Never even occurred to me to do something like this. Wasn't even aware some GMs did it until I got on the net and read GM horror stories.

I do run I guess what are GMPCs from time to time, but only as needed (say an extra meatshield )..   However whilst I DO RP them and they won;t stand for being taken advantage of, they generally won;t make any big decisions or steal the limelight from PCs.

Other older terms were things like Pet NPC and Personal NPC.

I did it once and then during play realized this was a bad bad bad thing and ever since my more central NPCs tend to shuffle off the mortal coil or just drop in to congratulate the group for some deed, or occasionally are milling about in the background. That is very rare though. More often I have no personal NPC at all.

Done right. Its fine. Done wrong and its anything but fine. And like with about anything in gaming its been misused a fair amount or else we wouldnt have these discussions and its much like having set plots or events in a session. The urge to grandstand or railroad the players can override common sense.

GMPC is one of those weird terms that carries with it the definition of something being done wrong, and some idiots carry that to wrong conclusions.  The term really is a definition for an NPC run incorrectly.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with an NPC being run with the same mechanics granularity as a PC, or an NPC whose ability is equal to the PC's or in their chosen specialty, superior (Why did you hire a guide to get you through this swamp if you don't expect him to be better at navigating the swamp than you...welfare?).

Of course, the definition really being of an NPC done wrong, the common wisdom arises that GMPC=BAD.  The problem is, that on the internet, chucklefucks turn that into any NPC that is reasonably competent is a GMPC/Mary Sue, yadda yadda {toss around words you don't know the meaning of here}.

If I'm going to hire someone or add someone to the group, sometimes henchman or hireling class people will work, sometimes I need someone who can hold their own weight and be able to shit unassisted.  I need an NPC of at least equivalent ability, and I'm probably giving up an equal share of the treasure to get one, and we're glad to have them.  I don't want to run or roleplay that character, that's boring, I want to roleplay my character dealing with that character, like all NPCs.  That's interesting.

Is it called an NPC, a {adjective} NPC, or a GMPC?  If it's run well by the GM, I don't care, and if you do, go clean your ears with a greatsword.

Depends. Way back in the 80s every Pet NPC I ever saw was not an NPC, it was for all intents and purposes the GMs character created exactly the same as any PC. some had more levels, some had magic items.

But the defining element was that they 75% of the time grandstanded the PCs a little, or alot. Ive also seen it done at least once with an NPC group.

The DM was bragging about how stupid some players were fighting a dragon Turtle by hacking at it and all that. He had his crack team of soldiers march in and just tip it over with long poles...

Oooh... Not my cup of tea at all.

Quite frequently when playing with very small groups we have added an NPC built like a PC, especially at low levels. It gives the party a little bit more capacity, and provides a mouthpiece for in world, in character information tht isn't the "Voice of God" booming down from on high.  It worked well when the NPCs were kept as supporting cast and allowed the PCs to be the stars.

GMNPC in fantasy literature: Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. Think about it... Even Legolas the son of the King of the Woodelves of Mirkwood did not overshadow the rest of the group while pretending to be just another adventurer. Gandalf we knew was a high powered NPC from the start. But Aragorn...

I think people need to spend less time thinking about spotlight time, having their peen outclassed, narrative/dramatic order of being of other people my character interacts with, whether the mind controlling and speaking for a character is on "my side" or not, and most of all FOR FUCK'S SAKE, realize that when a worthless shithead GM does something idiotic, it doesn't require new mechanics to prevent or stupid cute terms for the social network stupidity treadmill to create new "common wisdom" from.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989944Quite frequently when playing with very small groups we have added an NPC built like a PC, especially at low levels. It gives the party a little bit more capacity, and provides a mouthpiece for in world, in character information tht isn't the "Voice of God" booming down from on high.  It worked well when the NPCs were kept as supporting cast and allowed the PCs to be the stars.

Such NPCs are also useful to hand over to players that might have their usual character out of an extended scene for whatever reason, and they can be useful for allowing new players to jump into a session in games that have long character creation bits.

GMPC implies to me (among other things) a character that is perpetually in the party, not just one hired for a particular function or mission.  One of the things I don't like about them is that they are taking up GM NPC playing space that could be more varied.

Though I'd never be tempted to use them in any case.  I'm too much of a fan of a large group of players, and the last thing they need is a bunch of semi-permanent NPCs.

I've used what amounts to GMPCs extensively over the years. I've been really bad about it when I was younger. These days, I manage it well. What it boils down to is that my groups tend to be really small, so they usually wind up with an NPC companion. In The One Ring, I only had two players, so we actually co-created the NPCs and I gave one sheet to each player to fill out the Fellowship.

