How do you feel about GMPCs?

[Tacticslion]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

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?

Fake Healer wrote:

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.

(I only answered the first question as a direct result.)

Buuuuu~uuut, for that group in particular: who are those players? Do they want or need an extra hand or character as part of the group? What kind of story am I going to tell, and how "busy" is it? Are pre-made NPCs going to have places to join in and become part of the group, or not?

Basically, there are a ton of factors, and all depend on the players, GM, and game being run.

EDITed to add quotes, since we're at the top of a new page. :)
... and then again for spelling. :/

[thegreenteagamer]

This wasn't a random list, it's an actual upcoming group. As I recall, the oracle is the only one who hasn't fleshed out much, though I assume she'll have a modicum of recovery magic given the spell list, the rogue being skirmish style melee with trap popping, the gendarme a mounted charge beast, the zen archer....Well, duh, ranged attacks, and the witch battlefield control and knowledge skills. I'm not sure beyond that what you mean by "roles", unless you meant the forge analogy, in which case it looks like an arm, an anvil, and three hammers.

It's kingmaker, and the GMPC is to join when the monk is around, who is a part time player, for ease of switching from original to 6-player conversion.

[Zhangar]

@ thegreenteagamer - With a party like that (and assuming I'd actually be playing a GMPC), and without knowing anything else, I'd probably go for something that's support/buff focused. I.e., something that's good at making everyone else better.

Some flavor of bard, or a sorcerer/wizard/arcanist to fill in the spell list holes. (There's a LOT of arcane support spells that are behind the patron wall for witches.)

But also, something I'm actually interested in playing myself. So out of that set, a sorcerer, because that's on my "to do" list, and should be easier to run than an arcanist (the other class on the "to do" list) =P

[thegreenteagamer]

My original thought was a bard, but I wonder if there's anything else supportive that won't steal the rogue and witch's skill niches.

[LazarX]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

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?

The answer is yes. Because either approach is pretty much equally valid, especially since one of the characters in your example, the oracle isn't fully defined. (Choice of mystery is a game definer in itself)

[Eben TheQuiet]

I was gonna say bard, too. In your example, maybe a halfling Helper-traited bard?

And regarding skills ... just because it has the potential of stealing another PC's skill niches doesn't mean it should be built to. You could do a bard and only pick up the skills that are otherwise untrained in the group, and simply have the GMPC bard not roll on the in-game checks in which he doesn't have any ranks.

"I don't know ... what do I look like? A walking encyclopedia?"

[TriOmegaZero]

I would have the bard train one rank in each skill and only roll if the party botches their roll. Kind of a backup option that may not be any better than the main guy.

[thegreenteagamer]

Sort of a guaranteed aid another for anything and everything? That's a cool idea.

[Jaelithe]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I've changed my mind.

Muad'Dib wrote:

... many ... made me realize that just because I've never had a good GMPC experience does not mean they are not out there.

You have restored my flagging faith in human nature, gentlemen.

I can die now having seen it all.

[thegreenteagamer]

Eben TheQuiet wrote:

In your example, maybe a halfling Helper-traited bard

I cannot seem to find this trait on d20pfsrd. Linkage?

[Eben TheQuiet]

Helpful (sorry, got the name wrong). It's a Halfling racial trait from Halflings of Golarion.

[thegreenteagamer]

Well that's really quite powerful for a trait. I expected a +3, but a +4...Wow.

[Tacticslion]

Ooh! Ooh! Just to be a wildcard: a skald!

ROCK YOUR WAY THROUGH KM!

OOH! OOH! An urban skald!

You'd have to tad a bit of home-brew, but something like:

What it might look like wrote:

Every skald has a veneer of civilization to their violent spirit, but some skalds fully integrate themselves into city life, and take on even heavier trappings and ways of their adoptive homes. While the vicious power inspired by these urban skalds’ rhythms permit more self-control, they can use their primal nature and upbringing to move "civilized" hearts with passions and fears they'd nearly forgotten, and turning those passions and fears into an unmatched fury.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
An urban skald is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, short sword, and whip. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields.

