| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any excuse?
I have really wanted to use DMPCs to improve the game with an ally that will always stand by the pcs.
It worked.
Anther DM had a whole set of them in one campaign, and you could swap them out to change up your party.
That also worked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two most common definitions of GMPC:
One is Ashiel's from the previous page - an NPC that consistently follows the party around helping out, and has the power of a PC, and is controlled by the GM. This is a good thing if the group is too small and the players don't want to run an extra character and the GM tries to keep the character in a support rather than starring role.
The other definition is a character that the GM thinks of in the same way that a typical player thinks of their PC. "How can I optimise my power? I hope I get a chance to shine. I hope I don't get killed. I hope there's some good loot here. Here's a door - should I search for traps? Here's a monster - what can I deduce about it?"
The latter is what GMPC-haters think of, and it's almost always a bad thing because it distracts the GM from trying to make the game fun for the players, and it's almost impossible not to take advantage of his GM omniscience and omnipotence to give his character an unfair advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spook205 I tried to define it; they ignore me... I tried to show how you could "do GMPCs right"; they attack... Suggesting this is just a small group of very in your face GMs who want to do them wrong, they want to make their GMPC the powerful central focus of their game and they refuse to see how this could irritate players.
Sure when you're the GM players are often willing to overlook and stay quiet about irritating things just to keep having a game to play. It's why it's good to get outside advice from time to time. It's what forums are for. But there will always be the ones who are belligerent in the face of any advice. They can't be helped. I have no idea why they show up on forums since they already know everything but they do show up...
If this is simply a case of "my players really love my strong central to the plot GMPC" then there really is no need to keep attacking others posts is there? No this is either a case of "he doth protest too much" meaning they know it's irritating the hell out of their players and just sit there defending bad GMing or a case of internet trolling. If their players really do love it then all they need to do is state that and move on. This advice in this case would not be for them, it would not help in their current game, and arguing endlessly about "their own group" is pointless.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spook205 I tried to define it; they ignore me... I tried to show how you could "do GMPCs right"; they attack... Suggesting this is just a small group of very in your face GMs who want to do them wrong, they want to make their GMPC the powerful central focus of their game and they refuse to see how this could irritate players.
Sure when you're the GM players are often willing to overlook and stay quiet about irritating things just to keep having a game to play. It's why it's good to get outside advice from time to time. It's what forums are for. But there will always be the ones who are belligerent in the face of any advice. They can't be helped. I have no idea why they show up on forums since they already know everything but they do show up...
If this is simply a case of "my players really love my strong central to the plot GMPC" then there really is no need to keep attacking others posts is there? No this is either a case of "he doth protest too much" meaning they know it's irritating the hell out of their players and just sit there defending bad GMing or a case of internet trolling. If their players really do love it then all they need to do is state that and move on. This advice in this case would not be for them, it would not help in their current game, and arguing endlessly about "their own group" is pointless.
There's never a need for attacking posts.
I actually think that Mr. Downie's second definition sounds like what most of the detractors of the 'DMPC' are against. And honestly, I can see where they come from with that.
I can't see how the DM can remain neutral when he's running a game for himself. He knows what's behind the door he's checking or what loot is in the treasure, he put it there.
Mr. Downie's second definition though is notable in that it doesn't encompass the thing a lot of us on this thread actually use our NPCs for.
The Ashiel definition basically just puts an NPC at PC level, and heck most villains are there or greater. A NPC along with the party, even included on loot breakdowns is still not a 'PC' he's just a very well treated NPC. I wouldn't really see this as a bad thing. Since this lacks the investiture that the second definition has.
In world verisimilitude would demand that you treat people equally, after all he doesn't have a giant flag reading 'NPC: Don't Pay Me.' over his head.
I'd imagine its basically boiling down to...
When the character is something in your toolbox, you're using it properly. When you treat the character as something separate (trying to sit on both sides of the shield), you're doing something bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A [bad version of a] GMPC is one that a GM thinks of as their character."
Consider seriously the implications of the idea that by running a character as a player would run their PC would be necessarily disruptive. What does that tell you about your own views of players and what is expected behavior by them?
I would say this, if you were a player and learned that your character was benefiting from an incorrect understanding of a rule by a group/GM and you chose to stay quiet about it because it was in your favor, then I would say you probably should not be running a GMPC as a GM.
