How do you feel about GMPCs?

[Hama]

No, I'm just using resources at my disposal in a way most convenient for me.

[kyrt-ryder]

Nothing wrong with using NPC's as a GM mouthpiece, I just figure once it becomes a GM mouthpiece it's not really a PC anymore.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I've seen PCs being the GM's mouthpiece.

[phantom1592]

Depends on what the mouthpiece is for... There is some generic or backstory stuff that specific characters should know more about then others. Sometimes that may be a GMPC... sometimes it's a PC...

Player A: Where is the best pub in this town?

DMPC: I've always been fond of the wounded duck, they have great stew at a low price, and there's a cute waitress there I know...

--------

or,

Player A: Where is the best pub in this town?

Player B: My character grew up in this city he should know that!

DM: There's the wounded duck, or roasted Dragon they're all about the same...

Player B: I've always been fond of the wounded duck, they have great stew at a low price, and there's a cute waitress there I know...

I don't see much difference when it boils down... One thing that I find tedious is when someone has to ask the DM for details, then repeats it back word for word... I've seen whole conversations like that and it can bog down the game.

Giving the DM a mouthpiece can sometimes cut out the middleman and keep the RP going.

[DM Under The Bridge]

If you can't run a dmpc, I hope you can at least run npcs.

If your dmpcs/npcs know too much and don't act as they should, if too much of you and what you want is crowding them and interfering with their place in the game, then kill them and try again.

Every dmpc or npcs should be able to be sacrificed for the greater good of the game. Killing them off towards the end after the players have formed attachments can be quite motivational for the players to finish the quest/s and to shine most brightly at the end.

[pres man]

This is how I imagine games go for those people that can't differentiate the GM from the NPCs.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Thanks for that pres. Perfectly chosen link, massive respect.

[Kobold Catgirl]

How about a kender GMPC?

Don't worry about him being killed. He's got a long list of extended family members, all with equally whacky, yet thematically similar names!

[DM Under The Bridge]

Purge the line.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Familicide is banned in my games. At least for PCs.

[DM Under The Bridge]

A GMPC isn't a PC!

Purge!

[pres man]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Thanks for that pres. Perfectly chosen link, massive respect.

Well it was either that one or this one. LOL

[Kobold Catgirl]

No, I mean PCs aren't allowed to use it. There will be a truly tragic scene in the third act of my—er, I mean, around 16th level, where the kender GMPC will be forced to cast it on one of the PCs in order to save the world. It will be truly heartrending.

[Trapdodger Barefoot]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

How about a kender GMPC?

What if the GMPC kender is your only paladin?

[Trekkie90909]

A Kender paladin... I think it's already forgotten which god it worships. Also the contents of the churches coffers ('bags') were really boring, religions are over rated. Time to go find a gnome, they usually have all kinds of interesting things which make weird sounds and have odd smells. Too bad they keep going boom :(.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Fizban. Kender paladins worship Fizban.

[KenderKin]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Fizban. Kender paladins worship Fizban.

Your kender lore is most impressive!

[Kobold Catgirl]

I do remember liking one fictional kender. She was actually pretty competent, though I forget her name. She befriended this human necromancer and the two of them set out to literally teach her the meaning of fear. She had an earthquake staff and I don't remember her being quite as idiotic as most instances of the race.

[Jodokai]

pres man wrote:

This is how I imagine games go for those people that can't differentiate the GM from the NPCs.

This his how I imagine games go for those people that use a GMPC

[kyrt-ryder]

I believe you're looking at Railroading Jodokai, not GMPCs.

Now, that's not to say that Railroad GM's haven't abused GMPCs to keep the campaign on the rails, because they certainly have.

However, not all GMPC-users are Railroad GMs.

[TOZ]

Imagination is an amazing thing.

[DM Under The Bridge]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I believe you're looking at Railroading Jodokai, not GMPCs.

Now, that's not to say that Railroad GM's haven't abused GMPCs to keep the campaign on the rails, because they certainly have.

However, not all GMPC-users are Railroad GMs.

Agreed.

I actually use gmpcs to enable more options and allow the players a bit more punch or finesse (depending on what is needed).

[pres man]

Jodokai wrote:

pres man wrote:

This is how I imagine games go for those people that can't differentiate the GM from the NPCs.

