| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I prefer no GMPC. If done well, I'd be fine with it, but I personally have not seen it done well.
As a GM, I have zero interest in doing it. I'd rather just give the players the resources to deal with challenges and not have to do it myself.
Currently I'm infatuated with a game called Blades in the Dark. It's a game about criminals running their organization within the underworld of a city. As a GM, I love it because it taxes me creatively, but there's virtually no mechanically fiddly bits for me to be concerned with. NPCs don't even have stats, all of my notes are entirely focused on who they are and their relation to the story. I also don't pick up dice either as GM in that game. I love it.
I still run a PF game, but I prefer to keep my stat bookkeeping to a minimum. I tend to not stat up NPC's (I keep some resources handy to grab stat blocks from) unless their stats come up in 2 different sessions. I'm definitely not running a GMPC.
Exactly, Aranna.
Thank you, Sissyl.
When I design an NPC, I make damn sure to make it has a clear goal for the time it will interact with the party. Whether it is a disguised succubus aiming to drain some life energy, an abandoned and reluctant soulmate of a previous incarnation of one character who wants him dead, a haughty priest who wants information about something the party delved into, a brave paladin who wants the more powerful heroes to save his town, or whatever. They are then subject to the rules like everyone else, and will fight to reach their goals. Now, either the goal is reached, or denied, but either way that NPC is at a crossroads and will need either a new goal or depart. I do not have NPC allies often, and not for long. Most of them tend to die. It is a hassle to me to keep track of, and I really don't want a player experience with them. They are part of the setting, not the party, even if welcome to travel with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I prefer no GMPC. If done well, I'd be fine with it, but I personally have not seen it done well.
As a GM, I have zero interest in doing it. I'd rather just give the players the resources to deal with challenges and not have to do it myself.
This is absolutely totally legit as a preference and made due to history.
The main thing I've been trying to say, just to be clear, is that it really depends on different people. The hardline "they're always bad" is incorrect. It would be much better stated "they're always something that I don't like" because that makes sense and is accurate, when compared to my own experiences with them on both sides of the screen, as well as that of many others.
If the GM can remain impartial regarding the GMPC, though, then it is an NPC and not a GMPC.Irrelevant semantics. We all know what each side is discussing, quibbling over the labels makes no difference.
Then call them either NPC allies or GMPCs depending on the investment of the GM, and we won't have to quibble about it, TOZ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then call them either NPC allies or GMPCs depending on the investment of the GM, and we won't have to quibble about it, TOZ.
See, this is exclusively one group going, "You must change for my preference." to which, my answer, is "No. But feel free to change for mine, if you like, at which point that level of disagreement will disappear."
Hence the problem over terms.
In this case, I am, for my own purposes, claiming the label of GMPC.
In much the same folk have taken Nerd on as a positive thing (though it was used pejoratively) I take GMPC as a positive thing (though some use it pejoratively).
(That and the fact that I get invested in my GMPCs and NPCs alike, just like the PCs whether I play them or not. But that's just me.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Healing is not just damage repair.
Restoration, remove curse, break enchantment, dispel magic, remove fear (panicking and cowering suck), remove sickness (nauseated f***s up teams), and the rest are way more important to me than a measly cure spell.
No tot mention, Bless, Aid, Remove paralysis, Magic vestment, Prayer, Divination, Planar ally, Commune.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, before heal comes online status removal doesn't happen much in combat.Also, some of that stuff (restoration, break enchantment) is out of combat casting. Out of combat stuff is usually best handled by just leaving slots open. There is little reason to prepare it before hand.
Most PCs that would describe their role as "healers" cast cure X wounds in combat and little else.
Well, sure- it can be done after the battle, but it has to be done, unless your party always Tports back to the Temple and pays the price.
Not mine. First two rounds they buff or fight. Only when a PC has been hit to the point where another hit will down them do they heal- in which case, you're gonna need something better than a CLW wand. Of course, sometimes in combat a perfectly placed Channel can do a lot of good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... all the grognards
You rang?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no definitive "player experience". All players experience the game differently depending on their gaming history, interest, own personality, etc.
A person who has already ran through a module or AP as either a GM or player, is going to have a different player experience than someone who has not. That doesn't mean they are not having a player experience though, just a different one. Just as an individual player had a different experience when the came up against a troll for the very first time than they do when they come up against the 50th troll. Now if they are playing a character who has never encountered a troll before, that character should probably respond in a similar as the character when the player faced their first troll.