Skills
An urban skald does not gain Handle Animal (Cha), or Knowledge (nature) (Int), as class skills; instead he gets Perform (dance), and stealth. optional: "or Ride (Dex)" or "or Climb" or "or Swim" or some combination of those. The "stealth" would never be to outclass the rogue, but to give him a "sneak buddy" if he needs one, for safety.

Raging Song (Su)
Rallying Cry (Su): At 1st level, an urban skald can use performance to rally dispirited allies. Each round he makes an Intimidate check. Any ally (including the bard) within 30 feet may use this check in place of his own saving throw against fear and despair effects. Those already under a fear or despair effect can attempt a new save each round using the bard’s Intimidate check. Rallying cry does not work on effects that don’t allow saves. This is a mind-affecting ability that uses audible components.

This performance replaces Countersong.

Swallow Your Fear (Sp): At 1st level, an urban skald can use performance to turn his allies fear into fury. Each round he makes an Intimidate check. Any ally (including the bard) within 30 feet may use this check in place of his own saving throw against fear and despair effects. Those already under a fear or despair effect can attempt a new save each round using the bard’s Intimidate check. If the check is successful, instead of ending the fear effect, the ally is affected as if by a swallow your fear spell for the duration of the performance or the fear effect, whichever ends first.

This means that, so long as a target is suffering from a fear effect of any kind and is subject to this performance, he gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Constitution, a +1 morale bonus on Will saves, and a -2 penalty to AC.

If the subject is frightened, he remains in place and gains the confused condition for the remainder of the fear effect, except he treats all results of "attack self " as "do nothing" and treats "attack nearest creature" as "act normally." If the subject is panicked, he remains in place and gains the confused condition for the duration of the fear effect.

This ability replaces Distraction.

Controlled Inspired Rage (Su)
When an urban skald rages, instead of making a normal inspired rage she may apply a +2 morale bonus to her allies' Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. At 8th and 16th levels, the song's bonuses to Strength and Constitution increase by 2. (Unlike the barbarian's rage ability, those affected are not fatigued after the song ends.) She may apply the full bonus to one ability score or may split the bonus between several scores in increments of +2. When using a controlled inspired rage, an urban skald's allies gain no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for inspired rage.

This replaces Inspired Rage.

Favored Terrain (Ex)
At 9th level, an urban skald gains a deep understanding of urban life and the city in general, or great works of construction and deep manufacture. He gains a ranger's favored terrain, but may only select the dungeon or urban environments. At 14th level, he may select the other, and choose a single terrain to gain an additional +2 bonus on (to have one at +2 and another at +4). At 19th level, both bonuses increase to +6 instead.

This replaces Damage Reduction.

Huh. That came a lot better than I thought for something I literally just put together now.

(I have no idea how balanced it is, but it sounds fun, at least. I might try to see if I can get a GM to let me play around with it at some point.)

[thegreenteagamer]

A halfling skald?

Why am I picturing Joe Pesci all of a sudden?

[Tacticslion]

A helpful halfling skald.

Peter. Dinklage. Glam Rock/Hair Metal.

Probably chello metal, because he's that hardcore that he's like all of apocalyptica combined. Your players will be thunderstruck. Or maybe they'll just become the jets instead. That is also acceptable, in a very different way.

greenteagamer wrote:

Why am I picturing Joe Pesci all of a sudden?

Also acceptable.

(I just heart Peter Dinklage, so I look for ways for his presence to grace most anything. Also, confession time: I haven't watched Game of Thrones, but the first book was amazing.)

[Tacticslion]

But daggum is cello metal awesome.

EDIT: embarrassing spelling error.

[Tacticslion]

Aaaawwwwwwwwwsssssssssooooooommmmmmmmmeeeeeee~!

[Tacticslion]

HALL OF THE DAGGUM MOUNTAIN KING... MAKER. BAM.

