How do you feel about GMPCs?

[Tacticslion]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Also, I never hold back and will murder guest NPCs without hesitation if tactics and dice rolls of baddies will allow it.

Hm... yeah, sure, I'll allow it.

EDIT: But only in games! >:(

[Hama]

DrDeth wrote:

Hama wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

I've seen some of these threads for a while now, and I have some on-topic questions for all of you.

Is this a thing now? Is this a trend? Are we meant to hate recurring helpful npcs now?

Why do the recurring helpful npcs need to be run by the DM?

The DM has a lot to do, let the players run the NPC.

Um, you're kidding, right?

Why not? We have been doing that since 1974. Henchmen, Hirelings, etc. There's absolutely no reason why the players can't run a party henchman healer or whatever.

I can't have a player running an NPC that I need in specific places, saying specific things and attempting to do specific deeds. That is why I must run my GMPCS. As for Hirelings and followers, they are meta PCs.

[DrDeth]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Is there someone here who has professed to always wanting to run one? (I'm not going back through this thread looking, so I don't expect you to either. Just thought maybe you saw one you can point out.) For the most part it seems to be people arguing about how it's always bad versus only sometimes being bad.

"I run GMPCs all the time."

"I have used a DMPC since I began DMing"

"I use GMPC's a lot"

Ashiel says he always runs one.

and Jaelithe seems to indicate that they use DMPCs most/all of the time.

However, why quibble? Do you agree with my main point: "I just ask that the DMs who use them consult your players and think of their real motivations for running one."

[Muad'Dib]

The reality is every time I GM I want to play and every time I play I want to GM.

Combining the two just does not satiate either desire. It just makes me a bad GM and a bad player

[TriOmegaZero]

DrDeth wrote:

However, why quibble? Do you agree with my main point: "I just ask that the DMs who use them consult your players and think of their real motivations for running one."

Only if you agree with the main point "It's not inherently bad, but can be abused."

[Kryzbyn]

I'm using one right now. My motivation is to play test a home brewed class. I could have asked a player to do so, but having to rework things on the fly is easier as a GMPC.

We are in the middle of book 2 of WotW, and the character hasn't out shined any of the other PCs, nor been relied upon to solve puzzles/beat baddies.

It's just another tool in the GM tool box.

[ElterAgo]

DrDeth wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Is there someone here who has professed to always wanting to run one? (I'm not going back through this thread looking, so I don't expect you to either. Just thought maybe you saw one you can point out.) For the most part it seems to be people arguing about how it's always bad versus only sometimes being bad.

"I run GMPCs all the time."

"I have used a DMPC since I began DMing"

"I use GMPC's a lot"

Ashiel says he always runs one.

and Jaelithe seems to indicate that they use DMPCs most/all of the time.

However, why quibble? Do you agree with my main point: "I just ask that the DMs who use them consult your players and think of their real motivations for running one."

He isn't on these forums, but I used to game with a guy that almost always added a GMPC into the party.

He would always say he was doing it to help us out, round out the party, provide clues, provide a little extra power when needed, or save the party if it looked like a TPK.
However, that wasn't the case. The GMPC came along whether we needed more power or not. It never provided clues. If we didn't have a role covered, that was usually not what the GMPC could do. Etc...
Before I got there, while I was there, and after I left players were trying to politely tell him the GMPC wasn't needed, we didn't want to split the loot further, in-character the personality didn't fit with the team, whatever. Either that GMPC was with the party or another one would soon be introduced.
In reality, I think he just wanted to be a player at the same time as he was GM. (Put didn't want to give up enough creative control to let someone else GM.) Oddly enough; we would constantly find scrolls on that spell list, that specific exotic magic weapon, or a cloak that augments that class ability.
He wasn't horrible about it, just enough that it was noticeable and slightly annoying.

But as I said before, it wasn't enough for me to just walk. Most everything else he did as GM was good enough that I still enjoyed the game. Overall, if he had dropped the GMPC, I think I would have considered him a good GM instead of a decent GM.

[DrDeth]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

However, why quibble? Do you agree with my main point: "I just ask that the DMs who use them consult your players and think of their real motivations for running one."