This his how I imagine games go for those people that use a GMPC

Just be glad it is not this.

[SomethingRandom]

Jodokai wrote:

pres man wrote:

This is how I imagine games go for those people that can't differentiate the GM from the NPCs.

This his how I imagine games go for those people that use a GMPC

I don't force them on the rails. I make them want to buy a ticket.

[thegreenteagamer]

Everyone talks about railroading like it's a bad thing, yet APs keep selling. Apparently there's a massive subset of gaming that seems to enjoy train rides.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

Train rides are awesome.

[mourge40k]

As a DM, I don't like using GMPC's. This is not out of any sense of not wanting to impose upon the party, however. No, this is simply laziness on my part. Do you know how much talking to myself I'd have to do sometimes if I had a character in there? My players would actively let it happen for the entertainment value.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Jodokai wrote:

pres man wrote:

This is how I imagine games go for those people that can't differentiate the GM from the NPCs.

This his how I imagine games go for those people that use a GMPC

But look how happy those players are!

[kyrt-ryder]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Everyone talks about railroading like it's a bad thing, yet APs keep selling. Apparently there's a massive subset of gaming that seems to enjoy train rides.

Its one of those things with massive variation from group to group and player to player.

Some GMs can spin a railroad in a way the players think it was their idea all along.

Other GMs get group buyin on a railroad for the sake of fun.

While some GMs end up with players who want a freeform sandbox and nobody's happy xD.

[Jaelithe]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

While some GMs end up with players who want a freeform sandbox and nobody's happy xD.

And then you have the little jerk who maliciously decides to head off to Albuquerque "just because, you know, I can, and want to cause trouble." You know the type (and I've mentioned something similar before): The one who, in your carefully crafted Swords of the Caliph campaign (which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool), suddenly decides, twelve minutes into the first session, when you're in Ascalon guarding a harim from hashishin, to jump on a ship and head for Constantinople, there to join the Varangian Guard—despite the fact that he or she is an Arab.

Identify these people and expel them from your game, with a beating if necessary. It's a personality flaw, and they aren't going to change.

In short, don't agree to a railroad campaign, and then dump a bucket of sand on the toy train tracks.

[Irontruth]

But what if the sand is actually tiny, little trains?

[Jaelithe]

Irontruth wrote:

But what if the sand is actually tiny, little trains?

Do they fit on the tracks? No?

There you go.

[Irontruth]

Jaelithe wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

But what if the sand is actually tiny, little trains?

Do they fit on the tracks? No?

There you go.

Who said all trains need tracks?

[Jaelithe]

Irontruth wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

But what if the sand is actually tiny, little trains?

Do they fit on the tracks? No?

There you go.

Who said all trains need tracks?

"A" for thinking out of the box.

"F" for relevance.

[The Alkenstarian]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I do remember liking one fictional kender.

Oh ... my gods.

Are you implying that some kender are not fictional? PLEASE inform the relevant government authorities where you found this pestilential race of creatures, so we can quarantine it IMMEDIATELY before some of them escape to make life miserable on humanity!

[Spook205]

Jaelithe wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

While some GMs end up with players who want a freeform sandbox and nobody's happy xD.

And then you have the little jerk who maliciously decides to head off to Albuquerque "just because, you know, I can, and want to cause trouble." You know the type (and I've mentioned something similar before): The one who, in your carefully crafted Swords of the Caliph campaign (which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool), suddenly decides, twelve minutes into the first session, when you're in Ascalon guarding a harim from hashishin, to jump on a ship and head for Constantinople, there to join the Varangian Guard—despite the fact that he or she is an Arab.

Identify these people and expel them from your game, with a beating if necessary. It's a personality flaw, and they aren't going to change.

..this isn't all players?

I've never had a prepared adventure survive contact with the PCs. Its why I just get APs to mine ideas.

[Snowblind]

Spook205 wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

While some GMs end up with players who want a freeform sandbox and nobody's happy xD.

And then you have the little jerk who maliciously decides to head off to Albuquerque "just because, you know, I can, and want to cause trouble." You know the type (and I've mentioned something similar before): The one who, in your carefully crafted Swords of the Caliph campaign (which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool), suddenly decides, twelve minutes into the first session, when you're in Ascalon guarding a harim from hashishin, to jump on a ship and head for Constantinople, there to join the Varangian Guard—despite the fact that he or she is an Arab.

