know the best way to get someone to find an answer isn't (1) to tell them the answer outright or (2) say nothing. And I would hardly say that tutors are "deadweight". I think you might be holding all players and PCs to a specific standard that isn't valid when you say, "full-on party members". Certainly different players are active in different amounts when different aspects of the game are in play. Not everyone has to be Sherlock for them to be contributing members.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also say that I don't think anyone actually expects a DM running a DMPC to literally be both fully a player and fully a DM at the same time.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a party member that doesn't know the answer must be deadweight?
Could the GMPC be responsible for inventorying the clues up to that point for the group? That seems like an asset to any party trying to solve a puzzle and one extremely suited for a GMPC.
Regarding puzzles - I just assume the NPC (cohort or DMPC) can't figure it out. ^_^
There's tons of people who can't figure out a seemingly simple puzzle, no matter how smart they are - it's just not a skill they possess.
Just to be clear, I mean this in the most disambiguated sense possible. Ie, a "puzzle" is everything from a story plot to a hidden switch in scopeI know you likely replied to pres man before I posted that, so I wanted to draw a clear line to what I meant.
Adventures who "just dont possess" the skill to solve puzzles within the bounds of how I have defined it here, aren't helping you. [dead weight]
What about players who don't possess the skill to answer riddles (specifically)? ^_^
If it's an in-game skill (like fighting monsters or picking locks), I don't see how it would be hard to keep player/GM tactics separate. Can you give some more specific examples?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your mom probably :-)
MY MOM WHAT, EXACTLY. >:I
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my character doesn't typically search for hidden levers, why would my character start to do so when I the GM know there is actually a hidden lever? And since my character doesn't normally search for hidden levers, why would his not searching for the one in this case cause the party to view him or me as "dead weight" all of a sudden? Play the character, not the player.
If my character doesn't typically search for hidden levers, why would my character start to do so when I the GM know there is actually a hidden lever? And since my character doesn't normally search for hidden levers, why would his not searching for the one in this case cause the party to view him or me as "dead weight" all of a sudden? Play the character, not the player.
Apparently When I say, "The full scope of unknowns in the game from plot twists to hidden levers," it isn't clear what I am talking about.
So let me be more specific.
Things a DM knows (or at least should be able to know) that can involve an unknown to the players in the game:
What happens in the next week of game time at a "world" level if the players do nothing.
What happens in the next week of game time at a "local" level if the players do nothing.
What happens in both of those levels in the next week if players follow paths A, B, or C.
What happens at those levels, if the players take no action or follow a particular path in a Month, 6 Months, and a Year of game time.
What the major players in the world are doing at any given time, and how that relates to the PC's and plot.
What the major players locally are doing at any given time, and how that relates to the PC's and plot.
The lifestyle, wealth, family, alliances, and internal motivations of major players in the world and locally.
The nature and strength of every significant faction in the world.
The nature and strength of the alliances of those factions both locally and in the world.
The nature of politicking, espionage, power-grabs, power vacuums, revenge-plots, and media in every faction of the world, in every location in the world.
The locations of all people in the world at any given time.
The locations of all major and minor artifacts in the world at any given time.
The nature and location of every point of interest (castles, dungeons, ruins, etc) in the world.
The nature and strength of every defensive measure, of every person, in the world at any given time.
The the nature and strength of those measures including guards, patrols, traps, locks, and hidden items.
What an NPC will say if a player asks A, B, C, or D.
How an NPC will react to a player asking A, B, C, or D.
The full gear carried by every NPC in the game.
The class and level of every NPC in the game.
The spells prepared by every prepared caster in the world.
The spells known by every spontaneous caster in the world.
The spell-like abilities of every monster in the world.
----------------
That is just the stuff off the top of my head.
SO, anyway, a GM will weave the specifics of that knowledge into "puzzles" for the *PLAYERS* to solve.