Only if you agree with the main point "It's not inherently bad, but can be abused."

I have said as much.

"I never said it cant be done well."

"DMPCs aren't evil."

I do think it's more often abused than done well. At least that's my experience.

[TriOmegaZero]

DrDeth wrote:

I do think it's more often abused than done well. At least that's my experience.

I don't disagree. GMing is an art, and I prefer the adage 'practice makes permanent' over the more common term. Bad habits are never easily broken.

[Aranna]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

I do think it's more often abused than done well. At least that's my experience.

I don't disagree. GMing is an art, and I prefer the adage 'practice makes permanent' over the more common term. Bad habits are never easily broken.

I agree.

[Jaelithe]

ElterAgo wrote:

To be honest some of your responses in this thread sound like someone who would turn any such criticisms into an antagonistic argument.

But evidently your observation should not be considered antagonistic, or at least provocative, eh?

[Jaelithe]

DrDeth wrote:

Do you agree with my main point: "I just ask that the DMs who use them consult your players and think of their real motivations for running one."

But that's not what you originally said, or at least not how you said it. You made it pretty clear that you though the sole reason a DM might employ a DMPC was because he had a desperate need to play even while running the game ... and did so in a, "Come on, you know it's true" tone that didn't exactly add much to the dialogue.

If what you wrote above, though, are indeed your main points, I wholeheartedly agree.

Perhaps part of my difficulty with this is that I've had numerous occasions of running for one person, which requires a very different perspective than doing so for three to five players and their various characters. DMPCs are almost mandatory in the former case, IMO.

[DrDeth]

Jaelithe wrote:

If what you wrote above, though, are indeed your main points, I wholeheartedly agree.

Perhaps part of my difficulty with this is that I've had numerous occasions of running for one person, which requires a very different perspective than doing so for three to five players and their various characters. DMPCs are almost mandatory in the former case, IMO.

Well, those are my main points.

But yes, I certainly agree that DMing for a single player is very different than DMing for the usual table or 4-6 players. And the use of a DMPC in a solo game is pretty normal. I wouldn't consider a solo game the norm, however.

[Jaelithe]

DrDeth wrote:

But yes, I certainly agree that DMing for a single player is very different than DMing for the usual table or 4-6 players. And the use of a DMPC in a solo game is pretty normal. I wouldn't consider a solo game the norm, however.

I do think the more players and characters participating, the less likely a DMPC is necessary, in general. Seems self-evident. Then it would, indeed, become about desire—either the DM's to play while running (which is of course possible, and not too uncommon in my experience), or the players' desire either to include the DM for his/her sake or have him run DMPCs because they find them entertaining. (I've actually had groups specifically request that I run one, or even more than one; a particular married couple, paladin and bard, proved immensely entertaining, at least according to what I was told numerous times; perhaps they were humoring me, though.)

I wonder if there's a correlation between players' acceptance and enjoyment of a DMPC and the close-knit nature of the interrelationships of the participants.

[Kirth Gersen]

I've used them on a temporary basis, and find it generally makes me feel queasy, so I generally try to get out of it ASAP. Some examples:

Some adventure paths are sort of based around a recurring NPC (e.g., Lavinia in the "Savage Tide" AP). I try to obviate that need, but if I can't, I relegate that NPC to the background as much as possible. When they are "on stage," they generally assume a more passive role and, as much as possible, I let the players make the decisions for them.

In the Aviona campaign, I often use "senior" adventurers (former PCs) to prod the characters quickly into the action; those NPCs are then quickly eclipsed in power by the leveling PCs, and they can be relegated to the background, dispensed with, or turned into followers controlled by the players.

If the party decides they like an NPC and invite him/her along with them, I make that NPC a follower controlled by the PC. Likewise, when a player takes the Leadership feat, the PC's followers and cohorts are controlled by the player, not by me.

If an NPC is of equal or greater power to the PCs and insists on adventuring with them, the players generally correctly assume that I intend them to kill that NPC. So I don't do this very often!

Lastly, if there's only one player, I'll run a DMPC to round out their capabilities and be a "buddy." To use a Lethal Weapon analogy, as much as possible I try to make the DMPC a Danny Glover to the player's Mel Gibson -- the player drives the action, and the buddy helps him or her out.

