Quote from: CRKrueger;989908GMPC 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.

No, with a Bohemian Ear Spoon!  DO try to keep up!

Also, now you owe me a beer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;989958I 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.

Gronan's Three Laws of Gaming:

The rules cannot cure stupid.
The rules cannot cure asshole.
Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does not constitute a need to change the rules.

Quote from: CRKrueger;989908GMPC 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.

Yes, thank you for writing this. I was thinking the same sort of thing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;989958I 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.

Yep, this too. Seems like there are a number of reactions against things that aren't the actual issues, which can lead to its own limitations, and one's that personally I've seen more often than the problems trying to be avoided.

Quote from: jeff37923;989653I 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).

This seems like an example of problems with the GM and/or players, rather than necessarily the existence of a powerful and capable NPC who could accompany the party if that's what people choose.

What I've more often seen and been annoyed by is the GM avoiding this possibility so strongly and obviously that the game world seems to very artificially force the PCs to always be the ones who have to face every interesting obstacle or quest alone, and even when in the company of supposedly strong and powerful friendly forces, those allies are always unavailable, the PCs are being obliged to be the ones to handle every quest-like situation, and alone, etc., in ways that seem forced and fake.

Quote from: HappyDaze;989857I 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 like the first suggestion not because I want there to be no other multi-competent NPCs, but because it tends to feel more like real human variety and I like having a variety of NPCs around.

However the suggestion to avoid NPCs having social interactions with each other... if you mean don't spend too much time roleplaying conversations between NPCs, sure... but in general I prefer it when NPCs do have some social interactions with each other, so they are more like actual people who do things, have perspectives and are interesting, as opposed to being like summoned mindless units of bonus abilities for the party. It doesn't have to take much time, e.g. "Grom is making friends with Prunok and they spend their spare time foraging and gambling with Bregdor. Felicia and Quinn are flirting. Bregdor and Quinn don't seem to like each other."

Quote from: David Johansen;989861I have no problem with pet npcs as long as they don't overshadow the players.  ...
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.

That seems odd to me, coming from TFT & GURPS where NPCs might often be less detailed than PCs but are basically the same thing. I don't get how having an NPC have a sheet, receive XP or treasure could be an abomination - it seems far more weird that they wouldn't (well, they might share sheets with multiple NPCs), though the GM might not track it in as much detail. Looting fallen comrade NPCs is highly anticipated by some of my players. Not to mention thief and schemer PCs. Players also often enjoy seeing their NPC friends develop and improve, and sometimes spend time/money/magic training and equipping them, etc.

Quote from: Skarg;990002That seems odd to me, coming from TFT & GURPS where NPCs might often be less detailed than PCs but are basically the same thing. I don't get how having an NPC have a sheet, receive XP or treasure could be an abomination - it seems far more weird that they wouldn't (well, they might share sheets with multiple NPCs), though the GM might not track it in as much detail. Looting fallen comrade NPCs is highly anticipated by some of my players. Not to mention thief and schemer PCs. Players also often enjoy seeing their NPC friends develop and improve, and sometimes spend time/money/magic training and equipping them, etc.

I think the logic is that once you start treating them mechanically the same as PCs, you the DM will start to perceive them as roughly the same thing as the PCs, and forget that the game is about the PCs trials and tribulations. The actual specifics of having a character sheet etc. aren't the actual problem.

Quote from: Skarg;990002However the suggestion to avoid NPCs having social interactions with each other... if you mean don't spend too much time roleplaying conversations between NPCs, sure... but in general I prefer it when NPCs do have some social interactions with each other, so they are more like actual people who do things, have perspectives and are interesting, as opposed to being like summoned mindless units of bonus abilities for the party. It doesn't have to take much time, e.g. "Grom is making friends with Prunok and they spend their spare time foraging and gambling with Bregdor. Felicia and Quinn are flirting. Bregdor and Quinn don't seem to like each other."

What you alluded to first, that of in-character, at-the table conversations between NPCs is what I was suggesting should be avoided, I absolutely support NPCs interacting off-stage or in the the groups' "peripheral vision" with quick, third-person snippets. They do help the NPCs to feel more like people than automatons.

Quote from: CRKrueger;989958it doesn't require new mechanics to prevent or stupid cute terms for the social network stupidity treadmill to create new "common wisdom" from.

Unfortunately all of the above are problems over in board gaming too. I've mentioned before designers agonizing over how to prevent "quaterbacking" in co-op games for example. Or how to get rid of the evil random dice.

When I saw the thread title I could not for the life me figure out what "Gmpc" was supposed to mean. I've never run a game and tried to simultaneously have a PC. I don't think it's fair to the players, but I also don't see what the point would be. Maybe if you rotated refs you'd always have a PC who belongs to the GM but I have a hard time seeing how the players wouldn't start to resent it if attention was focused on the GM's PC. You'd have to have a he'll of a ref to make that agreeable. But I honestly don't see the point and think there should be a division and as a ref I have so many NPCs to worry about and juggle I can't see why I'd want or need to add my PC to the mix.