Of course that is not a problem of running a GMPC, but a problem of you being a cheater. In that case I probably wouldn't want to game with you at all anyway, whether you were behind the screen or in front of it.
As a player, I'm generally trying to 'win'. I'm determined to survive the adventure. I've had too many campaigns terminated by TPKs - too many characters I like having their story cut off abruptly.
If I have metagame knowledge, it's extremely hard for me not to take advantage of it. "Well, I know my character will get killed if I stand over there because I've read the monster's bestiary entry and I know it explodes violently upon death. My character doesn't know that. If I didn't know, where would I stand? Hard to say. I think I'll err on the side of not dying, rather than killing myself on purpose to make a point."
I tend to expect others to feel the same. I tend to suspect that people who think they are capable of being entirely uninfluenced by metagame knowledge are fooling themselves.
I dare say there are exceptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".Yes, because that "fact" of yours totally and completely invalidates that pro argument. /sarcasm
Don't know who you play with to state such opinions as facts, but everyone I know gives feedback, good or bad. Maybe that's because we encourage criticism in our gaming community because we strive to better ourselves.
As far as feedback goes: ask. Speak with the players after each session or set of sessions. I've gone as far as passing around questionnaires or holding informal rap sessions at the end of the game, taking a few minutes out of the end of the game to say "Hey, what did you like? What did you not like? What could we do differently?"
If you don't come across defensively or aggressively people are willing, usually, to talk to you about the game. This has worked with relative strangers as well as people as close as my wife. If you don't ask, you may never find out. Keep in mind that if you do ask, however, that you may get feedback that you may not like or face problems you were previously unaware existed.
Then you have to decide how to act on them, whether the players are tired of the same old same old game, GMPCs, not enough or too much of an element and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it's possible for a GM to do similar things to benefit one player's character, but the temptation is stronger when the GM has a strong attachment to his own character.
Stronger than one's significant other, offspring, or other family member or close friend, let's say? I wonder what that says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've historically fought to keep the term "GMPC" reserved for "GMs who are trying to get the player experience out of a game they are GMing."
This makes sense, because the abbreviation itself stands for "Game Master's Player Character."
I think this is different from an allied NPC, the type who exists to serve a plot function or to shore up a hole in the party makeup.
The difference, to me, is the GM's intention. Do they simply intend to create another character in the fiction of the campaign? Then that's an NPC, even if they run with the party for a long time, because the GM is not "being a player."
Are they trying to get a thrill out of overcoming challenges, solving problems, growing in experience and reputation? Are they running the character simply because they wanted to play, but nobody would GM (or GM the way they wanted)? That's a GMPC: A GM's Player Character.
And the problem here is that very few people are capable of running a proper game while sincerely playing in it at the same time. Take a moment to consider what goes into being a player; what makes a player and a GM different. The GM must necessarily be impartial, and the GM must have privileged information about the setting that undermines the accomplishment of overcoming obstacle.
Some people are better at coping with this paradox than others. Most of the GMPC horror stories one hears are the result of a person who doesn't even perceive the paradox; they think that they can imagine a challenge and then defeat it, and that their privileged status doesn't in any way sully the victory.
One thing that seems very clear to me as an experienced GM: every ounce of effort that a GM spends on challenging their GMPC in order to enjoy having a character in the game is effort that would be better spent on the true PCs. The best way to serve the game is to think of all NPCs as NPCs regardless of their role in the campaign, and if you really crave the player experience, BE A PLAYER in another GM's game. Your campaign will be better, and the player experience will be better for you.
In the end, they're just terms, so people will use them the way that they want. But I think it is the most helpful to discussions of technique if we reserve "GMPC" for GMs who are trying to be players, and "NPC ally" for the many valid uses in service of the campaign.
I've historically fought to keep the term "GMPC" reserved for "GMs who are trying to get the player experience out of a game they are GMing."
This makes sense, because the abbreviation itself stands for "Game Master's Player Character."
I think this is different from an allied NPC, the type who exists to serve a plot function or to shore up a hole in the party makeup.
The difference, to me, is the GM's intention. Do they simply intend to create another character in the fiction of the campaign? Then that's an NPC, even if they run with the party for a long time, because the GM is not "being a player."
Are they trying to get a thrill out of overcoming challenges, solving problems, growing in experience and reputation? Are they running the character simply because they wanted to play, but nobody would GM (or GM the way they wanted)? That's a GMPC: A GM's Player Character.