[Tacticslion]

Just have Apocalyptica and 2 Cellos ready to go whenever you do anything in that game, and have ghost sound, mending (if you have a physical mwk or magical instrument), summon instrument (if you don't), and especially exquisite accompaniment, virtuoso performance and shadow bard. Allegro and heroic finale would also be awesome. But other parts of what I just gave you is the "2 cellos -> apocalyptica by yourself" build. :)

EDIT: to make a tag work

[thegreenteagamer]

I do like symphonic metal...a lot...

[Tacticslion]

Yeeeeeeesssssssssssss...

EDIT: bonus points if you get a hat of disguise and mirage arcana or something just to make weird scenes like 2 cellos!

[DrDeth]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?

[Irontruth]

DrDeth wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?

Analogy

Ever notice how rarely people consider themselves to be bad drivers? Yet, everyone complains about bad drivers and we've all seen them.

[thegreenteagamer]

I'm a horrible driver, I know it, and I acknowledge it.

[Jaelithe]

DrDeth wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?

I think it's so self-evident it doesn't need to be conceded but ... since you're still on about it: I readily concede that point. You are correct on that aspect of the issue, DrDeth.

Dude ... no one's saying you haven't made valid points.

On the other hand ... no DM running DMPCs is going to be aware that he or she should cease and desist if no one's called him or her on the issue, assuming one exists. Players who don't speak up don't effect change ... and that's the likely consequence of their reticence.

Pro-DMPC DMs in this thread have conceded that they've seen it done wrong, that they themselves have done it wrong in the past, and that it's not something that players who don't like it should subject themselves to after a reasonable attempt at accommodation.

That's as close as the two sides are likely to get.

[Jaelithe]

Related to my exchange with the good doctor above ...

Here's something else to consider, one and all: What if one player has an issue with it, while the other players think the DMPC is great and that the complaining player has brain damage and/or an axe to grind?

I do think some players would never complain out of friendship, loyalty, or the fact that they don't want to blow the only game in town, either literally or figuratively.

But I also think there are players, some of whom have posted in this very thread, who'd complain about a DMPC with whom they'd not had an issue just because they have a bug up their ass about the very idea of it the size of a scarab beetle.

What I'd do is this: I'd take the player aside so that he or she didn't feel the weight of condemnation from the rest of the group, and give the issues he or she wished to air a fair hearing. If it became obvious this person had a point, I'd either amend the manner in which I played the DMPC, or send him/her off into the sunset. If instead I thought the argument had no or even little merit, I'd politely invite him to give it more time or disengage.

Not sure what else one could reasonably do.

[Fake Healer]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

This wasn't a random list, it's an actual upcoming group. As I recall, the oracle is the only one who hasn't fleshed out much, though I assume she'll have a modicum of recovery magic given the spell list, the rogue being skirmish style melee with trap popping, the gendarme a mounted charge beast, the zen archer....Well, duh, ranged attacks, and the witch battlefield control and knowledge skills. I'm not sure beyond that what you mean by "roles", unless you meant the forge analogy, in which case it looks like an arm, an anvil, and three hammers.

It's kingmaker, and the GMPC is to join when the monk is around, who is a part time player, for ease of switching from original to 6-player conversion.

Probably a bard or a sorcerer with a couple blast spells and some good buffs but only if the party wanted another character in the game....they covered most everything and there are 5 of them so to me they have enough to survive OK. I usually offer a DMPC up when the group decides that they don't want to cover a main base like arcane caster, divine caster, trap/lock dude, and meat shield. The only real lack in that group is a dedicated arcane caster which a fairly built sorcerer or even a bard (backup healing for a bonus) can cover decently.

[phantom1592]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

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?

Either would be fine. PERSONAL preference is an NPC that joins the party from the get go. It helps him/her fit in better. Players as a rule already are making metagame exceptions while a party is forming... so the NPC can slide right in with the necromancer/Drow/Tiefling that my cleric would never travel with under 'normal' circumstances.