Identify these people and expel them from your game, with a beating if necessary. It's a personality flaw, and they aren't going to change.

..this isn't all players?

I've never had a prepared adventure survive contact with the PCs. Its why I just get APs to mine ideas.

No.

Players flip off or murder the plot critical quest giver NPC for being a tosser and almost getting them killed on that last quest by withholding important information.

Jerks flip off or murder the first person they meet in the AP just before hopping on a ship to another continent.

There is a little bit of a difference here.

[Jaelithe]

Snowblind wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

While some GMs end up with players who want a freeform sandbox and nobody's happy xD.

And then you have the little jerk who maliciously decides to head off to Albuquerque "just because, you know, I can, and want to cause trouble." You know the type (and I've mentioned something similar before): The one who, in your carefully crafted Swords of the Caliph campaign (which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool), suddenly decides, twelve minutes into the first session, when you're in Ascalon guarding a harim from hashishin, to jump on a ship and head for Constantinople, there to join the Varangian Guard—despite the fact that he or she is an Arab.

Identify these people and expel them from your game, with a beating if necessary. It's a personality flaw, and they aren't going to change.

..this isn't all players?

I've never had a prepared adventure survive contact with the PCs. Its why I just get APs to mine ideas.

No.

Players flip off or murder the plot critical quest giver NPC for being a tosser and almost getting them killed on that last quest by withholding important information.

Jerks flip off or murder the first person they meet in the AP just before hopping on a ship to another continent.

There is a little bit of a difference here.

Precisely.

[Spook205]

Jaelithe wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

While some GMs end up with players who want a freeform sandbox and nobody's happy xD.

And then you have the little jerk who maliciously decides to head off to Albuquerque "just because, you know, I can, and want to cause trouble." You know the type (and I've mentioned something similar before): The one who, in your carefully crafted Swords of the Caliph campaign (which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool), suddenly decides, twelve minutes into the first session, when you're in Ascalon guarding a harim from hashishin, to jump on a ship and head for Constantinople, there to join the Varangian Guard—despite the fact that he or she is an Arab.

Identify these people and expel them from your game, with a beating if necessary. It's a personality flaw, and they aren't going to change.

..this isn't all players?

I've never had a prepared adventure survive contact with the PCs. Its why I just get APs to mine ideas.

No.

Players flip off or murder the plot critical quest giver NPC for being a tosser and almost getting them killed on that last quest by withholding important information.

Jerks flip off or murder the first person they meet in the AP just before hopping on a ship to another continent.

There is a little bit of a difference here.

Precisely.

Killing wasn't part of the original example.

In the introductory 2e Dark Sun adventure, the players are supposed to follow the caravan to a place where more encounters happen. My players saw the mountains in the background of one of the hand-out images and decided to check them out instead (surviving the desert in the process) and changing the adventure so much it was unsalvagable.

Your guy didn't want to be in Arabian Knights and wanted to go off to fight for Constantinople.

I got pre-emptively tossed from a Skulls and Shackles game because my plan was to get a privateer contract from the Andorans so as to not follow a life of crime and still oppose the Chelaxians.

All three of these options are recoverable, they just result in the destruction of the prepared adventure.

APs, even Paizo's, are really, really susceptible to falling apart not through conscious jerkwadery, but through players just being players.

The Dark Sun players thought their survival chances were better in the mountains.

Your guy decided he'd rather back Constantinople over the Turk, despite being a turk. Its difficult, but its still a place 'in play.'

I wanted to be a pirate, just the legal kind as opposed to a 'wolf of the sea.'

None of these really strike me as being outside the realm of appropriate PC behavior, especially when the players don't know what the AP details .

As a DM (as I practically never get to play) I actually get really salty about adventures that seem to be terrified of PCs going off the reservation and concoct a lot of cattle-prod methods of trying to force them back to the path (like Reign of Winter being horrified that PC deaths and turnovers might result in no remaining players having the Mark or the fact the AP states its literally impossible for anybody but Baba Yaga to accomplish the end goal).