And the problem here is that very few people are capable of running a proper game while sincerely playing in it at the same time. Take a moment to consider what goes into being a player; what makes a player and a GM different. The GM must necessarily be impartial, and the GM must have privileged information about the setting that undermines the accomplishment of overcoming obstacle.
Some people are better at coping with this paradox than others. Most of the GMPC horror stories one hears are the result of a person who doesn't even perceive the paradox; they think that they can imagine a challenge and then defeat it, and that their privileged status doesn't in any way sully the victory.
One thing that seems very clear to me as an experienced GM: every ounce of effort that a GM spends on challenging their GMPC in order to enjoy having a character in the game is effort that would be better spent on the true PCs. The best way to serve the game is to think of all NPCs as NPCs regardless of their role in the campaign, and if you really crave the player experience, BE A PLAYER in another GM's game. Your campaign will be better, and and the player experience will be better for you.
In the end, they're just terms, so people will use them the way that they want. But I think it is the most helpful to discussions of technique if we reserve "GMPC" for GMs who are trying to be players, and "NPC ally" for the many valid uses in service of the campaign.
I hate to quote a post in it's entirety, but this post is just solid gold.
Thanks, my evil colleague , for adding some well thought out sanity to this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.
Let me hasten to add that I LOVE this model of gaming. Being able to "swap off" with another DM and get a chance to play occasionally -- while doing the same for them -- is the best of both worlds, to me. (Not least of which because you, as temporarily-ex-DM, have no idea what things the new DM is going to add to the shared setting).
|
|
Some of those who are anti-GMPC acknowledge their necessity in a game run for only one player, while those who are pro-GMPC agree that they might be desirable in a large party, but are hardly necessary and indeed might detract.
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.
I've seen it kind of work and I've seen it fail horribly.
Like many things, I don't think it's necessarily bad, but it's hard and it's risky. I haven't seen the payoff be worth the risk, but YMMV.
I still have no idea how the heck a multiple DM game operates when you're running a campaign with complexity that goes beyond a site based adventure. I don't mean this as a snide take down, I genuinely don't see how it operates when you have like..NPCs independantly plotting in the background, secrets to be discovered, or the like.
Maybe if you're running APs, but then you still have a player who (should have) read the books cover to cover.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've historically fought to keep the term "GMPC" reserved for "GMs who are trying to get the player experience out of a game they are GMing."
This makes sense, because the abbreviation itself stands for "Game Master's Player Character."
And as I have always said in response, I can't comprehend this because I am a player as well as a GM.
Just last night I played an evergreen scenario that I had run before. I knew everything that was going to happen, but I played my barbarian in the usual manner. He blindly walked into the traps I knew about, and made suggestions about the mystery they were solving independent of my own knowledge of the answers.
Maybe organized play makes you better prepared to run a character while GMing, especially with the '3 players and a pregen' option to cover small tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have no idea how the heck a multiple DM game operates when you're running a campaign with complexity that goes beyond a site based adventure. I don't mean this as a snide take down, I genuinely don't see how it operates when you have like..NPCs independantly plotting in the background, secrets to be discovered, or the like.
Kind of like how a good jazz combo can just improv for an hour or so without it ever getting stale or falling apart; instead, it keeps getting more and more nuanced and complex as they continue to riff off each other. These are generally guys who have played a lot together, and there's a level of trust that's needed, but it's hard to beat when it comes together.
Half the fun is when your co-DM accidently steps on your toes in some way, and you have to integrate his/her new development into the ruins of what you had previously planned, and still make it all come together so that the other players can't tell which parts are yours and which parts are the other DM's, and keep a seamless, internally-consistent storyline going. It's a challenge to your creativity and logic both, forcing you to use both sides of your brain.
Or, the two DMs could just, you know, talk to each other beforehand.
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.Let me hasten to add that I LOVE this model of gaming. Being able to "swap off" with another DM and get a chance to play occasionally -- while doing the same for them -- is the best of both worlds, to me. (Not least of which because you, as temporarily-ex-DM, have no idea what things the new DM is going to add to the shared setting).
I like this method as well.
Can't remember who was telling me about it, but someone was in an Ars Magicka game where each player was also a GM, but they were responsible for different aspects of the game world. Basically each GM had their story line, and they swapped who was GM for the session based on what was going on and what they were dealing with.