My players over the years have gotten really attached to my NPCs, but I made sure a long time ago that there was no grandstanding going on.

Now my current group is at four players, so any NPCs are completely incidental and relevant to the adventure (in Curse of Strahd, for instance, our current group is six characters: The four PCs, the NPC they are escorting and her brother, who is actually a touch more capable - but less versatile - than the rest of the group because he's a veteran from the Monster Manual and they are level 4).

I'm fine with NPCs that use PC character sheets, PC rules mechanics, have power disparity to the party in some way, a share of the loot/XP (hirelings, henchmen, and so on), playtime spotlight, etc.

For me, the definitional factor for "GMPC"/MarySue is favoritism. I see Mary Sue is the "plot immunity lil' Miss Perfect" end of the spectrum of Favoritized NPCs. You can be a fan of your creations as much as be a fan of the players' creations, but when it drifts into favoritism is where I feel there's an obvious line. Equanimity upon application of setting coherency, and results of dice consultation, is key to holding against that line.

The player characters are not alone in the world and not the only "heroes" in my book. So NPCs are to be played to the hilt as living, breathing beings. But what marks PCs as different in the forefront of my mind is a) they have priority for my GM attention, (because NPC-stuff can be handled off-table during prep) and b) they have autonomy of choice outside of my control. As long as I remember that, and remain even-handed in application of the world, I find I'm golden. (It becomes hard to stumble across the line into favoritism, in either direction).

Quote from: Opaopajr;989981I'm fine with NPCs that use PC character sheets, PC rules mechanics, have power disparity to the party in some way, a share of the loot/XP (hirelings, henchmen, and so on), playtime spotlight, etc.

For me, the definitional factor for "GMPC"/MarySue is favoritism. I see Mary Sue is the "plot immunity lil' Miss Perfect" end of the spectrum of Favoritized NPCs. You can be a fan of your creations as much as be a fan of the players' creations, but when it drifts into favoritism is where I feel there's an obvious line. Equanimity upon application of setting coherency, and results of dice consultation, is key to holding against that line.

The player characters are not alone in the world and not the only "heroes" in my book. So NPCs are to be played to the hilt as living, breathing beings. But what marks PCs as different in the forefront of my mind is a) they have priority for my GM attention, (because NPC-stuff can be handled off-table during prep) and b) they have autonomy of choice outside of my control. As long as I remember that, and remain even-handed in application of the world, I find I'm golden. (It becomes hard to stumble across the line into favoritism, in either direction).

Totally fair.

In the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, I wheeled out my old "Mary Sue" NPC when the PCs were in a bad spot to show that there were bigger and badder adventurers in the world...then I had that same group scoff at the first War Council and go off alone to attack The Well of Dragons...with one survivor sent back a few weeks later, maimed, as a message that attacking the Well (alone, anyway) was suicide.

Quote from: Opaopajr;989981I'm fine with NPCs that use PC character sheets, PC rules mechanics, have power disparity to the party in some way, a share of the loot/XP (hirelings, henchmen, and so on), playtime spotlight, etc.

Yea, there's nothing wrong with NPCs using the same mechanics as PCs, getting experience and treasure, etc. Playtime spotlight is one of the danger areas and has to be managed carefully.

QuoteFor me, the definitional factor for "GMPC"/MarySue is favoritism. I see Mary Sue is the "plot immunity lil' Miss Perfect" end of the spectrum of Favoritized NPCs. You can be a fan of your creations as much as be a fan of the players' creations, but when it drifts into favoritism is where I feel there's an obvious line. Equanimity upon application of setting coherency, and results of dice consultation, is key to holding against that line.

I think there is a problem somewhat short of favoritism. An NPC party member getting equal spot light to the PCs is probably an issue. Sure, as some folks have mentioned, unless the NPC allies to the PCs are cannon fodder, there will be times they will shine and even save the PCs butts. Like was said above, if the PCs hire an NPC guide, they expect the guide to do better than they would, otherwise what was the point? But when said guide starts guiding the story, or intrudes too much.

I don't think long term NPCs have to be a problem, again, so long as spotlight time is managed properly.

I do find GMPC a very useful term in understanding the issue, and have used it myself for my own NPCs. As I have gained more insight on play dynamics, I have decided to stay away from NPCs that might come close to such a label. So my long term NPCs sort of sit on the sideline. I do have a potential problematic NPC in one of my Traveller campaigns, who had the information to salvage a ship and is now co-owner with a PC. Logically, the NPC would want to stay with the ship, but there is a real problem created with the NPC having more say in where they go. I did try to offer the NPC to a new player as one solution.

Frank

Water is wet?