Friends don't let friends commit GMPCs.What purpose does a comment like this serve other than to incite?
Informing people that it is a REALLY bad idea. Duh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. I'd politely, and possibly even regretfully, tell the group that I would prefer not to play in that campaign and if asked why, I'd be honest enough to tell them that I disagree with the use of a GMPC as part of the campaign.
If a GMPC was introduced into the game after I had joined it, I would unjoin that campaign. I would talk to the GM about it, I'd let him or her know why ... politely ... and I'd tell him or her that the use of GMPCs is a dealbreaker for me, and that due to so many bad experiences that it beggars the imagination, I'm not willing to give it one more try, but that I wish the GM and the other players the very best and that I hope they'll have a great time with the rest of the campaign.
And then I'd probably look for someone else to play with because naturally, I would not expect them to want to play with me again in a future campaign.
I am not -that- conceited.
After all, I disagree fundamentally with one of the ways their campaigns are run, and since I do not believe that any one player should have the power of veto, I'd leave.
In the end, for an RP group to function, there has to be something approximating common consensus and I am just one person. But since it genuinely is a dealbreaker for me, I'd excuse myself. Frankly, it's better for everyone concerned.
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...
This is, actually, pretty precisely what my experience is and how I define a GMPC for that very reason. It's not based on a single experience but probably as many as thirty or forty.
The end result every single time is that the socalled "NPC along for vital information" ends up being the focal point of the entire campaign rather than the actual PCs.
I have utterly -no- problem whatsoever with NPCs having a major role in a game. I think it is, in fact, the best way for a GM to get their RP rah-rah's, except for the obvious option of being a player in other campaigns. There's no problem with NPCs being near omnipotent and omniscient. If done right, then fine.
What bothers me to the point of exasperation, is when you see a GM introduce a socalled NPC and then involving themselves as if that character was simply one of the PCs. There's a wide gulf of difference between an NPC or a PC. PCs are meant to be the characters solving the campaign. If they do not, they are bit players, and I would -not- want to either run or play in such a campaign.
It's perfectly possible to make a campaign which is meant to be a part of a greater whole ... for instance, the group makes up one military unit in a much greater army, and the campaign centers on their activities, but the army as a whole still campaigns and may or may not be victorious in the end. But the part of that great campaign, most of which would probably happen off-screen, which centers on the players should -center on the players-! Not on some super-deluxe, spiff-and-spitshine uber-NPC who magically knows how to do everything, solve everything and win everything.
I'd be bored to -tears- as a player in a campaign where such an "NPC" was introduced, and I'd challenge the label "NPC" vehemently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Informing people that it is a REALLY bad idea. Duh.Friends don't let friends commit GMPCs.What purpose does a comment like this serve other than to incite?
...because that message wasn't conveyed already.
...dozens of times.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run GMPC's in most of my games for twenty-five years now, and my buddy has done the same in his games he helms. It's truly never been a problem. In the end, the characters all feel like characters in an epic story, where all of them matter, and they all need each other. In a small group such as ours, it allows for a fully realized group AND allows for the GM to play "on the other side of the table" when another player runs a small stretch of non-arc sessions as a "guest" GM. Is it harder to pull off correctly as a GM? Yes. Are there potential pitfalls and traps to be avoided with it? Sure. Yet they can be easily understood and avoided with the right group of dedicated and mature gamers.
Like so many topics on these boards and with role-playing in general, the issue has much less to do with the stated issue, and far more to do with the maturity and chemistry of the people that make up the gaming group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totes adorbs.
What, no obligatory "hashtag" before saying that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Friends don't let friends commit GMPCs.
What purpose does a comment like this serve other than to incite?
Informing people that it is a REALLY bad idea. Duh.
Except you're wrong
Beat me to it.
And that's the point.
There is a pejorative use of the term "GMPC" that I strongly disagree with. That use is always "a character the GM uses to be a glory-hog".