Ars Magicka is also more troupe style inherently, with a lot of switching in and out of different characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have no idea how the heck a multiple DM game operates when you're running a campaign with complexity that goes beyond a site based adventure. I don't mean this as a snide take down, I genuinely don't see how it operates when you have like..NPCs independantly plotting in the background, secrets to be discovered, or the like.Maybe if you're running APs, but then you still have a player who (should have) read the books cover to cover.
I'm in a multiple-DM game right now (well technically hiatus, but coming back in a few months). Entirely homebrew, the other DM has been running the setting for a little over 10 years now. I was a player for a long time, but I had an idea for a campaign in this world, so we're running it together. Neither of us has a PC in the game though, we have 8 players in the group (though often only 5 show up) and that's plenty.
I have a buried thread somewhere about it if you're interested and can update with more details. We use a lot of google docs. I have a separate doc for each session, plus a doc for each important location (any large, plot important site that will be used for more than one session). Plus the players do a write up of each session and post it online (We use plot cards, you earn one for writing up the previous session).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of like how a good jazz combo can just improv for an hour or so without it ever getting stale or falling apart; instead, it keeps getting more and more nuanced and complex as they continue to riff off each other. These are generally guys who have played a lot together, and there's a level of trust that's needed, but it's hard to beat when it comes together.
Much like any good group gets to be. I'm currently in the process of building such a group, with Cyz, myself, rknop, and our new player/DM Phylotus. We each trade off running organized play scenarios and AP games, to the point that save for maybe one or two part time guests, everyone has been behind the screen at some point. Not sure we'll ever try a multi-GM campaign due to the online tabletop nature of the group however.
Some of those who are anti-GMPC acknowledge their necessity in a game run for only one player, while those who are pro-GMPC agree that they might be desirable in a large party, but are hardly necessary and indeed might detract.
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.
Absolutely, in a one on one dungeon, the DM almost needs to run a DMPC.
We have done that, but we found it's best to have the then-DM's PC either played by another in "dumb" mode or sitting home crafting stuff. But it's fairly standard, and since everyone gets a DMPC, pretty fair.
I still have no idea how the heck a multiple DM game operates when you're running a campaign with complexity that goes beyond a site based adventure. I don't mean this as a snide take down, I genuinely don't see how it operates when you have like..NPCs independantly plotting in the background, secrets to be discovered, or the like.
Maybe if you're running APs, but then you still have a player who (should have) read the books cover to cover.
Well, honestly, it's not quite as nice as having a 100% dedicated DM, but when no one wants to do that much work and everyone wants to play, it is a workable way of playing. It can be really fun.
In fact the first campaign not in Lake Geneva worked that way- the Aurania shared world. It was a little different in that there two main DMs and the parties in each were different- but there were crossovers.
I've noticed that a lot of GMs (especially new ones) feel the need to include an 'NPC' that tags along with the party and levels up with them. I have rarely seen this done well and often the GM either plays favorites with their own character or tries to overcompensate and basically makes their character's life hell to the point that it feels like the game is a tragedy with the GMPC at the centre. I understand why people want to do this, I mean being a player can seem a lot more fun for some people (me included). I did once pretend to have an over leveled GMPC who was an obvious Mary Sue that my players hated, but was used as a plot device to show how dangerous the world was with his death. I don't think I would ever actually use one though, it seems much to unfair to the players.
I've had GM's that have used the "full-fledged PC character" variety, and don't remember any particularly good experiences with it, and I did have one or two bad experiences where the GMPC got a starring role.
As a GM, I've used a GMPC full-fledged PC characters a couple times with a group of completely new users, just to help show how role-playing works by example... I always hated doing so, though, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a distraction for me. And, I really don't want to overshadow the players. To my surprise, the players didn't seem to mind, and objected when I first tried to withdraw my GMPC from the group, which I found a very surprising reaction, and really not the one I wanted (I didn't really expect removing the GMPC to be like removing the training wheels on a youngster's bike!)
Since then, I've had better luck with characters that use those weak NPC classes (Expert, Warrior, etc.) instead, who act a bit like sidekicks and treat the other characters as the expert adventurers. This results in "GMPC" characters that don't overshadow the PCs, and helps encourage the PCs to take the lead a lot earlier. And, background NPCs in supporting roles are a lot more fun for me to play as a GM, besides :)
Some of those who are anti-GMPC acknowledge their necessity in a game run for only one player, while those who are pro-GMPC agree that they might be desirable in a large party, but are hardly necessary and indeed might detract.