The "puzzles" are not limited to riddles that the sphinx asks you, but are ANYTHING related to an unknown in the game. And *PLAYERS* not *CHARACTERS* must solve these unknowns.
When you introduce a GM *PLAYER* Character, then that implies that the GM is now attempting to solve (as a member of the party) puzzles related to unknown things in the world.
A GM cannot do that. Because the GM already knows the answers to every unknown thing in the game.
Anything less than fully and equally helping to solve the unknowns (Which includes "should I hit this dude, or should I run away") is not being a *PLAYER* character, but rather a *NON-PLAYER* character. And non-player characters should never get equal billing to the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jaelithe selectively edited my post in the quote to remove my full context.That's largely because I don't agree with the logic that brought you to your conclusion, and wanted to address a part of your post in particular, not to try and make you say something you didn't.
According to the chain of thought you employ, a DM not only can't have a DMPC, but any NPCs, either. They have the same problem of knowing the answer, too. The princess knows the plot. So does the bartender. Hell, so does the freakin' doorknob.
The DMPC cannot enjoy the sensation of "puzzle-solving," as you say (unless your thinking is so compartmentalized that you should be working for an intelligence agency somewhere). He or she can, however, experience the camaraderie, assist in battle, serve as a sounding board (by taking care to answer only with that which he would know or would, according to his/her character and abilities, surmise [which is actually why I don't wholly agree with the in some measure false or at least misleading dichotomy of metagame/deadweight you proposed]).
So in the sense that a DMPC is not precisely a PC, you are unquestionably correct. Can't and wouldn't deny that. In the sense that it's impossible to play one and serve a functional, useful, beneficial purpose that doesn't defeat the game's goals, you're wholly off-base.
I think I may be able to be more clear about this point, so let me try,
A *PLAYER* has the task of *LEARNING* about the world in order to complete a challenge in the game.
The way that a *PLAYER* learns about the world is via their *PLAYER CHARACTER*
A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.
So the GM necessarily cannot employ a *PLAYER CHARACTER* to complete the task of learning on his/her behalf.
All the GM's *PLAYER CHARACTER* can do is go through the motions.
Going through the motions isn't sufficient to warrant full-billing as a party member.
It takes away from the actual *PLAYERS* of the game.
Apparently I'm just superhuman at this whole NPC/DMPC thing. ^_^
I reject the possibility that you are contributing as a fully-realized member of the *PLAYERS* group.
Not that your character isn't pulling weight, but that your personal *PLAYER* contributions to the group of players isn't equal to their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
we're back to a lot of different definitions of what a DMPC is, I think.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently I'm just superhuman at this whole NPC/DMPC thing. ^_^I reject the possibility that you are contributing as a fully-realized member of the *PLAYERS* group.
Not that your character isn't pulling weight, but that your personal *PLAYER* contributions to the group of players isn't equal to their own.
It's more than some of the players' contributions. ^_^
It's more than some of the players' contributions. ^_^Apparently I'm just superhuman at this whole NPC/DMPC thing. ^_^I reject the possibility that you are contributing as a fully-realized member of the *PLAYERS* group.
Not that your character isn't pulling weight, but that your personal *PLAYER* contributions to the group of players isn't equal to their own.
That is a problem for another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the fun part of smurf-ball always moving the goal posts...
we're back to a lot of different definitions of what a DMPC is, I think.
Well, my definition is pretty simple.
Player characters are the stars of the show. They are the way that players interact with and learn about the world.
A GMPC is when the person running the game tries to learn about and interact with the world, as and with, the other stars of the show.
In my opinion, it is an unachievable thing, because the GM cannot learn about the world because they already know everything about the world.
So, all they are actually doing to sharing (read: taking) spotlight time with the other stars of the show.
I find that to be objectionable. Others do not.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Someone should tell James Jacobs he can't contribute to a game played in Golarion any more.
...
Someone should tell James Jacobs he can't contribute to a game played in Golarion any more.