This is not what a GMPC is to me.
This is "bad GMing" and I've seen it done with NPCs (happening off-screen) or GMPCs (onscreen).
A GMPC is a character who is part of the adventuring group - for whatever reason - that stays with them, receives loot, XP (or similar), and contributes. They are, in fact, treated in every way as if they were a PC, whether having something unique to their abilities (but no more so than others) or simply tying them into the group via solid RP.
GMs use them for various purposes, and I've had a ton of moments when I've enjoyed them. A lot.
One of my early experience with a GMPC had the GM attempt to have a "wallflower" kind of GMPC that rounded things out, who refused an equal portion of treasure, and didn't step forward for anything. Some refer to this as "tag-along NPC" which is pretty fair in this case.
Drove me totally nuts. I hated it. I kept slipping more treasure to her, and kept trying to encourage said GMPC to speak up, and kept trying to shove her into the place where, logically, she should be. There was RP times between just the party when the character shined, but this vanished during gameplay. I hated it. The character should have been present, should have been forward, and should have made herself known. It bothered the heck out of me that she did not.
And, to be clear, I loved the character. So awesome! It was great to have her along when she was acting in-character. (And really bothersome when she just disappeared for "reasons" when we got more players... >.>)
And that one example should show a small part of my frustration at the lexicon and views people have built up around the idea of GMs playing.
GMPCs can be done well. I've enjoyed them when they've been magical sages, or brutal warriors, or skilled rogues, or devout priests, or whatever else they've been.
These characters have often (not always) been great, solid RP vehicles that allow immersion, extra characters, and an outlet for GMs to RP among the group as an "equal", showing off fantastic interpersonal skill, and not being overbearing or unpleasant. Instead, they've most often been used to create a more powerful and compelling narrative, weaving them in, and allowing me and others to delight in character-interaction with the PC of the fellow player/our friend who is the GM.
Beyond that, it's helpful, and having that rounded out support is great. I say this as a player.
I empathize with those've who've had bad experiences.
They've come to the wrong conclusion, but with entirely understandable reasons.
It's like the (rather unreasonable at this point) hatred for psionics as "broken".
The the same way that any prejudice is formed - bad experiences get placed onto the idea or concept, not the event. And sometimes this is sensible: after all, if you've seen it a lot, you get suspicious. But as someone with opposing experience, I know that negative experiences are simply that: local experiences.
Hence, to those who hate all GMPCs and insist they are always bad GMing, I can say, without hesitation, "You're wrong." Because they are.
That said, their stance is understandable. Formed by hard experience, it's not likely to be shaken. Unfortunately, that's how people work.
It's still an incorrect conclusion based off of a flawed premise - that your experience is reflective of all experience across the board. That, too, is human.
Being wrong doesn't make someone bad or terrible or unskilled. It just makes them wrong. Fortunately, people can have great games, even when they're wrong. (That's good news for me, too, considering the times I'm wrong!)
And that's why I can disagree with people but still respect and like them a lot. :)
#TotesAdorbs
Vomit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#Vomit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you're just vomiting hashtags.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in my day they were called pound signs...and we called uphill both ways with them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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!!!!
Evolution is an amazing thing. :3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Natural only, or does the dye infuse one with evil too?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
Maybe. My (blonde) sister calls dying her hair activating her "artificial intelligence". Maybe they come with alignment subtypes as well as buffs!
| 4 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?
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.
Heheheheheheheheh...
>:3
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...
Hmmm, so far I'm batting 1000. >:3
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.
I believe it's called a ham. :P
Even your choice of play style is a form of partiality favoring combat encounters over role play interactions as an example.
I'm clearly not doing this right.
I have yet to actually encounter a real life impartial GM...
Hi there. :D
like I said ideals are meant to be striven for and never attained.
That's a bit pessimistic don't you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With DMPCs and NPCs I find it critical to roleplay them as themselves.