Introducing them later and either they are 'an awesome personality we're glad to have hang around...' or 'Huh... I have a feeling we should NOT kill THIS one... Fine, Whatever!?!'

Then there is that awkward time where your not sure if he's a help friend or a Traitorous trap waiting for the DM to spring...

He'll blend in better if it's from the beginning. However the way some groups shift around, sometimes it's necessary to add someone in mid game.

[Snowblind]

Irontruth wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?

Analogy

Ever notice how rarely people consider themselves to be bad drivers? Yet, everyone complains about bad drivers and we've all seen them.

This is more or less due to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I imagine it would also apply to a lot of (but not all) GMs running bad GMPCs as well.

[Tacticslion]

Very true! I suspect that applies a very great deal.
(This is also related to reasons that many find online arguments difficult - they and/or the person they are speaking with greatly overestimate the worth of their own rhetoric to the point where they presuppose that non-arguments are valid, ignoring direct evidence to the contrary. EDIT: To be clear, this is much more difficult for me to suss out within myself in such dialogues, so it's something I've got to be more careful of...)

The main reason I can speak with such certainty that GMPCs can be good things does not come from my own assessment of my abilities, however (which would be highly suspicious and subject to said effect), but rather my players' assessment thereof, as well as my own results as a non-GM player.

(On the other hand, I'm fully aware of my failings as a PbP GM, despite several suggestions to the contrary. I really suck at that skill, and am currently fighting massive amounts of avoidance behavior as a direct result of my recognition thereof. :/ Grr. Sigh.)

[LazarX]

Jaelithe wrote:

Related to my exchange with the good doctor above ...

Here's something else to consider, one and all: What if one player has an issue with it, while the other players think the DMPC is great and that the complaining player has brain damage and/or an axe to grind?

I do think some players would never complain out of friendship, loyalty, or the fact that they don't want to blow the only game in town, either literally or figuratively.

But I also think there are players, some of whom have posted in this very thread, who'd complain about a DMPC with whom they'd not had an issue just because they have a bug up their ass about the very idea of it the size of a scarab beetle.

What I'd do is this: I'd take the player aside so that he or she didn't feel the weight of condemnation from the rest of the group, and give the issues he or she wished to air a fair hearing. If it became obvious this person had a point, I'd either amend the manner in which I played the DMPC, or send him/her off into the sunset. If instead I thought the argument had no or even little merit, I'd politely invite him to give it more time or disengage.

Not sure what else one could reasonably do.

This falls under the category I call Individual Group/GM Dynamics. It's not a rules issue, it's how individual GMs and their Groups work things like this out.

[phantom1592]

DrDeth wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Wow. I almost expected one, but two people? That's unheard of, and pleasantly surprising!

So we have two posters who are generally Anti-DMPC agreeing that they perhaps can be done right...but no DMPC running DM's that have conceded that perhaps they shouldn't be running them?

I wouldn't expect there to be. It's easy to back down from 'never a good idea' to 'Ok, it may work for some people.'

The alternative you're looking for is the side saying 'It works for some people' to suddenly decide 'It's never a good idea for anyone...'

Even if there were a compromise, the 'pro-DMPC' crowd STARTED more flexible. The general idea was 'I've seen it work, and I've seen it not work'... there's not much room to concede after that.

[Sissyl]

I suppose we are mainly GMs here, but are there any non GM players who consider GMPCs something that makes campaigns better? I have no problem seeing that people who inflict GMPCs on others enjoy them, maybe even when they see others do it to them...

If I saw someone who did not use GMPCs praise their use, it would be easier to consider the view that maybe somewhere, someone likes seeing their GM vomit up a GMPC.

[phantom1592]

Sissyl wrote:

I suppose we are mainly GMs here, but are there any non GM players who consider GMPCs something that makes campaigns better? I have no problem seeing that people who inflict GMPCs on others enjoy them, maybe even when they see others do it to them...

