|
I'm almost finishing up my current campaign with a group of three players and I'm soon going to be running Hell's Rebel's for the same group, and I'll be honest: I love DM'ing, but I miss the days of being a player! However, due to my previous group I was a player in disbanding in a particularly unpleasant way, and my current three players not having quite figured how to DM yet, I've been a little starved for play. That, on top of how well the four of us get along (one of the players is my boyfriend, and the other two are his old highschool buddies, and I've known them for a solid year now) and the fact that they're a group of three has slowly risen up with the age old cursed question- dare I make my own Player Character to interact with them?
I understand the concept has flaws. The very nature of a GMPC means I can't have my character make any story decisions, as I already know how the story goes. The players need to be in total control at all times, and my character can't do more than offer the same advice a regular NPC would provide. The list goes on. What I want to know is has anyone else here made a GMPC, would they recommend it or not, and what kind of tips would they give to someone considering playing one?
I would generally only recommend a GMPC for parties that are new players and/or missing key roles for groups. For example, having a Wizard and 2 martials with no condition removal abilities means having a divine spellcaster would be nice to round out the party. Support roles are also perfect for GMPCs, simply because they make the other players better without stealing spotlight.
However, if you think that this will scratch your itch for playing, I got news for you: it might not be the same as simply being the player themselves and actually exploring the bounds of the adventure for yourself.
.
No. Always no.
If the DM controls an NPC that's with the party, they should be a hireling, a cohort, an animal companion, or someone temporarily accompanying the party. Someone who does not have an outsized effect on the game's story, does not get a share of the loot, and does not distract the DM's attention from the overall world and plot.
Do not ever put an NPC into the game because you want to play as a PC. I know that you see the dangers in it, and that you really don't want to DM, but it's not a good idea.
Somewhere there is a perfect world where the people who DM constantly and just want a taste of playing are able to live in harmony with their DMPCs. That world is not our own sadly, and DMPCs are a terrible idea 99% of the time. Even with the best intentions, anything beyond an occasional NPC dipping their toes in the pool with the PCs is asking for a bad game, disaster at the worst. This video has some great points(Matt Colville ALWAYS DOES!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqth2dFlIzQ Specifically his comments on how to interact with the party as an NPC fighting alongside them(@about 16mins into the vid)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some valid reasons for an NPC controlled by the GM functioning as one of the PCs and adventuring with with groups, although even with the best reasons it is terribly difficult to make work.
"I miss the days of being a player!" is not one of those valid reasons, and is almost certainly going to work out poorly.
Get one of the others to at least run an occasional one short or short campaign to satisfy your desire to play instead. They don't have to be a perfect DM for you all to enjoy it and largely running a game is only a skill that can be learned by doing. Certainly I wouldn't recommend launching into a full AP for a novice, but running a single module once in a while is certainly doable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are lots of online options for playing a game if you're interested. There's also the option of PFS which is just one-shots so there's no commitment needed.
I find that generally working to get players to a place where they are comfortable GMing is going to work a lot better for the "scratching the itch to play" than as a GMPC. Consider this work for the overall health of the hobby, if nothing else.
Generally "there's an NPC that hangs out with the party the whole time" is going to only work when that NPC is there to fill some hole in the party, and only then if the GM assiduously avoids the spotlight.
Listen to the guys saying in chorus "DON'T DO IT!".
I can only think of one situation where this would be even marginally acceptable, and even then must be treated with kid gloves. It's usually a recipe for disaster.
If you think the 3 players will suffer from being only 3 when they should be 4 for the AP, you have several options, like giving them a 20-point buy instead of 15, giving them extra xp or making them higher level than the AP calls for, though this is usally not necessary since most APs are not especially difficult for optimised PC builds.
If you really think the party should have an NPC adventuring with the players, prepare a simplified character sheet for the NPC, including all its attack options, spells, abilities and so on, and introduce the NPC logically during an in-game situation or encounter in which the PCs have the opportunity for becoming friends, allies, employers or whatever. Then give the character sheet to one of the players and let him or her make all the calls for the NPC, deciding all actions, making all die rolls and performing all roleplaying activities for the NPC. Of course, you as DM can always veto a given player-driven decision, but you use that power rarely, if ever, and often it will lead to the NPC leaving the party as soon as feasibly possible.