Not exactly the same, however I would be very mindful about playing at a table with Jacobs where someone else was running the first installment of Jade Regent (that he wrote)
There is however, a very large difference between being well versed in lore and knowing the things I detailed above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.
Ok.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we're back to a lot of different definitions of what a DMPC is, I think.Well, my definition is pretty simple.
Player characters are the stars of the show. They are the way that players interact with and learn about the world.
A GMPC is when the person running the game tries to learn about and interact with the world, as and with, the other stars of the show.
In my opinion, it is an unachievable thing, because the GM cannot learn about the world because they already know everything about the world.
So, all they are actually doing to sharing (read: taking) spotlight time with the other stars of the show.
I find that to be objectionable. Others do not.
I'd contend that a GMPC, in sharing the spotlight with the players, is there to help them be the stars of the show. To give guidance if necessary, bump things along if needed, be a sounding board IC rather than staring plaintively at the GM OOC and asking for clues or a "common sense roll", assistance with combat or party flaws and more.
A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.
Ok.
Glad you agree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. That's what happened.
I'd contend that a GMPC, in sharing the spotlight with the players, is there to help them be the stars of the show. To give guidance if necessary, bump things along if needed, be a sounding board IC rather than staring plaintively at the GM OOC and asking for clues or a "common sense roll", assistance with combat or party flaws and more.we're back to a lot of different definitions of what a DMPC is, I think.Well, my definition is pretty simple.
Player characters are the stars of the show. They are the way that players interact with and learn about the world.
A GMPC is when the person running the game tries to learn about and interact with the world, as and with, the other stars of the show.
In my opinion, it is an unachievable thing, because the GM cannot learn about the world because they already know everything about the world.
So, all they are actually doing to sharing (read: taking) spotlight time with the other stars of the show.
I find that to be objectionable. Others do not.
I see the role you describe as an NPC role. Hell, even a "gather information" or KKW:Local check can do that, it doesn't even need a face. Promoting an NPC to a full-fledged player character is far beyond the requied scope to complete those functions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently When I say, "The full scope of unknowns in the game from plot twists to hidden levers," it isn't clear what I am talking about.
It's not, 'cause it's pretty big. Hard concept to grasp.
So let me be more specific.
Sweet! Let me go down your list.
Things a DM knows (or at least should be able to know) that can involve an unknown to the players in the game:
The very first caveat is a really, really big one: "(or at least should be able to know)" is a case where the GM might not know off the top of his head, but has access to. In this case, it's fundamentally important for responding to some of your points.
What happens in the next week of game time at a "world" level if the players do nothing.
How does this affect the GMPC? If the PCs don't know, the GMPC doesn't know, unless otherwise indicated for some reason in-character.
Also, this either applies only to a game that has a hard timetable, or if the game just goes off the rails and the GM arbitrates a given amount of time... in which case the GM is arbitrating, rather than having a hardline predetermined element... in which case it's the GM making the decision as a GM, totally independent of any GMPC, meaning that it's a "compartmentalized" decision-making process (unless the GM isn't any good at compartmentalizing, in which case the NPCs are very prone to the same omniscience).
What happens in the next week of game time at a "local" level if the players do nothing.
Again: how does this affect the GMPC? The other considerations above apply to this.
Summation: "What happens 'next week' should have no bearing on any GMPC or NPC unless the GM is bad at compartmentalizing his knowledge from in-character knowledge. A given GM may or may not have the ability to do better with certain categories (such as a GMPC or NPC) than others, but at it's core, it's the same issue."
What happens in both of those levels in the next week if players follow paths A, B, or C.
(Question: what if they choose D? Or "all of the above"? Or "none of the above"? Are you just generalizing basics, ala an adventure path? I'm asking for context.)
Otherwise, similar issues to the above.
What happens at those levels, if the players take no action or follow a particular path in a Month, 6 Months, and a Year of game time.
My plans mostly involve a general sort of "here's what happens eventually" - how things get there (or don't) is strictly up to how things play out in the game.