Player experience =/= Character experience
(unless you are not really running characters of course)
Let's also remember that not all players want to be Kirk, swinging his ... phaser around. Some players want to be Scotty or Sulu, that doesn't mean they are not having player experiences when they run characters that way. A player running a stand back and support character isn't running less of a PC than someone acting as the face of the party and always leading the way. Not everyone wants to stand in the spotlight, at least not all the time.
And some players root for other players' characters as well as their own, and they even root for NPCs or in rare cases the very cool BBEG. They may even root for their character failing if the failing is in an awesome way. Case in point, I was playing a SW:SAGA game and had a gamorean (sp?) who did a lot of charging. In the last fight we were trying to escape a planet with a sith on our loading ramp. We were approach higher altitudes. I told the GM, "I am going to try to bull (bantha?) rush him off the ramp. Now before I roll, if I roll a 1 I am going to say my character falls off and plummets to his death." Of course, I rolled a 1. It was an awesome ending to the character and though he didn't end up saving the day, I didn't regret the outcome one bit. The entire table laughed and enjoyed the development.
TL/DR: what a player experience is different for everyone, characters experience things that players don't, not everyone needs to be the center of attention, some players are cool with their characters failing/dying.
|
That's possible, but ... I've been playing and DMing off and on for 35+ years, so I can't be easily dismissed as a newb.
Early on, though, I employed them in that nightmarish manner many of those opposed to it dread, so I certainly see why some are gun-shy.
My apologies I wasnt saying trying to dismiss anyone just trying to explain my groups preferences.
The person who called it a tool in the toolbox had the right of it, at least in in part.
This I agree with. The poster I was replying too was implying if you dont use the GMPC tool, you are and inferior GM. Which of course I think is poppycock.
But he's not a member of the party. He's an encounter.Yeah, but that doesn't make it a bad thing: the Avengers can still appreciate when Nick Fury shows up, even if he's not the star.A player experience: At some level, you are the protagonist of the story. You are one of the central actors of the game world, one of the spotlight-people. You root for your character and want him or her to get better, solve mysteries, fight the unknown and discover new things! You wish to meet interesting characters! Be a hero!
If you are the GM, you can't play a PC at all. It is a GMPC, unless you manage to remain impartial to it, at which point it is an NPC.
Someone didn't see Avengers 2, I take it. Just because he isn't officially an Avenger doesn't mean he isn't a valuable asset that they regularly expect to show up, interact with, and trust as implicitly as they do one another.
Nick Fury is pretty much a perfect example of a GMPC - helpful, there when you need him, not at all the star, not at all comparable to the PCs (except Hawkeye, who's player sucks at optimizing), but useful, contributing, and better than a mook, hireling, follower (your average SHIELD agent), Cohort (Coleson) or other average NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay.
In either case I wish I did a better Sam Jackson impression so my players would intrinsically know who my next GMPC is when he shows up.
I'll have to settle for a bad impression of Dave Chapelle doing a bad impression of Sam Jackson.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see SJ as an evangelist cleric of Caiden Caylean, maybe a little inquisitor mixed in..."SAY WHAT AGAIN...SAY IT...
NOW DRINK MY BEER! MMMM MMM B^+@#!!"
Custom made haversack that says "Bad Mother F*#$er" on it...
Every time he kills someone, scream out "YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE, AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!"
...until an awakened megalodon jumps up and eats him in the middle of inspiring courage.
...
...
...
I have some character design to get to. This guy WILL be in my Kingmaker game.
How in the heck am I gonna get a megalodon in the River Kingdoms?!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the browncoats.
Bad GMPC: e.g. River Tam
Good GMPC: e.g. Shepherd Book
Many years in this hobby has shown me that GMPCs are a pestilence, a scourge and a bloody nuissance. They make bile rise to the back of my throat.
They're Mary Sue's waiting to happen, they're centerpieces in the GM's little, private memememememememe-fest, and they're utterly and completely unnecessary.
GMs introducing major NPCs that the players meet regularly ... fine, no problem. Regular meetings make for building relationships (good or bad) with that NPC, and that is cool and conducive to RP. Having that same NPC tag along and "help" the players is stymying at the best of times and ruinous to the mood at most others. The PCs will either react by always relying on the Mary Sue to solve their problems, or be damnably annoyed when the Mary Sue unavoidably ends up doing just that.
Thirty years and I've never ... not once, regardless of system or GM ... seen it done well. Ever. EVER!!
And what's worse, I used to do this myself, the first ten or twelve years of my RP-career. It -murdered- several campaigns I ran and it ended up costing me valuable friendships with people who ended up thinking I was a self-obsessed, neurotic, egomaniacal -git-.