A character spouting plot exposition they shouldn't know or wouldn't agree with is bad roleplaying. If a DMPC turns out to originally be placed in the part as a spy, they may not even be useless. A doppelganger may have fallen in love with their character. A spy may realize theirs is a suicide mission and defect.
I had a character possessed while in a module at a convention. I started playing him as the ghost. The ghost wanted to find the litch and quit. To do that, he started saying the command word to turn off the traps constantly. One of the other PCs started doing this. When he rushed to open a door that everyone else was wary of, they basically dogpiled him and dragged him out because they guessed what was going on. I simply played the ghost as he was written, and not as the module writer's puppet.
If you are going to use DMPCs, don't play them as the modules puppets. That's what golems are for. If someone joins the party and just happens to have a staff of life, then they should have an emotional backstory about it. Maybe their father made it and this is all they have of him. Maybe they talk to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's the chemicals involved, but in my experienced Bleached Blondes tend to fit the stereotype even better than most naturals I know.Maybe. My (blonde) sister calls dying her hair activating her "artificial intelligence". Maybe they come with alignment subtypes as well as buffs!Natural only, or does the dye infuse one with evil too?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
It's weird but I've noticed that too. I really don't get it. One exception though was this girl in my dance class years ago. I would bring my D&D books and read them between my classes. One day in ballet class, we were taking a break and so I was sitting on one of the mats reading the 3E (or 3.5, I forget) Player's Handbook. In it was of course a few pictures of a big red dragon (one with Tordek in his mouth, another on the scale chart). She was sitting next to me looking with me and excitedly wanted to know what country that animal came from and if she could go to a zoo and see one.
Me: "...The dragon?"
Her: "Uh-huh, yeah, are they from Africa or Australia something?"
Me: "...Not quite,"
She also didn't know her left from her right if she didn't pull her hands up to orient. A fact her sister said made riding in the car with her when she was driving a terrifying ordeal (she would pull her hands off the wheel, look at them both for a moment, then turn at the last moment).
She totally scored strait As in school though. :3
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually enjoy GMPCs, though I admit I've used them incorrectly several times.
I usually GM since I live in an area where there aren't many opportunities to play with other people, and I'm the most experienced tabletop gamer I know in the area. I often GM for younger, less experienced players just getting started with tabletop gaming. Thus, when the game gets started, I introduce the GMPC.
Well, that's not quite accurate. I don't use just one GMPC. I usually use my spare time to create characters whose interest align with the party's for a while. Usually, they serve to help guide the players along in their story, without taking center stage in combat. In addition, I often have them throwing out combat maneuvers or little tricks more experience players know, so that the players can learn them without me having to stop play to explain all their options only for them to forget later.
I admit I've created bad GMPCS before, ones who stole attention away from the party and overshadowed them, but lately they've gone over pretty well. I find bards or other classes that passively assist the party work great, since they help the party feel more awesome, and can serve as knowledge dumps should you need to exposit a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually enjoy GMPCs, though I admit I've used them incorrectly several times.
I usually GM since I live in an area where there aren't many opportunities to play with other people, and I'm the most experienced tabletop gamer I know in the area. I often GM for younger, less experienced players just getting started with tabletop gaming. Thus, when the game gets started, I introduce the GMPC.
Well, that's not quite accurate. I don't use just one GMPC. I usually use my spare time to create characters whose interest align with the party's for a while. Usually, they serve to help guide the players along in their story, without taking center stage in combat. In addition, I often have them throwing out combat maneuvers or little tricks more experience players know, so that the players can learn them without me having to stop play to explain all their options only for them to forget later.
I admit I've created bad GMPCS before, ones who stole attention away from the party and overshadowed them, but lately they've gone over pretty well. I find bards or other classes that passively assist the party work great, since they help the party feel more awesome, and can serve as knowledge dumps should you need to exposit a bit.
Even though it might be frustrating, letting inexperienced players learn and make decisions for themselves can liberate them from their insecurities and uncertainties, find leadership qualities they didn't know they had.