None of this automatically impacts the creation or build of a GMPC. Of course it can, but it still boils down to easily compartmentalized knowledge.
Either the PCs (including a GMPC) know this stuff, or they don't. If they don't, an NPC somewhere likely knows some of this stuff. In a complete void of information on the players' part, there is no reason to have that information "solid" (because it's not directly impacting the world), though it's a good idea to have a vague sort of idea of what's going on.
What the major players in the world are doing at any given time, and how that relates to the PC's and plot.
What the major players locally are doing at any given time, and how that relates to the PC's and plot.
If you know in advance what every major NPC is doing at each hour of the day, you're in too deep. Pull out, man! Do less work!
If you simply mean that the GM needs to be able to spontaneously answer questions that the PCs would legitimately have reason to know the answers to about various NPCs, than you've got your answer for how the GMPC does or does not know something: does he have a legitimate method of acquiring the knowledge?
If you're worried about him acquiring the knowledge in a manner that is inconsistent with his character, than don't give him the knowledge. Be consistent with the character.
Unless there is an unusual dynamic (in which the party keeps information from each other for whatever reason), once one of the PCs know something legitimately, they all will soon.
The lifestyle, wealth, family, alliances, and internal motivations of major players in the world and locally.
The nature and strength of every significant faction in the world.
The nature and strength of the alliances of those factions both locally and in the world.
The nature of politicking, espionage, power-grabs, power vacuums, revenge-plots, and media in every faction of the world, in every location in the world.
Do the PCs know none of this at the start? Are the created in a void? Whether or not they are created in a void, than create the GMPC with the same "amount" or "style" of knowledge as the other PCs.
Done deal.
That said, unless created in a void, completely devoid of knowledge of the world in question, a GMPC should be able to contribute in-character knowledge through in-character means. Simply limit it to that.
The locations of all people in the world at any given time.
The locations of all major and minor artifacts in the world at any given time.
The nature and location of every point of interest (castles, dungeons, ruins, etc) in the world.
The nature and strength of every defensive measure, of every person, in the world at any given time.
The the nature and strength of those measures including guards, patrols, traps, locks, and hidden items.
None of this, that I can see, actually automatically impacts a GMPC or their knowledge, in any regard.
This seems exactly like what any given PC would have to learn through in-character means, exactly like the GMPC.
What an NPC will say if a player asks A, B, C, or D.
How an NPC will react to a player asking A, B, C, or D.
This is the first major thing that might influence a GMPC (especially if a GM is not skilled at switching out between characters and their knowledges quickly)... but it's still not an automatic thing by any stretch.
Instead, in this case, it's important to play the GMPC according to character. Are they the kind of person that would ask A, B, C, or D? If so, why? If not, why not? Either way, simply have them act in-character.
If you're worried that they'll steal the spotlight, if you think it's in-character enough (or you think it'll be a better game for everyone), simply have them wait and act last, having allowed all the others the chance to add or do something first. This is not a difficult thing.
Of course, I do the same thing as a player - if I think I've got a great idea about what to do, but it's not perfectly in-character, or someone else would be naturally "better" or at least "more likely" at it, I try to let them go first. Otherwise, I'll either discuss things with them, or undertake the action myself.
While I might not "know" the correct action, I do tend to have confidence that I'm making the right decision most of the time.
Presupposing it's not always the "right" decision (and, if you're in-character, why would it be?), there is no functional difference between a GMPC and a PC in this case. The GM might have knowledge, but the character does not. Play that character, or what you think would be more enjoyable (over-all) for the players at the table.
The full gear carried by every NPC in the game.
The class and level of every NPC in the game.
The spells prepared by every prepared caster in the world.
The spells known by every spontaneous caster in the world.
The spell-like abilities of every monster in the world.
This comes back to good ol' compartmentalized knowledge, as discussed above. (Also, holy carp, am I never going to remember all of those, much less have them down when I start!)