The worst part of that is, I -was-. I got better, but I -was- and I've never seen a GM using GMPCs that aren't guilty of the same at least to some extent.
If you want to run the game, run the game. Let the players -play- the game. Division of labour is a thing and -should- be a thing!
If you're not comfortable being in the driver's seat, let someone else get their driver's license and drive the car while you stay on the passenger's side. Don't fall for the temptation to make "one of the guys". They're -never- "one of the guys", even when your players swear on a stack of assorted holy scripture that they don't mind and that your GMPC is "great" and "fun" and "helpful" or any other adjective you can think of.
Make interesting NPCs. Employers, allies that have their own adventures to go on, henchmen, bartenders and thieves, nobles and scumbags. You'll have -all- the opportunity you want for roleplaying as a GM that way.
That's another side of the GMPC-fiasco ... when GMs fall for this, NPCs cannot have natural reactions or conversations WITH that GMPC, because the same person is leading both sides of the story. It also almost inevitably leads to less interesting NPCs because the GM doesn't have to work nearly as hard on them ... after all, he'll still get his rah-rahs, RP-wise, through his pestilential intrusion into the realm of the players.
Just don't. Not ever. Not even when you think you could just ...
You can't.
Or even if you maybe ...
No!
But what about if you ...
NO!
But you have this really cool idea for a character ...
Yeah, and you can use it in a game you don't run. Not in a game where you're the GM!
But it fits so well ...
Of course it bloody does. You know ALL the spoilers. What did you expect?
But you wouldn't use the that knowledge. You would just be ...
Yeah, and porcine entities spontaneously develop aerodynamic properties and velocitate through the lower oxygenized atmosphere at their own volution! NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
NOT EVER!
Gahh ...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as impartial; it is an ideal that can never truly be attained. Some people can come closer than others but no GM is impartial. The trick is to find a GM who's partiality is one you like. I find GMPCs if done poorly are just another trap to fail as a GM, if done well they either stay out of the way or cater to some want of the players. The trap is insidious of course nearly every GM who is doing it poorly think they are doing it well. And, depending on the players, often they are never called on it as long as the players can get some enjoyment from the game.
Back when I first started with 3E (way, way, waaaaay back), I practiced GMing the system without any players first to get a grasp on how things worked. I rolled a party for four adventurers and took them through a dungeon I made and also experimented with random traps, treasures, encounters, etc. This might be a good practice for training yourself for impartiality.
Because, yes, impartiality is a thing. You can be completely impartial. It's just a matter of simply being impartial. It's not really complicated. I root for the PCs all the time but I never fudge or stack the deck in their favor. If I can be impartial between NPCs and PCs, why not GMPCs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tips for running a successful DMPC.
Unfortunately our group is composed of 4 participants who have trouble scheduling weekly sessions. so as a DM, I had to get really good with the trick of a DMPC. i have seen the boards hate on them, but for our group they are essential. we have tried giving players 2 or more characters to use, and only 1 or 2 of us can do it.
here are some of the things i learned using a DMPC.
5 communicate:
explain the adventure to the players of what classes may see the most use but explain that all classes are welcome.
4 fill the gaps:
depending on the amount of players needed vs minimum requirements. with those gaps fill with secondary classes, BARD, rogue, Sorcerers and Clerics seem to be awesome for this, your job is not to eclipse the players but allow them to survive long enough to have their moment. this can be a bit harder with a cleric, in which he should turn to a heal bot/ buffer/ and off tank. the worst classes for this are paladins because by their very nature they tend to steer to leadership roles. with a little practice however it can be done.
3 stack the chips in the players favor for economy of action:
if they picked a rogue, place more traps in the dungeon. if they picked a ranger, more of the favored enemy type should tend to trickle into the adventure. wizard or sorcerer, have more magic in the game.
2 gloss over the accomplishments of the DMPC:
the players are the main actors, even everyone else is just a supporting actor. focus the glory on the players instead. a neat trick is to offer side quests that the DMPC offer to the players themselves. bonus points if you can turn it into a solo quest where only the players skills abilities and special powers can save the day.
1 keep a theme between all the DMPC:
if you have 1 it isn't that much of an issue, but if you need a second or even a third, a theme or mini story that keeps them related to one another is very good. team/ ally feats are excellent because it makes the party feel like they are old hands working together. it becomes especially potent if one of them dies in a battle, because even if 1 is replaced he will never be as good as the original party due to feats not matching up. it becomes a sobering experience and you might see your players getting attached to the DMPCs. if you see them going out of the way to raise dead on a DMPC just because they like them in the party, you've done your job right.
now the don'ts
5 don't overshadow the players by how awesome you can make a pc:
you are the DM, you know exactly what your players are facing and you are meta-gaming at its worst.