I'm a non-GM player. I also fall into the category where I've seen them work really well and I've seen them used poorly.

When done well, they add a lot to a campaign, when done poorly they suck the life out of a game.

[Sissyl]

And when used poorly and well, was that in any way related to the GM rooting for the GMPC as THEIR CHARACTER IN THAT GAME? See, that is the only relevant distinction. If you consider a GMPC to mean a character traveling with the party, of course they can enrich a campaign whatever their power level. But once the GM indulges his/her desire to play as well, things go south fast.

[phantom1592]

Sissyl wrote:

And when used poorly and well, was that in any way related to the GM rooting for the GMPC as THEIR CHARACTER IN THAT GAME?

Totally.

The adventure was designed around trying to help this person out and she ended up doing all the important stuff. We were just background characters. When our characters stepped up to do something unexpected, I sensed frustration that we had deviated from her script.

That said, the DM who did this was very inexperienced. Like, 2nd or 3rd 'one night adventure' inexperienced. The DMs who had run multiple full campaigns over many many years, used them beautifully to help flesh out the world and keep the group coherent.

So yeah. There's a lot of variables as to whether DMPCs work or don't.

[kyrt-ryder]

Sissyl wrote:

And when used poorly and well, was that in any way related to the GM rooting for the GMPC as THEIR CHARACTER IN THAT GAME?

...rooting? What the heck do you mean by that?

Regardless, I'll quote a few posts I made upthread to answer your question about having positive experiences with someone else's GMPC

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Tons of fun and the GMPCs really contributed to the party's dynamic, while being 'just another party member' in combat.

In short, these two characters were no different from my own, the Rogue or the Druid. They were just a Personal Character of a player at the table.

EDIT: just to be clear, although the Co-DMs did rotate 'primary DMship' between sessions, both played their character in every session they were able to get to, including while they were the primary DM.

[Sissyl]

When you play as a player, you invest emotionally in the character. You want things to go well for the character. You want to stop things from going bad for him/her. This emotional investment is a major part of the reason for the emotional payoff for playing the game. It works a lot like when you cheer for a sports team, I believe. This also makes you see the character in a brighter light than others do, and anyone working against your character will become more sinister than others would see them as. This is why conflicts between characters so often ramp up into the real world also, and why they become so difficult to solve. In short, the emotional investment in a character is both the thrill and many of the problems with playing the game. A big part of playing a PC is that you are allowed to be in the spotlight of the campaign, to change things in the world, to unapologetically fight toward your goals, and to live larger than life.

GMs are by no means immune to this. The GM's job is to provide a setting for the game, and various schools of thought put various focus on different parts (setting, plot, intrigue, whatever) of the gaming experience. As part of this job, they provide other characters the PCs can interact with. These characters are parts of the setting, nota bene, meaning they have a specific purpose for being there. This can be as people driving some plotline, people to act as obstacles, people who add local colour to a place, people who aid the PCs, and so on. Generally, conventional wisdom is taken to say that all these people should be played by the GM in accordance with their goals, their personalities, their capabilities, and their situation. None of this makes one of them a GMPC. A GMPC is CERTAINLY not just a character traveling with the PCs.

But when a GM wants the thrill of playing his/her own PC... a lot of this breaks down. The GM becomes invested in the specific character. It takes part of the spotlight, yes, but that is a minor problem, compared to the rest of it: The GMPC, with the emotional investment of the omnipotent GM, will invariably (in my experience, this is an absolute) become the real focus of the game. The temptation IS too strong. A mature GM will realize the problems with it, and refrain from using GMPCs. There is, of course, nothing wrong with providing allied NPCs for the party, but what truly sets these apart from GMPCs IS the lack of emotional investment of the GM. Ways to make sure they don't end up as GMPCs are: Giving them a rather short-term goal ending in departure, a new short-term goal or death, keeping them in the shadow of the PCs, and all the other suggestions that have been provided. An allied NPC is supposed to be as personally important to the GM as the bugbear chieftain in the bandit camp over there, at least if the chieftain is played decently.