[Sissyl]

The argument "players will not give you feedback about stuff they don't like unless it really stinks" is a good answer to the most frequent pro argument, "I have done it for ages and never gotten any complaints about it". Again, some people REALLY want to use GMPCs, and will grab onto any excuse to do so. Too few players (restructure encounters), nobody wants to play a cleric (make it more attractive to do so or add in systems for managing without one), the PCs need background or plot information (find other ways to do it and make the players enjoy those parts of your campaign), etc etc etc etc etc etc etc... All of these explanations are excuses for people who want to use GMPCs. The truth is, so long as the GM is impartial toward the NPC and ready to throw it under the bus, there are no problem with GMPCs... Because then there ARE no GMPCs. Forget that and there will be trouble.

[Jason S]

When I was growing up, I always used a GMPC, but I made sure that:
1) I never favored him or put him in the spotlight or made him “special”.
2) I never made him more powerful than everyone else.

Yes, it’s more fun to have a “PC” of your own, it’s like you’re playing too. No one objected because I did it right and it was more fun for me at the time, but I realize now that the game is better without a GMPC.

I don’t do it anymore because:
1) Your “turn” as GMPC takes away from turns from other characters, and the GMs turn is already too long with the bad guys.
2) Conflicts between your GMPC and other PCs.
3) NPCs can’t talk to your GMPC without it being really weird and boring the other players, which makes it hard to reveal plot.
4) You have an entire world of NPCs, including recurring NPCs, to play. Some of these NPCs can tag around for a limited amount of time with the party... which is recommended! But really, there’s no need for a GMPC.
5) It can be hard to wipe the party if you’re too attached to the GMPC. The other players might even feel protected by this fact.
6) GM already has enough to worry about.

[Marco Polaris]

I've run a GMPC a few times, but only when gaming short sessions with my brothers--to round out the party to 4 characters. In such instances, it did not become a big deal--the GMPC was generally introverted and remained a side presence more than a big mover like the PCs were, and in one instance of 4th Edition, the GMPC was literally a warforged that the other PCs could order around. Plus, most of my brothers only played with me back in the day out of a mix of brotherly obligation and boredom--they were not going to optimize a party, and making them play multiple characters would have taken them out of their characters.

With larger, more experienced groups I've avoided DMPCs--but I have had friendly NPCs take part in fights a few times. And once or twice I've had the pleasure of creating "side-PCs" for a player to use while their main character was kidnapped as part of the plot--letting them enjoy the RP of arguing with their captor and looking for a way out without excluding them from the combat or adventure.

[Ashiel]

DrDeth wrote:

Ashiel says he always runs one. Ashiel says he always runs one.

Actually, I said "pretty much every time thereafter" referring to that specific group. Sorry if I was unclear. Perhaps amusingly enough, it began at their suggestion and then continued by their request so I assume that it's not merely conjecture that it was being done in a way that was good for the players.

One of the benefits I've found for GMPCs* is that it provides a roleplaying opportunity for players in virtually any situation. It can make dungeon crawls less of a crawl, for example. It's also really spiffy for dropping bits of lore into the game that would otherwise be overlooked, such as the character commenting on things or asking characters questions about themselves.

[thejeff]

Do NPCs like the fellow marooned characters in Serpent's Skull or the NPCs stuck with you in the first volume of WotR qualify as GMPCs?

They seem to fill most of the good roles for GMPCs, without being likely to cause most of the problems.

[TriOmegaZero]

The pirate crew in Skull and Shackles are good NPCs as well. Not having read SS or WotR, I imagine they are also good NPCs, and not GMPCs.

[Spook205]

I mentioned this thread to one group of my players. They indicated they didn't think I ran DMPCs so much as just 'NPCs' and weren't quite sure of the difference.

To be honest, neither am I anymore.

From this thread I take it to mean that there are some DMs who try to sit on both sides of the screen, adjudicating their own actions and being an impartial arbiter of the rules for themselves as well as their baddies?

Or is it just a term for a NPC who tags along with the party in an active capacity?