If and only if your sessions use a rotating DM, where one person in your group DMs one session (or several) then passes the DM hat to another person and so on, you can consider, in some circumstances, having a DMPC, simply because it would be illogical for the party to break up in mid-campaign. I played in a campaign like this, and on most occasions when I was DMing, I would say that my character was staying back at the inn, or running off on personal business or otherwise unavailable for the session(s) during which I was DMing. On one occasion I handed my character sheet to another player, and let them "run" my PC as if it were a second PC of their own. That path is fraught with danger. I was lucky, because the player in question was very conservative with my character, and didn't really place him in danger.
Some of the other guys in my group always kept their personal PC in play when they were DMing. Never once did the DMPC die. Often they were out in front, risking everything, even starring in their own show. I hope I don't need to explain why that is a bad idea. Some DMPCs get cool loot. Or come up with clever plans. Or just do stuff that they would never get away with if somebody else (like me!!!) were in the DM chair.
DMPCs are a proposition fraught with dangers for the cohesion of your group of players. Already, having one of the players be your BF is a potentially dangerous proposition, and opens the door to hard feelings within the group unless everyone is extremely mature about everything. DMPCs are a million times worse.
So sure, let the group of 3 PCs meet up with various NPCs and sometimes go so far as to drag their NPC asses along on adventures. But *never* think of those NPCs as your own character. Think of them more as the guys in red shirts on the original Star Trek series. They are the first to die, to give the PCs a vicarious glimpse of their own mortality.
I have had a full-level NPC party member in my campaign twice and it worked out well for both campaigns.
However, running such an NPC party member is very different from playing a player character.
1) I never have the challenge of piecing together clues that my character uncovered. Instead, I have to be extra vigilant about separating personal knowledge from character knowledge.
2) Running an NPC party member in combat is a nuisance. I would prefer to focus my attention on running the enemies.
3) Social situations are even worse. If the NPC party member is negotiating with a NPC aristocrat, then I am talking to myself.
4) I can send the NPC party member off on really boring missions that I would never give to a PC. For example, someone had to evacuate the townspeople before a big battle and would miss all the fighting. So my NPC volunteered. If my party drank coffee, the NPC would be the one who fetches the coffee.
5) Character design is still fun. I can experiment with unusual builds because an NPC is not supposed to be as optimized as the PCs. Sometimes, I cheat a little and use GM knowledge to make the NPC ready for the drudge work in the next mission, so the PCs have more freedom to design around their player's preferences.
I have described my experiences with NPC party members in other threads, such as The DM PC suggestions? and Running an NPC as a party member.
If you're doing it to fill out the party and have a mouthpiece to offer advice, yes.
The wise, old snark is perfect for this, but never a "Mary Sue" or "Marty Stu".
I.e., if the party is Batman, the GMPC can be Alfred, but not Catwoman.
I understand the concept has flaws. The very nature of a GMPC means I can't have my character make any story decisions, as I already know how the story goes. The players need to be in total control at all times, and my character can't do more than offer the same advice a regular NPC would provide. The list goes on.
There have plenty of cases of horrible GMPCs ruining games, but it sounds like you're aware of the risks. The real problem here is that a GM who runs a friendly NPC correctly won't get the same satisfaction they would from playing, because they're not really interacting with someone else's world.
Tips:
Keep the character simple so it doesn't distract you from your primary GM duties.
Don't be more powerful than the rest of the party. A support role is best.
Create a system for how the character will behave. If you're struggling with metagame knowledge (like you know a door is trapped but the character doesn't), follow the system. Which could be, "Never take the lead. If in doubt, turn left." Or, "Don't do anything stupid, unless the party is having too easy a time."
|
|
I hear the overwhelming chorus against the topic, and I do definitely acknowledge it! However, I think a big thing with the replies to the thread is kinda misunderstanding my reasoning why- it's not that I want to explore a new world or something, it's more that I want to create a new character and have them slowly grow into something new!
That being said, the risks are still there, and the majority of people are saying it could easily ruin the game, so that IS something to think about- though all in all, the way I was approaching this in the first place would better be described as "GMNPC"- sorta fitting the description of Mathmuse's post, i.e.:
-Never make decisions for the party
-Be there more as aid in combat (my party does only have three players)
-Not get picks for loot until the others have decided what to do with it
-Be ready to be the one who takes all the boring jobs while others do the fun ones
-As far as involvement in the story goes, being totally subservient.