----------------
That is just the stuff off the top of my head.
SO, anyway, a GM will weave the specifics of that knowledge into "puzzles" for the *PLAYERS* to solve.
The "puzzles" are not limited to riddles that the sphinx asks you, but are ANYTHING related to an unknown in the game. And *PLAYERS* not *CHARACTERS* must solve these unknowns.
When you introduce a GM *PLAYER* Character, then that implies that the GM is now attempting to solve (as a member of the party) puzzles related to unknown things in the world.
A GM cannot do that. Because the GM already knows the answers to every unknown thing in the game.
Anything less than fully and equally helping to solve the unknowns (Which includes "should I hit this dude, or should I run away") is not being a *PLAYER* character, but rather a *NON-PLAYER* character. And non-player characters should never get equal billing to the party.
The closest thing I saw that you came up with is specific dialogue options.
But here's the thing - no matter how much I've prepared for a game, I'm not 100% Skippy on everything from beginning to end. Never can be. I don't have that kind of memory.
Thus, at the beginning, I'll create a character who has the same types of advantages and knowledge - and disadvantages and ignorance - as the other PCs. I then act according to character (unless that character is unpleasant for the rest of the gaming table, at which point, like any good player, I'll adapt to fit the group).
None of this is super-human. Having all of that knowledge down solidly when creating the character seems superhuman to me.
Sure. That's what happened.
Saying a GM can learn about a scenario while playing it is like saying an architect can learn about a building he designed by driving by the outside.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the GM knowing all about what is going to happen, maybe I might expose you to the phrase, "The best plotted adventure never survives contact with the players."
Your emphasis is on "player" while mine is on "character". This is where the disconnect is. I am not saying the GM can be a fully realized player, you can't "solve" your own riddle for example. But the character, since the GMPC is a character I would think this is the relevant part, can be a fully engaged part of the party.
Let me clear though, as a player only, if I already know the answer to a riddle, I do not give the answer. Does that make me dead weight if I would rather the other players get an opportunity to figure it out? If as a player I am already familiar with a module/AP and I don't tell everyone where to go, what to get, who to trust and not trust, etc., does that make me dead weight? If as a player we come across a creature whose weaknesses and strengths I am familiar with (perhaps I have encountered it before in another game or run it in a game before), and I don't use that information for my own or my party's benefit, does that make me dead weight?
What I do do is give hints to my fellow players ("What do they mean by 'Speak Friend and enter'?"). I go over details we have already encountered. Basically I act to give those that don't know the details a chance to discover them. Seeing gaming to me isn't about "winning". I don't have to be the one that solves the puzzle. When the group solves it, I still get the benefit. I don't approach gaming from a "ME" standpoint but an "US" standpoint both as a player and a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd contend that a GMPC, in sharing the spotlight with the players, is there to help them be the stars of the show. To give guidance if necessary, bump things along if needed, be a sounding board IC rather than staring plaintively at the GM OOC and asking for clues or a "common sense roll", assistance with combat or party flaws and more.we're back to a lot of different definitions of what a DMPC is, I think.Well, my definition is pretty simple.
Player characters are the stars of the show. They are the way that players interact with and learn about the world.
A GMPC is when the person running the game tries to learn about and interact with the world, as and with, the other stars of the show.
In my opinion, it is an unachievable thing, because the GM cannot learn about the world because they already know everything about the world.
So, all they are actually doing to sharing (read: taking) spotlight time with the other stars of the show.
I find that to be objectionable. Others do not.
I see the role you describe as an NPC role. Hell, even a "gather information" or KKW:Local check can do that, it doesn't even need a face. Promoting an NPC to a full-fledged player character is far beyond the requied scope to complete those functions.
It can be done with rolls, sure. Putting a face to it can be more fun for the GM and/or the players as well. People are fond of saying that the main focus of the game is to have fun; if this is the case, and people on both sides of the screen are fine with it, this is a different way for people to have fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I may be able to be more clear about this point, so let me try,
A *PLAYER* has the task of *LEARNING* about the world in order to complete a challenge in the game.