Anyone who has done this and believes it was successful, please describe what you did.

Quote from: Dumarest;990299When I saw the thread title I could not for the life me figure out what "Gmpc" was supposed to mean. I've never run a game and tried to simultaneously have a PC. I don't think it's fair to the players, but I also don't see what the point would be. Maybe if you rotated refs you'd always have a PC who belongs to the GM but I have a hard time seeing how the players wouldn't start to resent it if attention was focused on the GM's PC. You'd have to have a he'll of a ref to make that agreeable. But I honestly don't see the point and think there should be a division and as a ref I have so many NPCs to worry about and juggle I can't see why I'd want or need to add my PC to the mix.

Anyone who has done this and believes it was successful, please describe what you did.

There was a discussion at GenCon way back on it. The general thought was that in some cases it develops from the DM wanting to be a player. Sometimes its fairly simple and not a problem. But for reasons similar to having prepped "scripts" theres some freakish urge to go overboard. And these are the ones that stand out and get talked about, derisively, afterwards.

The other one is the Pet NPC. These may blur into GMPCs or not. But usually they are just an NPC. Often a villain. That the DM is hellbent on running to script or just keeping alive no matter. Sometimes it fits. But once again, it gets taken too far by some and becomes onerous.

Quote from: Dumarest;990299Anyone who has done this and believes it was successful, please describe what you did.

I don't want to say that my use of GMPCs was successful, but I don't think it was entirely a disaster. Surely the games would have been better had there not been GMPCs. Some games there may have still been NPC party members, but had they been run lower key, the game would have been better, other games would have done just fine without NPC party members (at least NPCs with some degree of parity with the PCs). I think the GMPC fits in with other techniques like railroading where if it's happening in an open way with consent (no one in my experience has ever held a gun to a players head, and I'm pretty sure almost every player who has ever played with me COULD have found another game), it can still be an enjoyable game. It's just that without these techniques, the game can be better.

So now I work to avoid having GMPCs. The NPCs in one of my OD&D play by post games are along because it suits them, but they don't steal the spotlight (besides, the 3 berserkers have died, all that remains is the Paladin...). In one of my Traveller campaigns it's a bit trickier, I really hope to hand off one of the NPCs to a player at some point (I did manage to hand off the companion NPC the first player in the campaign acquired when it was just him as a solo player). If the other players find a way to entice the NPC ship co-owner out of her position as co-owner, I will go along as long as it's a reasonable deal for her. Note that a one on one game between player and GM is one place where an NPC that comes closer to a GMPC might genuinely be appropriate, but still the GM has to work hard to make that NPCs purpose in the game be to highlight how cool the PC is. The companion might have complementary skills, but that's so the PC doesn't fail because he can't be good in everything, it allows the PC to fail because he wasn't quite good enough in his specialty, or the player wasn't quite good enough, or whatever.

But back to GMPCs. There is no question in my mind that there are ways they can become a problem. I did have situations where the PCs are all down and out, and I'm rolling dice for my GMPCs to fight the bad guys. Not good. Yea, in one sense, the players are invested in how the battle goes (do they get to be rescued or not), in another sense, it sure would have been better to find a way to resolve the rest of the battle with a couple dice rolls or something and get back to involving all the players. That goes for NPC conversations, find a way to make them short and sweet. Also maybe consider a different XP scale (NPCs in my OD&D campaign earn 1/2 XP for example) so that they can't outpace the PCs. Also, if it ever makes more sense for the NPC to part ways with the PCs, do so. An NPC may become loved by the players, and the GM will take some pride in that, but let the love come from the players not the GM.

One of the justifications I would not use for an NPC is to present information the PCs should know in character. That was a justification I used to use, but no, if a PC really should know or understand something, explain it to the player, and then let the player decide if his PC follows the norm of his culture or not. That isn't to say that information and setting stuff should never come from NPCs, but have it do so for logical reasons, not because you want to make your NPC more important, or show up the players for not playing their PC right or something.

I think it's also worth considering some of the reasons GMs wind up with GMPCs. Sometimes being GM can be lonely, and it doesn't always work out for the GM to be a player in other games. When I was younger I was really sensitive to some of the crappier things that can happen to players, and some GMs and players don't do a good job of making a player who appears to have not as good a PC still feel important. I have also heard stories of GMs who literally could not convince any of their players to GM, and who maybe lived in areas (and times) where it wasn't so easy to find other play groups. I think there are also some games that have real issues with actually being a fun game for the GM (D&D 3.x with it's challenge rating formulas and the game in one sense really being about character builds - yea, I could have run the game differently, and probably would do so now, but back then, I really got caught up in the "balanced encounter and adventure" stuff that makes the game strain to actually still be an RPG, so yea, in that game, I wanted an NPC that I could play the character build game with). Now one thing that really helps is that I'm as often a player as GM, and with multiple play by post games going on, I'm both a player and a GM any given week, and I spend my GM time trying to present an interesting setting with interesting situations and use my PCs in other games to get the thrill of playing a PC.