When people see it done well, they see an allied NPC. When not done well, they see a GMPC.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Sissyl wrote:

I suppose we are mainly GMs here, but are there any non GM players who consider GMPCs something that makes campaigns better? I have no problem seeing that people who inflict GMPCs on others enjoy them, maybe even when they see others do it to them...

If I saw someone who did not use GMPCs praise their use, it would be easier to consider the view that maybe somewhere, someone likes seeing their GM vomit up a GMPC.

In my post (several pages ago) the first and most obvious example was one where I was the player. And to reiterate, no one complained, I don't think anyone felt there was anything to complain about (I certainly didn't) and we all enjoyed (or at least didn't mind) the character and the game.

Several of the later GMPC examples were kind of in the borderland between NPC and GMPC, because they did not stay with the rest of the party all the time, but they did spend a significant amount of time with us and had a say in party decisions, and again, I never felt they were anything but good and I never heard a word of complaint against them.

Come to think of it, apart from some nebulous cases in the 1-on-1 OA game, I don't think I've ever had a true GMPC in any of the games I've run. So all my experience with GMPCs comes as a player, and I had no problem with them.

Does that count?

[phantom1592]

Sissyl wrote:

When you play as a player, you invest emotionally in the character. You want things to go well for the character. You want to stop things from going bad for him/her. This emotional investment is a major part of the reason for the emotional payoff for playing the game. It works a lot like when you cheer for a sports team, I believe.e.

This is the ideal... but not always the reality.

Sometimes even the players are more interested in the story then their characters and sometimes either a conflict or poor design or something prohibits the player from truly getting invested in any specific character.

Out of the 20-30 characters I've played, I can guarantee there were some I loved and some I didn't really care if they lived or died. The boards are full of people who see a character die and just make up a new one.

Same goes for DMs I imagine.

You have a very distinct line drawn between GMPC and Allied NPC. It's not a definition that I personally share.

For me, the DMPC are Allied NPCs. They are more fleshed out then the bugbear chieften. As they should be. They have been traveling with the party for months, where as the bugbear cheiften showed up in the game for 20 minutes before he was killed and looted. They are the NPCs with full character sheets, PC classes, backgrounds and personalities.

Many generic NPCs have similar things, and there is definitely some overlap. However, the average npc doesn't gain levels and advance the same way 'Frank' has been with us from level 1-15...

Motivations are also varied. Sometimes the DM may want to 'play' too... Sometimes they may think the party needs some padding out. Maybe the DM needs a voice after some disasters with a particular group... Maybe he just wants to playtest out a class and see if it's unbalanced..

It's all in the definitions I think. I believe there is gray area between 'generic world building npc' and 'Spotlight stealing center of the show...'

For me, the basest definition of DMPC is when the DM has a character who is fighting against all of his OTHER characters for an extended amount of time. Anyone on 'THIS' side of the party line is a PC character, anyone on 'THAT' side of the screen is an npc.

[Kryzbyn]

@ Sissyl: Well that's a pretty convenient definition...

Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM ruins the game with it.

Well I'm convinced.

[Snowblind]

Kryzbyn wrote:

@ Sissyl: Well that's a pretty convenient definition...

Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM ruins the game with it.

Well I'm convinced.

That's not really what Sissyl is saying.

It's more like a GMPC is an allied NPC that the GM emotionally cares about like players usually do with their PCs.

[Kryzbyn]

Ok.
Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.

[Eben TheQuiet]

Sissyl asked for non-DM perspectives. I'm almost exclusively a player, and, like I mentioned in my first post, I've seen it done really well and INCREDIBLY, experience-ruiningly horrible.

[Jaelithe]

Sissyl wrote:

... (in my experience, this is an absolute) become the real focus of the game. The temptation IS too strong.