I remember hearing a story on here about someone who sussed out that a guy in Runelords would be trouble and arranged something (without knowing the adventure set up) that prevented an entire book of the AP from being able to fire properly.

This is normal.

The problem isn't that players reject an AP, its that they reject the AP trying to steam roll them into action.

Players don't mind the railroad, as long as they got on the train willingly.

If they got told they're going to Reno on the train, but the train announces part way through that they're going to have a 2 month stop over in Podunk Flats where they have to drink root marm, they're going to start finding ways to get around that involve fewer rails.

[KenderKin]

I recall two different first edition games that I played in

#1 The DM had prepared everything ahead of time we were supposed to go and find out why the monsters were attacking the town and have some battles, and eventually have a show-down with the monster king.

Instead we evacuated the town and our un-savory characters looted it.

#2 The DM had prepared zero and was relying on the random encounter tables which immediately told him we were "lost"

We countered that we had no destination in mind, so it was impossible for us to be "lost" no matter what the dang book said....

[Jaelithe]

Spook205 wrote:

Your guy decided he'd rather back Constantinople over the Turk, despite being a turk. Its difficult, but its still a place 'in play.'

Actually, I said "Arab." Pay attention.

And, insofar as your assertion is concerned, um ... NO.

What part of "which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool" didn't you understand? Whether you acknowledge it or not, if all the players had said, "Wow! A campaign largely set in a quasi-historical Arabian Knights era, circa AD 800 with Harun al-Rashid as Caliph, roughly concurrent with Sinbad's voyages, with us as elite guardsman and servants of the Caliph would be really, really cool!" you've essentially signed a social contract with the DM that says, "I'm not going to be a f**kin' dick ten minutes in and head off into the unprepared hinterland." (And yes, I'm aware of the anachronisms in the above, thanks.) That has nothing to do with a DM's ability to ad lib. It has everything to do with a little diva twerp deciding that he or she is "bored" and calling attention on themselves like a Flame Strike.

Now if instead the DM had said, "It's a sandbox game. You guys create characters, and I'll start you here, in Ascalon guarding a harim," then running off to do something else once the flag drops is totally on the board, and even reasonable. It's probably still a tad dickish, but at least it's not obscenely so.

No one is saying, "Avoid creative solutions to problems." Anyone with sense is saying, "Don't agree that a certain kind of game would be great and change your mind Book 1, Act 1, Scene 1."

[Spook205]

Jaelithe wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

Your guy decided he'd rather back Constantinople over the Turk, despite being a turk. Its difficult, but its still a place 'in play.'

Actually, I said "Arab." Pay attention.

And, insofar as your assertion is concerned, um ... NO.

What part of "which you all agreed beforehand would be really cool" didn't you understand? Whether you acknowledge it or not, if all the players had said, "Wow! A campaign largely set in a quasi-historical Arabian Knights era, circa AD 800 with Harun al-Rashid as Caliph, roughly concurrent with Sinbad's voyages, with us as elite guardsman and servants of the Caliph would be really, really cool!" you've essentially signed a social contract with the DM that says, "I'm not going to be a f**kin' dick ten minutes in and head off into the unprepared hinterland." (And yes, I'm aware of the anachronisms in the above, thanks.) That has nothing to do with a DM's ability to ad lib. It has everything to do with a little diva twerp deciding that he or she is "bored" and calling attention on themselves like a Flame Strike.

Now if instead the DM had said, "It's a sandbox game. You guys create characters, and I'll start you here, in Ascalon guarding a harim," then running off to do something else once the flag drops is totally on the board, and even reasonable. It's probably still a tad dickish, but at least it's not obscenely so.

No one is saying, "Avoid creative solutions to problems." Anyone with sense is saying, "Don't agree that a certain kind of game would be great and change your mind Book 1, Act 1, Scene 1."

Arab, Turk, Vulcan, Barsoomian, does that detail really matter?

I'd add that in general people tend to misinterpret what gets said to them, or how something is presented. Don't attribute to malice what can be better attributed to ignorance.

If Book 1, Act 1, Scene 1 the guy runs off and leaves the rest of the party behind, he's put himself out. Ok, you get to go and help the Eastern Roman Empire, but we're all still here.