However, I still do understand it's a risky choice to make, but my players are on board with the idea (they were the ones who requested it in the first place!) and have, in our last campaign, adopted several NPCs to go on quests with them (Caeller in Harrowstone being the best example I can think of)
All in all though, I think I need to think a little harder about whether or not I want to actually do it- the negatives do seem to outweigh the positives, unless anyone with a successful DMPC past can give an example of how to make it work!
As described in this very long thread (this is a link; the forum updates seem to have stopped coloring them properly), there are many ways to do it well or badly.
My simplest advice would be "pay attention to your players". If your GMNPC is providing entertainment value and letting you participate in role-playing discussions with the other PCs, then there's no problem. But if there is a problem, make sure they know to let you know. You can always remove your character from the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Never make decisions for the party
-Be there more as aid in combat (my party does only have three players)
-Not get picks for loot until the others have decided what to do with it
-Be ready to be the one who takes all the boring jobs while others do the fun ones
-As far as involvement in the story goes, being totally subservient.
That's a fine list. IMHO you need to add these points:
- don't make die rolls "your" NPC character, delegate them to another player;- don't move "your" character around on the tactical map yourself, delegate;
- don't speak with the voice of "your" character. At best you can slip suggestions to the player who you delegate to run "your" character;
- and especially: be ready to have the monsters/adversaries attack and kill "your" character without mercy.
Using the PF rules to develop a new character, try out a new class, imagine a cool backstory, that is definitely fun. We wouldn't be playing this game (and talking incessantly on these forums) if we didn't think so. But if you go against anything in your list (or in my additions) you end up "playing with yourself" on some level.
|
|
-Never make decisions for the party
-Be there more as aid in combat (my party does only have three players)
-Not get picks for loot until the others have decided what to do with it
-Be ready to be the one who takes all the boring jobs while others do the fun ones
-As far as involvement in the story goes, being totally subservient.
That's a fine list. IMHO you need to add these points:
- don't make die rolls "your" NPC character, delegate them to another player;
- don't move "your" character around on the tactical map yourself, delegate;
- don't speak with the voice of "your" character. At best you can slip suggestions to the player who you delegate to run "your" character;
- and especially: be ready to have the monsters/adversaries attack and kill "your" character without mercy.Using the PF rules to develop a new character, try out a new class, imagine a cool backstory, that is definitely fun. We wouldn't be playing this game (and talking incessantly on these forums) if we didn't think so. But if you go against anything in your list (or in my additions) you end up "playing with yourself" on some level.
Those are some really clever additions! I'll take that on board!
That's a fine list. IMHO you need to add these points:
- don't make die rolls "your" NPC character, delegate them to another player;
- don't move "your" character around on the tactical map yourself, delegate;
- don't speak with the voice of "your" character. At best you can slip suggestions to the player who you delegate to run "your" character;
- and especially: be ready to have the monsters/adversaries attack and kill "your" character without mercy.
I agree with the last one...
If you're trying to have some fun playing a GMNPC without taking advantage of your GM powers, the only things you can really do are:
(a) Roll the dice for yourself, hope to get lucky.
(b) Role-play your character. You should be more focused on entertaining the group than surviving, so interact with the real PCs in-character.
(c) Do the physical actions of controlling your character, even if you're playing more according to a preset formula than making real tactical decisions.
If you're trying to avoid doing anything for your GMNPC, then you might as well just have one player control two characters. It will amount to much the same thing.
Matthew Coleville talks about DMPCs in this video:NPCs 2! High Level NPCs, Followers, and DMPCs. Running the Game #25.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hear the overwhelming chorus against the topic, and I do definitely acknowledge it! However, I think a big thing with the replies to the thread is kinda misunderstanding my reasoning why- it's not that I want to explore a new world or something, it's more that I want to create a new character and have them slowly grow into something new!
You have an entire world full of those characters. Why do you need this one specifically?
-As far as involvement in the story goes, being totally subservient.
Subservient is not necessary. Slim Jim suggested snark, and that works, too. The key is simply to avoid the suggestions of the NPC being extra clues about the story.
When I played the lost heir oracle NPC, Amaya, I wanted to give the impression that she would be a good queen. Therefore, she made wise suggestions about preparation, teamwork, and using one's best abilities. It was generic advice, nothing the players have not heard before, but it sounded mature. Though sometimes she sounded young and enthusiastic rather than wise.