Yet others have differing experiences. They've either watched as the temptation did not prove too strong for other DMs, or not succumbed to the temptation themselves.

Thus, you may say, "The temptation IS too strong for me and anyone else I've seen try." Simply saying, "The temptation IS too strong" is wholly unsubstantiated. It's anecdotal, no matter the determined rhetoric employed to support it.

Quote:

A mature GM will realize the problems with it, and refrain from using GMPCs.

And an even more mature DM will instead evaluate his or her capability to do what you assert is impossible and act accordingly.

One can have an emotional attachment to a character and nevertheless either kill him/her off and/or watch him die. Or are we all saying that no author has ever developed an affection for one of his/her creations and then offed him or her? I know George Martin does ... well, bad example. I don't know that George Martin loves any of his characters. :)

Now if you can't throw your DMPC in front of a truck despite your affection for him or her, then you shouldn't be running him. If you can't have him or her fade into the background, same thing. If you can't bear having him ride off into the sunset when that's what's called for ... you get the idea.

For example, I as DM might know that the seemingly hopeless military situation in which the party finds itself will be resolved in minutes when the vanguard of the Tenth Imperial Legion tops a rise and the orcs run like screaming little girls. On the other hand, my paladin GMPC doesn't know the Tenth's arrival is imminent. I could easily save him to play another day by having him participate in the fighting withdrawal. Instead, I know that the character I've created would say, "Get thee gone. I'll hold the bridge!" and leap thereon to keep his friends from being cut down.

So Saladin the paladin makes his stand, fights nobly and is killed, his body hacked to pieces by the orcs, when it wasn't at all necessary.

He was a GMPC. I sent him to his grave anyway. I would have preferred to keep playing him, but ... that's not what he would have done, so ... I played him to death.

It can be done. It has been done, certain posters' inability to accept it notwithstanding.

[pres man]

I am "Pro"-GMPC, and I will say that for myself, I probably shouldn't continue running one once the party gets to high level. Not because I can't do it and do it well or it will overshadow the party. No, it is because I lose the desire to run it at that point. It becomes a burden instead of boon. I have to level it up, I have to spend time picking more and more gear to purchase/upgrade, etc. At lower levels, this is a snap, but at higher level is it is a chore. If I am not excited about the character it is hard to bring "life" to them, you have to keep putting more and more energy into "faking it", and I have come to the conclusion I don't desire to do that.

Sissyl wrote:

When you play as a player, you invest emotionally in the character.

I get emotionally invested in a lot of characters, especially if they are done well and are interesting. But I think we probably have different definitions for emotional investment.

Sissyl wrote:

You want things to go well for the character. You want to stop things from going bad for him/her.

What I may "want" isn't the same as what I may be willing to do. And no, as a player I am sometimes fine with bad things happening to my character, especially if it makes a more interesting story/game. If someone has to hold the tunnel up while the rest of the party escapes, that will often be my character, because I want them to be heroes and sometimes that means sacrificing oneself for others, for example.

Sissyl wrote:

This emotional investment is a major part of the reason for the emotional payoff for playing the game. It works a lot like when you cheer for a sports team, I believe.

And there are some sports fans that may love their team but be disgusted when a cheating scandal happens.

Sissyl wrote:

This also makes you see the character in a brighter light than others do, and anyone working against your character will become more sinister than others would see them as.

Not usually for me. And there may be times when I run a character who is more like "The Agent" who knows they are a bad person doing bad things. I've also played characters that looked up to the other party members as true heroes, but don't see themselves that way, especially redeemed characters.