If he talks the party into it, and you have a hundred dollars plus worth of APs, the problem's more on you (and I have been there. I grabbed the Undermountain boxed set back when I was a kid and didn't have a lot of dosh, just for the party to get involved in politics in Skullport and then wanting to go and found a trade agency). They want to go do the other thing.

Also, as entertaining as this conversation is (and it is!) this doesn't really remain on topic with the DMPC thing.

How did we get here?

[KenderKin]

I agree that the point of an adventure game is to adventure. It is kind of implied that at the very least the players will cooperate with the idea of adventuring.

Rather than looking for the railroad or DMPC or obscure rules argument
Though it seems some people are way to focused on that to actually play the game...

[kyrt-ryder]

Spook205 wrote:

How did we get here?

We got here because someone equated the use of GMPC's with Railroading when the two are distinct items which may or may not coincide.

[Jaelithe]

Spook205 wrote:

Arab, Turk, Vulcan, Barsoomian, does that detail really matter?

God is in the details. It lets me know you weren't paying much attention and were already composing a reply without having read what I wrote in depth.

Quote:

I'd add that in general people tend to misinterpret what gets said to them, or how something is presented. Don't attribute to malice what can be better attributed to ignorance.

And don't assume the perception of malice when none is assumed.

Quote:

If Book 1, Act 1, Scene 1 the guy runs off and leaves the rest of the party behind, he's put himself out. Ok, you get to go and help the Eastern Roman Empire, but we're all still here.

If he talks the party into it, and you have a hundred dollars plus worth of APs, the problem's more on you (and I have been there. I grabbed the Undermountain boxed set back when I was a kid and didn't have a lot of dosh, just for the party to get involved in politics in Skullport and then wanting to go and found a trade agency). They want to go do the other thing.

As I said, which evidently needs reiteration (and hasn't been refuted by anything you've said), anyone who'd do that is a dick if they'd already agreed the other thing would be very cool. You might indeed have a party of them convinced by Ringleader Dick. That would just make them little Dicklettes. They can then DM for themselves, because they've been invited to leave the premises. Real friends would never do that, and anyone who would would be excised from my life posthaste as a waste of space.

Quote:

Also, as entertaining as this conversation is (and it is!) this doesn't really remain on topic with the DMPC thing.

Digressions are the soul of fora!

Quote:

How did we get here?

You felt the need to lose an argument? ;)

[Jaelithe]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

How did we get here?

We got here because someone equated the use of GMPC's with Railroading when the two are distinct items which may or may not coincide.

And both of which may be and have been used to excellent effect despite the bleating of protesters.

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Spook205 wrote:

If Book 1, Act 1, Scene 1 the guy runs off and leaves the rest of the party behind, he's put himself out. Ok, you get to go and help the Eastern Roman Empire, but we're all still here.

If he talks the party into it, and you have a hundred dollars plus worth of APs, the problem's more on you (and I have been there. I grabbed the Undermountain boxed set back when I was a kid and didn't have a lot of dosh, just for the party to get involved in politics in Skullport and then wanting to go and found a trade agency). They want to go do the other thing.

Then they can learn to deal with GM burnout and years of aborted campaigns.

There are lots of ways to be a bad player, and this is one of them. If you can't play your character while helping keep the game on track, you aren't really playing the game very well. Having a whole group of bad players doesn't diminish this fact.

[kyrt-ryder]

That is bad player behavior, but I've seen Railroad GMs handle it well.

"That's not the campaign you agreed to play. That character goes off and does that stuff, but I'm not running it. Sit out today's session and make a character that's part of this campaign."

[Jaelithe]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

That is bad player behavior, but I've seen Railroad GMs handle it well.

"That's not the campaign you agreed to play. That character goes off and does that stuff, but I'm not running it. Sit out today's session and make a character that's part of this campaign."

And that would be an entirely reasonable way to handle it.

[Hama]

Jaelithe wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

That is bad player behavior, but I've seen Railroad GMs handle it well.

"That's not the campaign you agreed to play. That character goes off and does that stuff, but I'm not running it. Sit out today's session and make a character that's part of this campaign."

And that would be an entirely reasonable way to handle it.

I find myself nodding while I read what you write. It's a good feeling.