When I played the bloodrager daughter of the reckless wizard, Val, I went for a loose cannon. Sometimes that party overplanned. If they spent an hour talking, then Val would get bored and rush ahead. She lost the loose-cannon motif later, as the players grew more comofortable with in-character decisions. Instead, she became more the team mascot, the cheerful not-so-smart blonde in the party (She had Int 12, the rest of the party Int 14 or higher).
All in all though, I think I need to think a little harder about whether or not I want to actually do it- the negatives do seem to outweigh the positives, unless anyone with a successful DMPC past can give an example of how to make it work!
The Jade Regent adventure path is an escort quest, to deliver a lost heir to a foreign land. I swapped out the 5th-level default heir for her alternate at the same level as the party. I wanted the party to like the heir, and making her an equal party member was a good way to bond. That GMPC served the story.
I started the Iron Gods adventure path with only three players, playing a skald, a magus, and a gadgeteer. They needed a meat shield frontliner. The town council offered them a fourth member, perhaps a town guard? Instead, they chose an NPC they had already met, Val Baine, the daughter of the missing wizard. My players were writing their own story over the adventure path, about ordinary science-inclined people thrown into extraordinary circumstances, and Val fit their story. I offered to retire her at the end of the first module, but they wanted to keep her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder if the "GM runs a helpful NPC who hangs out with the party" approach is much more likely to work out if that person changes periodically throughout the campaign. After all, a party may have a lot of different holes in it, not all of which will be apparent at every point in the campaign (and as the GM you have a pretty good idea what's coming). Plus there is verisimilitude in having the one guy who lives in the port city and has connections be someone who wants to help the party as long as they are in the city, but not someone who wants to travel into the mountains and explore an ancient crypt (but someone different might).
A revolving cast of helpful NPCs (who are rounded out with enough faults and quirks that they generally are not the ones taking initiative) can work.
The answer is no. No GMPCs, for a few reasons. GMPCs take away your time from running the game and dividing your attention between running the game and being in the game. They also breed the perception of favoritism. You can be 100% ammicalbe about it but the perception will still be there
... They also breed the perception of favoritism. You can be 100% ammicalbe about it but the perception will still be there
Favoritism? If the NPC is handled properly, then the appropriate term is exploitation. The NPC volunteers for boring missions, never gets the glory moments in the limelight, never has her way in group decisions, could be kidnapped by the bad guy off scene, and must maintain quiet likeability through it all.
NPC Amaya Amatatsu finished the campaign as the Empress of Minkai, yet everyone felt good about that. I gave NPC Val Baine a homebrew archetype in addition to the overpowered primalist archetype for bloodrager. She wears a mithral armored coat worn over a sorcerer's Robe of Arcane Heritage that works for her despite the FAQ ruling otherwise. Yet the effect was to start a fashion trend for mithral armored coats rather than claims of favoritism. Everyone still likes her and their worst accusation of deadly doom against enemies is, "You hurt Val!" (Mere hit-point damage against Val does not count as hurt. As a bloodrager, she takes that in stride. But she has been kidnapped, robbed, poisoned, and paralyzed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the question I've got to ask (and the OP should personally consider) is "What is it specifically about the experience of being a player that you miss and that you think you could get via piloting a GMPC?"
Since if it's something like "friendly banter with the party" or "continuity of character" then that sort of thing can work well.
If it's something like "talking to diverse cast of NPCs" then probably not since "having a conversation between two characters, both of which are played by you, and not detracting from everybody's experience in the scene" is an advanced improv skill most people (including many good improvisers) struggle with.
If it's something like "feeling like the hero and saving the day" then almost certainly not. As the GM you get to be the real-life hero (without you, the others wouldn't get to play) and the price of that is that you don't get to be the imaginary hero.
I cast a vote for just do it. Especially if you need a roll filled for the game as a whole.
I also don't find it hard to keep the GMPC's knowledge and just GM knowledge separate. My current GMPC is the same power level as the PCs, but she is not as old as they are and does not have the worldly experience the PCs have. Meaning she always defers to the PCs anytime major decisions need to be made.
Though a few times she has had to make suggestions because the group missed some clue or the role she fills just happens to have the right knowledge skill to make the needed check.
She does take her hits, her AC is right in the middle of the party. I think knocking the GMPC around at least shows the party that the GMPC isn't getting special treatment. But the hard part is not making the GMPC a liability in a fight.
I openly roll all of her checks, skills and actions so the party knows what she is doing and I didn't fudge it. Which resulted in her shooting the fighter in the ass once... It was funny and the player thought it was hilarious.