[Pan]

thejeff wrote:

Do NPCs like the fellow marooned characters in Serpent's Skull or the NPCs stuck with you in the first volume of WotR qualify as GMPCs?

They seem to fill most of the good roles for GMPCs, without being likely to cause most of the problems.

Depends on how the NPCs are used. For us those NPCs were "back up PCs" in case somebody died while marooned on the island. The NPCs pretty much established a base camp while the PCs explored the island and a way off it. Since the NPCs didn't take any part in the adventuring they were not GMPCs for us.

[TriOmegaZero]

Spook205 wrote:

I mentioned this thread to one group of my players. They indicated they didn't think I ran DMPCs so much as just 'NPCs' and weren't quite sure of the difference.

To be honest, neither am I anymore.

No one really is. Everyone is operating on different definitions.

Some of us are saying NPCs that are intended to be part of the party and travel with them are GMPCs. Others say those are just NPCs, and GMPCs are NPCs the GM runs as their own PC while running the game.

[KenderKin]

I am going to go ahead and say the unmentionable.

I find the DMPC invaluable in the play by post format and now can not hardly imagine running a game without one.

Play by posts are fragile creatures and can die horrible deaths completely un-related to a TPK. PBP can die when a person choses or suddenly stops posting, the re-appearance of the DMPC allows the action to continue. It also allows seamless transition of recruiting new PC's into the game at the next chapter.

Both DMPC's are happy accidents, One was a PC in a game in which the DM left, in taking over as DM, I included my former PC.

The second one was an NPC written into the module The Sunless Citadel, one Erky TImbers; who after being rescued according to the module is willing to adventure with the PCs.......

[Fake Healer]

Ashiel wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Ashiel says he always runs one. Ashiel says he always runs one.

Actually, I said "pretty much every time thereafter" referring to that specific group. Sorry if I was unclear. Perhaps amusingly enough, it began at their suggestion and then continued by their request so I assume that it's not merely conjecture that it was being done in a way that was good for the players.

One of the benefits I've found for GMPCs* is that it provides a roleplaying opportunity for players in virtually any situation. It can make dungeon crawls less of a crawl, for example. It's also really spiffy for dropping bits of lore into the game that would otherwise be overlooked, such as the character commenting on things or asking characters questions about themselves.

I have the same sort of experience with GMPCs. I use them a lot and the group(s) have all liked them because they are basically followers that are there to fill a role that no one in the party seemed to want to fill (like a locksmith/trapfinder or an arcanist). Their personality is more of a background character and i usually build them to be a totaly average PC but if there is some cool story element to get to the PCs I can use the GMPC as a delivery method or a sudden inspiration. I don't outshine anyone else with them and if the GMPC happens to land a final blow to a mook then there is not a jealous kill-steal moment.

I have had one DM that really was bad with GMPCs and he basically had Elminster with a different name join the group. Combats didn't end until he ended them and he chose ineffective actions constantly so the party drained resources for many rounds before jumping into the fray and dropping the nuke to save us all. BUT that has nothing to do with GMPCs and everything to do with Bad GMs.
If you can't run a GMPC without outshining and ruining the PC's fun then you may be a bad GM. A good GM sees what the group likes and is looking at making the game fun for the players. I've had players that told me that they usually hate GMPCs but that they love the ones I play because they aren't spotlighters, resource hogs, and party drags. They contribute to the party in a useful fashion and allow the party to shine.
That's what a GMPC is supposed to do and if it isn't, there is bad playing by the GM going on.

[Ashiel]

Ashiel wrote:

One of the benefits I've found for GMPCs*

I realized I forgot to include the note for the asterisk in this post. I was going to include what I consider a GM-PC.

Basically NPCs that have the following traits I consider qualifiers as GMPCs.

Sticks with the party like a member.

Advances and levels with the party to remain relevant.

Participates in important events and combats.

May be created explicitly for this purpose (no required).

May have PC WBL (not required).

This may be due to the fact that my NPCs in my games when I'm GMing often aren't much different from my PCs. Usually they have an idea, a theme, and I'll flesh their histories out as it becomes more and more relevant.

Most GMPCs lately begin as nameless NPCs that the party meets, it seems. :P

[bugleyman]

GMPCs are the devil's work.