GMPC is more often than not, a control device and a 'let me play too' move by the GM. If GMs want to play so badly, well be a player then and give the reins to someone who values a players freedom, and lets their victory moments be 'their victory moments'
Inexperienced players can be awesome all by themselves if given the chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my Carrion Crown campaign, I had a "me-too" DMPC... of exactly the type I like to play. She was a changeling paladin with the Oaths of Charity and Loyalty. Her build was all about boosting and aiding others. Empowered Lay on Hands to heal. The Loyal Oath for the party's melee guy. Divine Grace kept her from being a drain on recovery magic.
Too shy to push her way into ongoing negotiations; too humble and charitable to take the big treasures (although she'd take a share of coin for donations). Tacticslion would have slapped her silly. ^_^
She was a pretty big hit, especially since she became the center of a love triangle around Book 3. (TL's point about forcing treasure on someone reminded me of her.) I added some stuff about her past - not for her, so much, but for the party's more interested members to help her discover. They got to be the heroes of her storyline, as it were, especially since I tied it into one of their goals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMPC is more often than not, a control device and a 'let me play too' move by the GM.
This factoid actually just statistical error. The average GMPC controls 0 groups per campaign. GMPC Georg, who games in his parents basement controls over 10,000 groups, is an outlier and should not have been counted.
GMPC is more often than not, a control device and a 'let me play too' move by the GM. If GMs want to play so badly, well be a player then and give the reins to someone who values a players freedom, and lets their victory moments be 'their victory moments''Let me play too' GMPCs are the kind which- if used appropriately- I don't find offensive.
Control devices raise up my hackles in a heartbeat, but when a GM has a character who tags along, integrates into the party and becomes mutual companion, it works.
What doesn't work is when a GM says'let me play too' but then doesn't so much play as contrive for his character to take the spotlight/be the star etc etc.
First campaign I ever played, for example had two GMPCs from two co-GMs. Each of them were mutual party members and neither of them pulled any of the horrible GMPC stunts you see discussed in these threads.
One was a debuff evil cleric and the other a Neutral Good THW Fighter.
Fair enough, you were on the receiving end of experiencing gameplay with GMPCs involved so that's a good critique.
If players like the idea of having a GMPC tag along on their adventures why not.
Yet it can be a bit self-serving when the GM who creates a GMPC and then says "yes, my GMPC was a lot of fun to play and really helped the party." Fun for whom? And helped who exactly?
I think there are definite pros and cons to using them. Using a GMPC to fill in roles that the party is lacking can take away a vital experience from players, the experience of being resourceful.
Even having them as a narrative device can take away from player's ability to think independently about narrative direction as the GMPC does that for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to actually encounter a real life impartial GM...
Hi there. :D
I have never been impartial. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Friends don't let friends commit GMPCs.What purpose does a comment like this serve other than to incite?Informing people that it is a REALLY bad idea. Duh.Except you're wrongBeat me to it.
And that's the point.
There is a pejorative use of the term "GMPC" that I strongly disagree with. That use is always "a character the GM uses to be a glory-hog".
This is not what a GMPC is to me.
This is "bad GMing" and I've seen it done with NPCs (happening off-screen) or GMPCs (onscreen).
A GMPC is a character who is part of the adventuring group - for whatever reason - that stays with them, receives loot, XP (or similar), and contributes. They are, in fact, treated in every way as if they were a PC, whether having something unique to their abilities (but no more so than others) or simply tying them into the group via solid RP.
GMs use them for various purposes, and I've had a ton of moments when I've enjoyed them. A lot.
One of my early experience with a GMPC had the GM attempt to have a "wallflower" kind of GMPC that rounded things out, who refused an equal portion of treasure, and didn't step forward for anything. Some refer to this as "tag-along NPC" which is pretty fair in this case.