Spoiler:

Teal'c: Nothing I have done since turning against the goa'uld will make up for the atrocities I once committed in their name. Somewhere deep inside you you knew it was wrong, a voice you did not recognize screamed for you to stop. You saw no way out, it was the way things were, they could not be changed. You're trying to convince yourself the people you're hurting deserved it. You became numb to their pain and suffering, you learned to shut out the voice speaking against it.
Tomin: There's always a choice.
Teal'c: Indeed there is.
Tomin: I chose to ignore it.
Teal'c: Yet you sit here now.
Tomin: I sit here, and I cannot imagine the day when I will forgive myself.
Teal'c: Because it will never come. One day others may try to convince you they have forgiven you, that is more about them than you. For them, imparting forgiveness is a blessing.
Tomin: How do you go on?
Teal'c: It is simple. You will never forgive yourself. Accept it. You hurt others, many others, that cannot be undone. You will never find personal retribution, but your life does not have to end. That which is right, just and true can still prevail. If you do not fight for what you believe in all may be lost for everyone else. But do not fight for yourself, fight for others, others that may be saved through your effort. That is the least you can do.

Sissyl wrote:

This is why conflicts between characters so often ramp up into the real world also, and why they become so difficult to solve. In short, the emotional investment in a character is both the thrill and many of the problems with playing the game. A big part of playing a PC is that you are allowed to be in the spotlight of the campaign, to change things in the world, to unapologetically fight toward your goals, and to live larger than life.

My experience is that conflicts usually start due to personality clashes, not character attachment. The guy who backstabs the party because "it is what his character would do", isn't doing it because he is attached to the character. He knows that this will probably end with the character being killed and/or taken out of the game or controlled by the GM and turned in to a BBEG. No it is due to immaturity and generally doucheyness. Evil, murderous, scumbags have friends, find a reason why this wouldn't be what this character would do.

And no it is not because of the emotional attachment the people had to their characters (well not for everyone), it is about breaking trust by a jerk. When I used to play group games online (StarCraft mainly), and you'd get that person who backstabs you. It wasn't because I had any emotional attachment to the battlecruisers I was running that I got frustrated. It was because it was juvenile and douchey.

[Sissyl]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Ok.

Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.

By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?

[Zhangar]

Snowblind wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

@ Sissyl: Well that's a pretty convenient definition...

Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM ruins the game with it.

Well I'm convinced.

That's not really what Sissyl is saying.

It's more like a GMPC is an allied NPC that the GM emotionally cares about like players usually do with their PCs.

Except that that's totally what Sissyl's saying. Sissyl's claiming a GMPC is only a GMPC when it's done badly; if it's not done badly, it really wasn't a GMPC.

So no, Sissyl's not going to win any converts because Sissyl's stance is wrong to begin with =P (Taking the position that any GM that DOES use a GMPC must be incompetent/terrible/immature doesn't help Sissyl's case either - it's hard to win over people when you openly look down on them =P)

A GM can get emotionally attached to any of his or her creations, whether a GMPC, an NPC ally, a recurring villain, a cool one-shot villain, a city, a rules subsystem, etc. That just kind of happens, because people are stupidly good at getting emotionally attached to imaginary things.

Not screwing up your own game because you like something you made for it is just part of being a competent GM.

If your GM screws up his own game because he likes his own stuff too much, then you're just picking at symptoms (like bad GMPCs) and not addressing the actual problem - the GM himself.

[Kryzbyn]

Sissyl wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Ok.

Allied NPC: character created by the GM to accompany the PCs. It's on a character sheet and levels with the party, shares loot, etc.
GMPC: same exact thing, only the GM has "emotional attachment", and then ruins the game with it.

By your quote marks, should I conclude that you consider emotional attachment to be a foreign concept, Kryzbyn?

Yes, you got me pegged dead to rights.

OR

I don't think it's an insurmountable thing that drives folks to fits of irrational behavior while DMing.

[Aranna]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I don't think it's an insurmountable thing that drives folks to fits of irrational behavior while DMing.

This IS the insidious nature of the GMPC trap, every boon you grant your GMPC is perfectly rational, perfectly meant to help the party, and makes perfect sense in your eyes. What you don't see is the resentment each GMPC boon places in the eyes of your PCs, they see a story about the GMPC with them as sidekicks where you see a helpful GMPC moving the story along and keeping them alive.