What about multiple DMs running for the same party in a shared world? Is it acceptable to have a "GMPC" who's essentially played for the most part as an allied NPC while you're running a game, and a PC when it's someone else's turn? I've participated in many ongoing campaigns wherein this proved extremely effective.
I've seen it kind of work and I've seen it fail horribly.
Like many things, I don't think it's necessarily bad, but it's hard and it's risky. I haven't seen the payoff be worth the risk, but YMMV.
I still have no idea how the heck a multiple DM game operates when you're running a campaign with complexity that goes beyond a site based adventure. I don't mean this as a snide take down, I genuinely don't see how it operates when you have like..NPCs independantly plotting in the background, secrets to be discovered, or the like.
Maybe if you're running APs, but then you still have a player who (should have) read the books cover to cover.
Actually, the multiple-GM scenario was exactly the situation I used GMPCs in with the group of new players: I took turns with the new players acting as the GM in a shared campaign. (Not sure why we did it that way, I guess some of the new players wanted to try GMing as part of the experience, and the rest just followed suit.)
We used a 3rd Edition starter-set pre-published campaign, and just took turns running each "chapter" or "section" of it.
It seemed to work - I changed things around a bit in the first adventure and used the opportunity to explain early about improv, and the other GMs just followed the example when they took their turns, so reading ahead in the adventure book didn't necessarily spoil everything.
It got a little awkward in later chapters/adventures, as we started accumulating a little collection of dangling plot threads and so on that we'd forget to pick up, and there was quite a lot of genre-shifting going on due to each player having a very different flavor of fantasy in mind and no solid setting established, but it was all fun anyway.
I haven't really tried it again since then, though. I guess I wouldn't mind trying it again some time....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My very basic definition is this.
Npcs have stat blocks, GMPCs have Character Sheets.
NPCs have that innate sense of being expendable. If they die on the adventure, that sucks but at least it wasn't us. GMPCs are actually members of the group that our characters care about and will mourn/revenge when/if they are killed.
Example: We were playing in a Ravenloft 1890's game and the party was two stage magicians and a rogue type. All very low power. DM tossed in a soldier type for some extra firepower. Not too bright, very loyal. Ended up in a love triangle with the rogue for the magician assistant.
He was a fleshed out character who leveled up with the party. He got hurt pretty frequently. Sat in back and shot at the monsters when we needed the firepower and had an awesome southern accent and was just a good guy. We loved him.
He did NOT make it to the end of the campaign and had nearly been killed off a couple times, but we did everything we could to keep him alive. It was a pretty intense game a few times there...
He was the only one in the group who did NOT have a plot swirl around him at any given time and didn't solve the problems or puzzles.
I consider him a DMPC. The DM had a sheet as filled out as ours, he shared xp, got some of the loot (though loot in that game was a bit different) and was a full fledged member of the team.
I have zero problem at all with characters like that.
There's a lot of difference between Spear-holder #3 with a simple stat block and a fully fledged background character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Placeholder] agrees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of difference between Spear-holder #3 with a simple stat block and a fully fledged background character.Huh. I don't see them as different.
I agree. Truth be told, I have had three ring binders full of NPC character sheets and many have traveled with parties for a time or two.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone had a DMPC develop through play, as the players grew more and more attached to a particular NPC?
In a previous campaign, my players captured a drow scout, who eventually became a close companion (eventually marrying the party's dervish paladin, after a lot of time spent working through her issues).
Both of the cohorts in my current WotR campaign were random encounters that the party redeemed and grew close to (not necessarily in that order). Similar situation in Carrion Crown, where one of the PCs latched onto a handsome lad at Ascanor Lodge.
Anyone had a DMPC develop through play, as the players grew more and more attached to a particular NPC?
... all the daggum time... >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone had a DMPC develop through play, as the players grew more and more attached to a particular NPC?
A large number of times. Husbands, wives, trusted advisers and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mikmak in Kingmaker was so beloved by my group (since he charged headlong into battle even though he just got rescued) that upon escape from the tree and return to the chief I have him a rogue level and he became the party trap springer, and as the game went on and years passed in character, his descendants joined the party as various classed kobolds at party level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me of Soldier A. Yaaay!