The way that a *PLAYER* learns about the world is via their *PLAYER CHARACTER*
A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.
So the GM necessarily cannot employ a *PLAYER CHARACTER* to complete the task of learning on his/her behalf.
All the GM's *PLAYER CHARACTER* can do is go through the motions.
Going through the motions isn't sufficient to warrant full-billing as a party member.
It takes away from the actual *PLAYERS* of the game.
Yeah, but... I disagree. As a player.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd contend that a GMPC, in sharing the spotlight with the players, is there to help them be the stars of the show. To give guidance if necessary, bump things along if needed, be a sounding board IC rather than staring plaintively at the GM OOC and asking for clues or a "common sense roll", assistance with combat or party flaws and more.we're back to a lot of different definitions of what a DMPC is, I think.Well, my definition is pretty simple.
Player characters are the stars of the show. They are the way that players interact with and learn about the world.
A GMPC is when the person running the game tries to learn about and interact with the world, as and with, the other stars of the show.
In my opinion, it is an unachievable thing, because the GM cannot learn about the world because they already know everything about the world.
So, all they are actually doing to sharing (read: taking) spotlight time with the other stars of the show.
I find that to be objectionable. Others do not.
As for the GM knowing all about what is going to happen, maybe I might expose you to the phrase, "The best plotted adventure never survives contact with the players."
Your emphasis is on "player" while mine is on "character". This is where the disconnect is. I am not saying the GM can be a fully realized player, you can't "solve" your own riddle for example. But the character, since the GMPC is a character I would think this is the relevant part, can be a fully engaged part of the party.
Let me clear though, as a player only, if I already know the answer to a riddle, I do not give the answer. Does that make me dead weight if I would rather the other players get an opportunity to figure it out? If as a player I am already familiar with a module/AP and I don't tell everyone where to go, what to get, who to trust and not trust, etc., does that make me dead weight? If as a player we come across a creature whose weaknesses and strengths I am familiar with (perhaps I have encountered it before in another game or run it in a game before), and I don't use that information for my own or my party's benefit, does that make me dead weight?
What I do do is give hints to my fellow players ("What do they mean by 'Speak Friend and enter'?"). I go over details we have already encountered. Basically I act to give those that don't know the details a chance to discover them. Seeing gaming to me isn't about "winning". I don't have to be the one that solves the puzzle. When the group solves it, I still get the benefit. I don't approach gaming from a "ME" standpoint but an "US" standpoint both as a player and a GM.
These are fairly representative of my position. There's other stuff, but this is sort of the ground floor. ^_^
Yeah, but... I disagree. As a player.I think I may be able to be more clear about this point, so let me try,
A *PLAYER* has the task of *LEARNING* about the world in order to complete a challenge in the game.
The way that a *PLAYER* learns about the world is via their *PLAYER CHARACTER*
A GM *CANNOT LEARN* about the world by playing the game. The GM already has all the knowledge of the world.
So the GM necessarily cannot employ a *PLAYER CHARACTER* to complete the task of learning on his/her behalf.
All the GM's *PLAYER CHARACTER* can do is go through the motions.
Going through the motions isn't sufficient to warrant full-billing as a party member.
It takes away from the actual *PLAYERS* of the game.
Replying here, because I'm about to get up and run errands. I will respond to your well-thought post in the next few hours, but for now I think I can respond to this one quickly.
Do you disagree that going through the motions isn't sufficient, or that all a GMPC can do is to go through the motions?
More to come depending on your responce.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I am confused here. A PC that doesn't know what is going to happen, just because the player doesn't know, is function identical to a GMPC that doesn't know what is going to happen because the GM chooses not to have the character know. In both cases the characters don't know. You don't punish players for being incidentally ignorant, I fail to see the issue for a GM being willfully ignorant. The party is no worse off in either case.