So I suggest it if the GMPC can fill a needed roll and can carry their own weight without special treatment or being a liability.
My GMPC doesn't take the monetary treasure and buys her own gear. If I need her to pick up loot, I always make sure its something another PC could use or make sure there is something else in the loot a PC can use. That keeps everyone pretty happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Twice in my stint as GM for the group (all but one of us are competent GM's, but I'm the only one that writes consistently enough to run more than an adventure at a time, so I do it more often than not) I have run a GMPC.
First time, it was not great. There were enough players that his presence was largely irrelevant (ie: not filling in any missing roles), and about halfway through the session, I just sort of quietly pushed him into the background, because I realized what was going on.
Second time, it was still not great, but it was better. That GMPC was to fill a hole in the party and she actually became an important member. However, I had little to no fun running her, because I was constantly trying to make sure that she wasn't getting in the way of any other characters. Eventually, to keep her around I just handed her over to another player (who did a great job playing her).
So, long story short? I don't like them, because they make me feel like I'm getting in the way of the players.
I have only ever bad bad experiences with GMPC's so, personally, if I were in a game and the GM had one I'd be trying to talk them out of it. (Up to and including offering to play two characters myself.)
However! since you're running Hell's Rebels I would still advise against it. The AP has so many NPCs that you don't need one to hang around with the group the majority of the time. (Sure, it might happen, but let it happen organically rather than because you want to play a certain character.)
If you want to slowly develop and grow someone then pick some of the NPCs and level them up just a little slower than the PCs. I can easily think of 5 NPCs in Hell's Rebels that it would be good to do that with.
If an AP or home brew has enough NPC allies you probably don't need to make a GMPC. It makes more sense to have an established ally hang out with them though more as a meat shield, support, or quirk build.
Other than that a GMPC should be made to support/point players in the right direction. Or nudge them. Or be a source of unavailable otherwise info. Example, my group in Iron Gods were able to spare and convince someone in book one and who's info well greatly help in book 2-3
Haven't read a single post, but I can tell you I've been playing for 30+ years, and played literally all over the world, and the only thing I've found to be universally true is that players HATE GMPC's.
Haven't read a single post, but I can tell you I've been playing for 30+ years, and played literally all over the world, and the only thing I've found to be universally true is that players HATE GMPC's.
While this is largely true;
I feel we do need to define a GMPC from long lasting NPC GM controls. Maybe GM-Ally. I'll probably use GM-Ally for this post.
We tend to hear stories about the GMPC being a superman(woman) that carries/bullies the team into the railroad that is the plot or outshines the players to the point even in character they should be wondering "Why doesn't this person do everything".
GM-Ally is a character written up to support the team either by passive effects(Managing towns/crafting/leading), being supports in battle, or having knowledge/skills that the PC's don't have or couldn't have.
Most named characters in the APs can be called GM-Allies if the GM doesn't go and buff the characters.
More to the point, GM-Allies are intended to help for a limited amount of time.
I would say that in general it is a bad idea unless you yourself are good at Multi Tasking. The whole thing is about everyone having fun. If the players are not having fun, the game falls apart. If the GM is not having fun, no GM and thus no game. If you really think you can run the NPCs and your own character then sure give it a try.
People here say that this is wrong and sometimes hated.
In all our games, the GM has his own Character. This character was made at the same time as the others and is not some snowflake. He is not overpowered. Our group is about 7 players. This is way over the norm.
What I would suggest is to give it a shot but be prepared to pull that character out of the game (even plan it). You would make the character an NPC for that 4th spot.
If you can do what our GM can do and what every one else insists CAN'T be done then GREAT, everyone is having fun.
If youre going to do this: build them at a lower level then the pc's (maybe like a cohort etc)
Since this is hells rebels? Rotate the npcs around. Rexus, Laria, Hetamon Haace and the like can all be very good supporting characters who dont hog limelight and help those characters remain relevant in the pc's eyes. At one point in my game, Lictor Sabinus challenged the leader of the Order of The Rack to a duel in order to distract them while the pcs infiltrated the castle and captured it.I ran 2 or 3 rounds of combat each "scene" while the pcs were doing their thing.
They got really into it so they didnt mind watching the GM roll dice against himself, though I did offer to resolve it offscreen. Fun fact: some very lucky crits helped Lictor Sabinus overcome a 4 level deficit.