Drove me totally nuts. I hated it. I kept slipping more treasure to her, and kept trying to encourage said GMPC to speak up, and kept trying to shove her into the place where, logically, she should be. There was RP times between just the party when the character shined, but this vanished during gameplay. I hated it. The character should have been present, should have been forward, and should have made herself known. It bothered the heck out of me that she did not.
And, to be clear, I loved the character. So awesome! It was great to have her along when she was acting in-character. (And really bothersome when she just disappeared for "reasons" when we got more players... >.>)
And...
Agreed.
There is some disagreement about terms here, but the concensus seems to be the same. An NPC who acts outside the bounds of a normal NPC, overshadowing the PC's or all the other horror stories is a bad thing whatever you call it.
For my part FWIW the game separates out into 2 parts; players and GM. The GM is responsible for everything that isn't the players. That is in this context the Non-Player Characters. Some of them can have more depth and character than some PCs I've seen if I'm honest. Getting attached to an NPC isn't a bad thing. But remember you are the GM. An NPC is still just an NPC, even if it accompanies players from levels 1-20, levelling up as they do, forming relationships with players and other NPCs. In short, if the GM is controlling it, it is an NPC by definition.
A 'GMPC' to me, is when the GM steps over that line with an NPC. It's sometimes a subtle thing, but when they cross that line it usually doesn't end well. The NPC who always has the answer, who makes the players look like lemons...you get the idea.
In my opinion the people who say they are playing GMPC's in a non-disruptive way aren't playing GMPCs at all, they are playing recurring NPCs exactly the way they should.
There is nothing inherently bad about an NPC accompanying the party long term - execution is everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group's had GMPCs more often then not - whether we have them in a game depends on the expectations of the game.
First off, I'm defining GMPC as a character written up as a PC by the GM who's intended to be with the party for the entirety of the campaign.
1) GM expected to be GMing 100% of the campaign - no GMPC. (My current RoW game is like this.) Mainly because if this it the plan, odds are good the GM is running a pre-written adventure (Like an AP) and the AP's going to provide NPC allies anyways. Sometimes even immediately! Having a GMPC in those circumstances just means overcrowding.
2) GM expects to be handing off the GM chair throughout the campaign - either due to there being a co-GM, or the campaign being more sandboxy with multiple GMs expecting to run their own plotlines - yep, GMPC, who hopefully gets some actual playtime. (My next campaign will be like this - my co-GM and I have separate plotlines we'll be running, and we've each planned characters to play.)
Occasionally #2 morphs into
3) GM expected to be handing off GMing duties sometimes, but winds up as 90-100% GM due to, say, the co-GM losing interest in running anything, or the GM being mistaken on having a co-GM, or other players having very little interest in running sessions. GMPC sticks around, functionally getting downgraded to being a dedicated NPC ally. (Sometimes occurs in our homebrew games.)
A variant of #3 is
4) Main GM resigns (either leaving the game or just becoming a player), handing over the game to the co-GM or guest GM. The now-main GM keeps his character, though GMing pressures will basically force the PC to NPC ally status. (I've seen this happen twice. One time involved the main GM just burning out due to RL issues; he told us we could end the campaign or we could keep going without him. We liked our characters and opted to keep going without him; the person who'd been running 1 in 4 sessions or so became the main GM and we carried that campaign on to a different ending from what was originally planned.
The other time, we'd started a Planescape campaign. After I'd guest GM'd a couple sessions starting around 4th level, the main GM told me that the plotline I'd come up with was much better than what he'd come up with and he'd like me to just take over. And so I did, and he remained as a player.)
But yeah, my group's had more games with GMPCs than not, and generally hasn't had an issue with them. (That may have been different back when everyone was teenagers but, well, teenagers.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have every played in a module or AP that you had previous played either as a GM or player, do you play as if you always have the answers and make the other PCs bystanders? Why or why not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have every played in a module or AP that you had previous played either as a GM or player, do you play as if you always have the answers and make the other PCs bystanders? Why or why not?