4 don't use them for major betrayals:
minor is okay, to teach them not to blindly trust just anyone. and major betrayal might be good for one part in the story, but anyone who has played Baldurs gate can tell you (if you played an evil party) Getting replacements for Xzar and Montaron was annoying as heck so close to the end of the game.
3 don't kill them off often:
they become red shirts and easily disposable.
2 don't use them to make the party look stupid.
sure it might be good for a single laugh (for yourself and that's wrong), but soon the joke wears thin, and now you have players harbor a dislike for what should be a background character.
1 don't use them in a passive aggressive way:
never use your dmpc to prove a point even if your right. you have just outsmarted your self in your own game
I'm sorry for stirring the pot with my advocating a certain terminology -- like I said, they're just terms and people are going to use them however they wish whether or not I think they're accurate.
So let's try this: leave aside the actual terms Allied NPC (let's call that "Blorch") and a GMPC (Let's call that "Sweem").
Is there a difference between Blorch and Sweem? I assert that there is. While they are mostly similar, Sweem has some characteristics that can exacerbate poor habits the GM might have, and is at much higher risk of irritating the players.
This difference exists, and it is the topic of discussion here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with The Alkenstarian on this one. In my many years of gaming, I've never seen a GMPC done well. Not once.
Does that mean it's impossible to pull off? Probably not. Judging by this thread, at least some gamers have had positive experiences. And that's cool. That rocks for those gamers.
When it comes to topics such as this one, though, we draw on our own experiences as gamers, and I absolutely see where The Alkenstarian is coming from and why the opposition to the notion of GMPCs is strong in that one.
My own experiences mirror The Alkenstarian's, and I'll leave any game in which a GM introduces a GMPC. I play roleplaying games to have fun, and every single GMPC used in my time has lessened the fun I've had to a point where I felt my time was better spent doing something else.
Again, it's entirely possible that others have had great experiences, and that's great. But experience shapes us, just as it does our characters. And my experience tells me that GMPCs is a red flag.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe for a moment that it can be done and done well. I believe it's a myth, created by people who think they are able to do something which, in reality, they shouldn't do.I'll leave any game in which a GM introduces a GMPC.These are addressed to both the above gentlemen/ladies:
Does that mean you'd also refuse to even enter a game in which one had been used to excellent effect according to people whose judgment you trust?
What if you entered a game, were having a great time, and the DMPC the other players all loved reappeared some months into your participation, to their delight?
Are you saying you wouldn't even give it a chance?
I think the point of contention is the definitional issue again.
Arken and Heine might have a definition of 'DMPC' which is intrinsically pejorative. Sort of like
DM: If Sarah Dofeeny wants to play Dungeons and Dragons with us, she can play Titania.
Galstaff: Oooo
Nightblade/Jeremy: Isn't that your character?
DM: She's not my character, I'm the DM. Sometimes I need to send Non-Player characters along with you to provide vital information.
Jeremy: Yeah but mostly it seems like you just end up talking through Titania..
The anti-DMPC camp might view this explanation as a smokescreen (and in context it is) but its not always the case.
I've had NPCs along with a group but the party either ends up babysitting them or treating them as assets. One of my groups collects NPCs and brings them into their organization, although they don't ride out with them because they tend to not be as effective as the party (or the party wants to keep them safe).
Actually, this makes me a little curious and the following question is not meant accusatorially.
Of those folks who dislike the 'DMPC' idea, do you also dislike a campaign setting where the player characters are not the only heroes? Or campaign settings where the heroes know if they fail or falter, there might be horrible consequences but someone else might clean up the mess?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also would you leave immediately if the GM introduced an NPC party ally? According to some, the difference between an allied NPC and a GMPC is the GM's emotional investment in the character. If you agree with that, then how would you know at least before playing in the group for a while how strong the GM's emotional attachment to the character is?
Of those folks who dislike the 'DMPC' idea, do you also dislike a campaign setting where the player characters are not the only heroes? Or campaign settings where the heroes know if they fail or falter, there might be horrible consequences but someone else might clean up the mess?
This makes me think of Jolee Bindo's story of the Jedi that had a destiny. LOL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious: Has anyone changed his or her opinion as a result of reading this thread? Or are we just barking at each other to no effect?Fairly sure it's the second.
Mostly talking past each other, I think. Though this thread and some like it often brings to mind conversations I've had with friends about some man or woman that has done them wrong and how ALL men or women are evil from the black pit and should never be trusted.
