GMPC = Game Master's Player Character. AKA, the GM has a NPC who is their PC.

It's a term sometimes used regarding GM's who get overly attached to NPCs. It happens. It's not a good thing, especially when the same NPC type shows up over and over, but I read forums where people talk about their GM playing a PC in their own game.

Is this ever not a clusterfuck at the table?

If so, how does it benefit the game vs. just having a NPC?

I think strong NPCs that are part of PC parties can be great when done well, and mostly I have not seen them be problems. It helps if there is little/no competitive attitude between players and/or GM, and if the GM is not overly attached or otherwise messing up the line between GM and NPC. I only see calling them GM PCs to be a critical term that the line is not being respected by the GM, because really it should just be that there are NPCs that may participate in the action similarly to PCs, "joining the party" or whatever. It can be good in a number of ways when done that way, because for instance:

* It makes the PC/NPC line less artificial.
* There are ready NPCs that PCs might run if their PC is out of action or dead or doing something else for a while.
* It allows the GM to insert some reasonable characters around the PCs who can do/say things that may be really helpful and avoid needing to have PCs do/say them.
* Various other stuffs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;989543GMPC = Game Master's Player Character. AKA, the GM has a NPC who is their PC.

It's a term sometimes used regarding GM's who get overly attached to NPCs. It happens. It's not a good thing, especially when the same NPC type shows up over and over, but I read forums where people talk about their GM playing a PC in their own game.

Is this ever not a clusterfuck at the table?

If so, how does it benefit the game vs. just having a NPC?

Depends on the GM - mostly a bad idea, but I have a PBEM GM who does it fine, her GMPC is always an arrow/bullet magnet. Big problem if GMPC is star of the show.

I've seen it work. I've seen it not work. Our FASA Star Trek campaign had multiple GMs with the same stable of characters. Everyone had multiple PCs. It worked fine.

Often times the GM that  week made one of their PCs the crew person who was wounded, came down with the mysterious and deadly disease, was on trial for murder, needed to be rescued by the others, or what have you.

GMPCs are a problem for two reasons; i) they are OPPOSED to the player characters, so the referee cheats in the GMPC's favor, or ii) they are so vastly more powerful and usually superior in every way that the players feel useless.

And yes, when one of those two states occur, clusterfuckedness is guaranteed.

Rotating GMs moving their PCs in and out can work just fine, though, as several have pointed out.

Quote from: Spinachcat;989543GMPC = Game Master's Player Character.

Aside: Thank you. When I first saw this thread, I thought we were talking about Traveller anti-tank weapons or something (isn't that a thing, some field weapon that is a four-letter acronym ending in 'pc?' Particle Cannon?).

Anyways,

QuoteIt's a term sometimes used regarding GM's who get overly attached to NPCs.
...
Is this ever not a clusterfuck at the table?  

Well, in this context, an NPC almost always only gets termed to be a GMPC in retrospect, after they have become a glorious charlie-foxtrot, so there's a little bit of a selection bias effect going on.

The other use of the term, the otherwise-PC of the current GM in a rotating-GM game, who is a NPC for the duration, well, this is as good or as bad a situation as the group makes it. It's probably a good test of the group whether or not they can do this relatively fairly.

QuoteIf so, how does it benefit the game vs. just having a NPC?

Again, two main uses of the term. For the overly attached, problem NPC, they were supposed to be just another NPC, it's the movement to GM's pet character that caused there to be a problem. For the rotating GM's PC, they are just an NPC.

Quote from: Bren;989562I've seen it work. I've seen it not work.

Yeah, this.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989614Aside: Thank you. When I first saw this thread, I thought we were talking about Traveller anti-tank weapons or something (isn't that a thing, some field weapon that is a four-letter acronym ending in 'pc?' Particle Cannon?).

Grand Magnesum Particle Cannon? Sounds more like Warhammer to me:D!

As someone who used to have GMPCs, I am now convinced they really are a bad idea, even if it seems ok at the table. If the play group is small enough that the PCs need companions, put their play as much as possible into the players hands. That doesn't mean the GM shouldn't advocate for his NPCs, that's important, but the GM should advocate for all his NPCs impartially and with the same level of attention, taking into account the relevance of the NPC, but honestly, the one time inn keeper should be advocated for just as much as the big villain, it's just the villain will get more out of the advocacy because he's on stage more, and has more power within the context of the game and it's setting.

One of the significant problems I saw with GMPCs is when GMPCs are the only party members still standing in a combat. Now the GM is playing a war game with himself. Yea...

I've not totally come to a conclusion as to what to do in a combat where there are NPCs still standing and all the PCs are down, and the combat is not effectively lost (if it is, we can just cut away from the action, and narrate the final outcome). In some cases, it may be ok for the players to continue declaring actions and rolling for the NPCs, which keeps away from the GM playing with himself.

Frank

I can't recall ever using a GMPC at the table. I try to make my NPCs flawed in some way so that they cannot take care of the adventure themselves, which is where the PCs step in. I've found that if the NPC is too powerful and not the opposition, then the PCs will tend to use the NPC as the Point Man in handling every obstacle (which makes for a boring game).

I dont like GM PCs at all. I'd rather the party just get some hirelings or whatever if they need more boots on the ground.

The worst I've experienced (from a GM who was generally great most of the time):
We'd had this character with us for a while, hunting down another NPC who had abused her.
She wasn't always the star but she often succeeded where the PCs did not... and we were pretty much playing in her story.
At the end, when we finally tracked down the villain, the GM had a big show prepared... including the GMPC's theme music.
Then... all the PCs fell quickly during the battle (we'd actually stumbled in unprepared)... but the GM went ahead and started up that theme music anyway and then fought out the final battle between the villain and his darling NPC... and once she'd killed him we all got rezzed courtesy of some convenient ghosts in the area.
It was really lame... and I still hate hearing that song when it comes on (won't name it so I don't shame it).

The main thing, IMO, is that they shouldn't outshine the PCs or get the PCs out of self-inflicted pickles. There have been plenty of other GMPCs that I've seen who were a lot of fun and added a lot of character to the setting/game.

Yep -- like I said upthread, never make the PCs look like also-rans.

Quote from: Spinachcat;989543GMPC = Game Master's Player Character. AKA, the GM has a NPC who is their PC.

It's a term sometimes used regarding GM's who get overly attached to NPCs. It happens. It's not a good thing, especially when the same NPC type shows up over and over, but I read forums where people talk about their GM playing a PC in their own game.

Is this ever not a clusterfuck at the table?

If so, how does it benefit the game vs. just having a NPC?

I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do this. Even run "right" you open yourself to conflict of interest accusations.

I find one of the best ways to avoid the problem issue is to use multiple NPCs. So instead of giving the party one really competent NPC, go with two or three less capable ones that each have a bit of use without overshadowing everyone else. It also gives you more personality to play with. Do avoid having the NPCs interacting socially with one other if at all possible though.

I have no problem with pet npcs as long as they don't overshadow the players.  In one of my Rolemaster games, much of the campaign involved the pcs running into the remnants of a previous adventuring party that had really shaped the world in their day.  One was drawn from George MacDonald's Phantasies, a knight in tarnished armor on a broken down nag who when the party was being pursued by a terrible demon turned a wry eye to the party's paladin and said as he turned to face the demon, "so, are you coming or not?"  

There was also an Anubite death priest who sniffed people's butts and urinated on upright fixtures.  I was setting him up as the friendly nemesis who'd travelled with the pcs and earned their trust before his loyalties put him as the next major menace.

But a GMNPC where they've got a character sheet and track experience points and receive treasure and such is an abomination.  If you want to play, play and let someone competent GM.