You've gotta change things up. There's a topic about messing with players. Since details about The Cleaves are available for everyone to see, I'm going to have to add some. For instance, one trap is an illusion of an Iron Golem with a rust monster hiding in it. If I think characters expect that, I'm going to throw a typical Iron Golem at them instead.
As the other posters suggested, don't be afraid to let your npcs get hurt by what they shouldn't know.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have every played in a module or AP that you had previous played either as a GM or player, do you play as if you always have the answers and make the other PCs bystanders? Why or why not?
I have run The Sunless Citadel twice for different groups and played in it once afterwards and each time it was 3 totally different adventures besides the areas and creatures being the same. I had intimate knowledge of all the encounters which according to some in this thread would ruin the game for me or make me act in a manner that showed partiality to the knowledge I have. To those I say, Roleplaying. That is part of the game's name and it involves immersing yourself into a character including knowledge that the character has and removing knowledge that a player has.
When I fight a troll for the first time with a PC he doesn't have any knowledge on how to fight a troll unless he gathered that info somehow. It is an exercise in impartiality that has happened with every character fighting every troll for the first time over the last 32 or so years of characters. Anyone saying that impartiality is unattainable is painting everyone with their own experience and ignoring that people are varied and disparate. I can't run a 4 minute mile. That doesn't mean that no one can, just that I can't.| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone changed their minds?
I ask that in so many threads...
The answer is almost universally no.
I've changed my mind.
I was very anti-GMPC.
In the hands of a bad GM, a GMPC will probably make a bad campaign worse.
But there's enough anecdotal evidence here of GMPCs that didn't spoil the game for the players that I now believe a good GM can pull it off.
GMPCs will only ruin a game if the GM doesn't understand the potential risks and doesn't notice/care that the PCs are being turned into sidekicks.
| 5 people 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.
I have totally changed my opinion on GMPC's after readig this thread. I still will not use GMPC's due of my limited ability to be both a good player and a good GM. It's just not a strength I have as GM. So I choose to focus on my better attributes and avoid it.
However as some have pointed out they can do both and do it well. Jaelithe (among many) made me realize that just because I've never had a good GMPC experience does not mean they are not out there.
And on another rant...What's the point of engaging a conversation if you mind is not open to be enlightened?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!
And on another rant...What's the point of engaging a conversation if you mind is not open to be enlightened?
I have no idea. The internet is full of it, though. Google "debate a/an (insert religious identifying noun here)" and open your eyes to the horror that is a multitude of idiots that don't want to do anything but argue about how they're right and their opposition is wrong, usually with a heavy hand of snark and judgmental douchebaggery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the point of engaging a conversation if you mind is not open to be enlightened?
To prove everyone else wrong, of course!
What's the point of engaging a conversation if you mind is not open to be enlightened?To prove everyone else wrong, of course!
I fixed it... >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, question - for those of you who think a GMPC can be done right, do you prefer built before game so it compliments their needs without outshining anyone, or introduced as a regular NPC who may or may not join and evolved naturally into a companion?
Say you had a party of an aasimar oracle (undecided mystery thus far), tiefling unchained rogue, half elf bonded and white haired witch, human gendarme cavalier, and dwarf zen archer monk, what would you toss their way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both or either, depending on the group, needs, and wants.
As both player and GM I've had it work both ways.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, question - for those of you who think a GMPC can be done right, do you prefer built before game so it compliments their needs without outshining anyone, or introduced as a regular NPC who may or may not join and evolved naturally into a companion?
Say you had a party of an aasimar oracle (undecided mystery thus far), tiefling unchained rogue, half elf bonded and white haired witch, human gendarme cavalier, and dwarf zen archer monk, what would you toss their way?
Can you maybe tone down the "one part from each book" characteristics and make the list into something easily digestible? Many of those characters could be played to cover different roles.
Make a list that covers their roles more than the names of what they are and I would be glad to answer.