Sometimes the bad experience that one has had isn't the same across the board, much like dating. Sometimes it is bad choices and so on. Just because redheads didn't work for you doesn't mean ALL redheads are bad, you know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone changed their minds?
I ask that in so many threads...
The answer is almost universally no.
I will say that I have overall learned much more on how to improve the players' experience with an allied character that I, as the GM, control, no matter what stupid set of letters identify that individual.
I have played in enough campaigns to know that if the GM uses a GMPC, it will be clear that the NPC traveling with you is a GMPC within the first few exchanges. So, I would maybe try, and then leave. More probably not, though. Far more.
And it is not like all redheads are evil because bad date with one. It is like all crooked umpires are bad because they are crooked. Even if one team likes it.
Friends don't let friends commit GMPCs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of those folks who dislike the 'DMPC' idea, do you also dislike a campaign setting where the player characters are not the only heroes? Or campaign settings where the heroes know if they fail or falter, there might be horrible consequences but someone else might clean up the mess?My philosophy is that the player characters are the stars of the story, they're the protagonists, the rest of the world is either the antagonists or supporting cast. The PC's and what they're doing are center stage.
DMPC's have a strange halfway existence where they are a bit of one and the other.
If the players screw up, or all die, then the next set of characters they make, become the new protagonists, Kind of what happen when Professor X thought his entire original team was lost back in the early days of the New X-Men.
Right, but those heroes have to come from somewhere and the world keeps turning even without PC engagement.
I was curious if one of the complaints of the 'NPC with the party' or 'DM PC' was that their very existence triggers 'loss of agency' concerns in certain players.
I bring this up because I've heard the opposite. I've gotten people grumble at me because the villains do things.
An example, the party found out that one group of bad guys had a certain mcguffin, they showed up to take it, to find out that while they were spending time with preparations, another group of villains took it from the other baddies instead.
Also there have been situations where bad guys have been defeated by city defenses, or driven off or weakened before the heroes show up. The story remains about the heroes, but the heroes don't need to be responsible for everything.
I wonder what the guys who define a "DMPC" as something that interferes with the player group, or represents the DM playing with himself, thinks about developments based on world verisimilitude?
I'm sorry for stirring the pot with my advocating a certain terminology -- like I said, they're just terms and people are going to use them however they wish whether or not I think they're accurate.
So let's try this: leave aside the actual terms Allied NPC (let's call that "Blorch") and a GMPC (Let's call that "Sweem").
Is there a difference between Blorch and Sweem? I assert that there is. While they are mostly similar, Sweem has some characteristics that can exacerbate poor habits the GM might have, and is at much higher risk of irritating the players.
This difference exists, and it is the topic of discussion here.
It's not your fault IMO. These boards have a bad culture surrounding attempts to actually come up with a definition of something that that might facilitate discussion of said thing.
Just because redheads didn't work for you doesn't mean ALL redheads are bad, you know?This is one of the few exceptions: All redheads are evil. :D
Natural only, or does the dye infuse one with evil too?
One thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as impartial; it is an ideal that can never truly be attained. Some people can come closer than others but no GM is impartial. The trick is to find a GM who's partiality is one you like. I find GMPCs if done poorly are just another trap to fail as a GM, if done well they either stay out of the way or cater to some want of the players. The trap is insidious of course nearly every GM who is doing it poorly think they are doing it well. And, depending on the players, often they are never called on it as long as the players can get some enjoyment from the game.Back when I first started with 3E (way, way, waaaaay back), I practiced GMing the system without any players first to get a grasp on how things worked. I rolled a party for four adventurers and took them through a dungeon I made and also experimented with random traps, treasures, encounters, etc. This might be a good practice for training yourself for impartiality.
Because, yes, impartiality is a thing. You can be completely impartial. It's just a matter of simply being impartial. It's not really complicated. I root for the PCs all the time but I never fudge or stack the deck in their favor. If I can be impartial between NPCs and PCs, why not GMPCs?
Not really possible, sorry.
The ONLY way to have impartiality is to "not care" about the outcome of the game and act solely as mechanics referee. If you as a GM have ANY say over creative content you will have partiality to some degree or another. If you place a magic sword into the game for the fighter to find or craft an NPC for the bard to charm... all forms of partiality. And lets face it most GMs (even the best ones) favor interacting with some players or characters over others, and that increased attention is yet another form of partiality. Even your choice of play style is a form of partiality favoring combat encounters over role play interactions as an example. I have yet to actually encounter a real life impartial GM... like I said ideals are meant to be striven for and never attained.