I hope by sharing how my viewpoint has changed, it helps folks understand more of what goes on with GMPCs, especially ones that aren't disasters, while also highlighting just why they can be so problematical, even when they aren't disasters.

Frank

There's two potential ways to define a "GMPC". The first would be if it was just an NPC that was a more or less permanent member of the character party, and that leveled (or whatever) along with the other player characters.

The second is the problematic version; when a GM starts to favor that NPC character, and uses his power as a GM to give it protagonism, power, or to protect it from being killed.

This is a big big problem.  

But if a GM is good, he can treat an NPC that's with the party just like he would any other NPC, obviously having a character that's  more fleshed-out than some barman that shows up once in the whole campaign, but not giving it any special favors and making it as vulnerable/mortal as any other NPC.

The problem is when you have a GM who wants to get the best of both worlds, playing and GMing at the same time, and forgetting that as a GM he is required to not favor himself over the players.

Quote from: RPGPundit;990783There's two potential ways to define a "GMPC". The first would be if it was just an NPC that was a more or less permanent member of the character party, and that leveled (or whatever) along with the other player characters.

The second is the problematic version; when a GM starts to favor that NPC character, and uses his power as a GM to give it protagonism, power, or to protect it from being killed.

This is a big big problem.  

But if a GM is good, he can treat an NPC that's with the party just like he would any other NPC, obviously having a character that's  more fleshed-out than some barman that shows up once in the whole campaign, but not giving it any special favors and making it as vulnerable/mortal as any other NPC.

The problem is when you have a GM who wants to get the best of both worlds, playing and GMing at the same time, and forgetting that as a GM he is required to not favor himself over the players.

Exactly. And a related problem is when, in trying to avoid the above problem, a GM or players decide that certain things have to be avoided at all costs, such as having any NPC fight alongside the PCs, having NPCs have details or gain any XP or loot, having NPCs participate at all in discussions about what to do, or even make spot checks, etc.

(Of course, some of us might tend to avoid GMs/players who have that level of malfunction, but it comes up as misinformation in Internet discussions in one form or another pretty often.)

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

That's the idiot definition fostered by the ignorant shitheads of EN World and Big Purple.

For decades a GM PC was exactly that, a player character run by the referee alongside the other player characters. It allowed refs to participate in the party while rotating referee seats. It has the potential for abuse, like just about every other gawdamn thing under the motherlovin' sun, and therefore was deemed A Bad Thing by people who insisted that others' self-control was as poor as their own.

And now, my own GM PC story. I ran a dwarf fighter while I was refereeing so that we could rotate the seat at the short end of the table between three of us in the group. I had a door trap - behind the door was yellow mold which would explode all over whoever opened the door. It fell to my character to open the door, and, fully aware of the risk that opening the door represented to me, I decided to . . . open the door, because I'm able to compartmentalize what my character knows compared to what I know, and act accordingly.

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?

GMPCs are about ego. And that's all they are.

The GM committing that, does not accept the role of the player characters being the protagonists. They want the spotlight completely on themselves. Even more than it is by simply being the GM.

I personally don't see how a GMPC can truly be a benefit to the whole dynamic. It undermines the perspective of impartiality the GM is supposed to have.

I've played with some real Old School, long-time DMs who do this. Their rationale, when one is offered, is to give the PCs a little extra help. I guess it's a kind of traditionalist alternative to "Hero points", or mechanics that favor the PCs. A little extra boost, like the DM letting players add +1 to one ability or start off with a free magic item.

Personally, I have never been in a game where it ever was a problem or got weird.

Quote from: RPGPundit;990783There's two potential ways to define a "GMPC". The first would be if it was just an NPC that was a more or less permanent member of the character party, and that leveled (or whatever) along with the other player characters.

The second is the problematic version; when a GM starts to favor that NPC character, and uses his power as a GM to give it protagonism, power, or to protect it from being killed.

I think there's a space in the middle, that unfortunately is problematical. One the one hand, it's easy to slide towards the latter, on the other hand, there's the issues that happened with my GMPCs where I would end up playing  with myself because all the PCs were out of the action. I really tried to avoid favoritism (and actually would do things to drag my GMPC down compared to the PCs). But my level of interest in those NPCs was more than the interest I have in my NPCs now, and that higher level of interest causes problems even without the favoritism. Trust me as someone who has had GMPCs, now granted, could someone find some favoritism? I dunno, maybe. I tried very hard to avoid it. And if there was any, it may not have been any more favoritism that I surely granted to those players who I liked better (which presents it's own problems, though I'm sure at some level, most GMs have given some favoritism to players that they like better, are you more willing to give things to the players who are consistently on time, bring snacks, help clean up, and just in general you find easier to relate to as opposed to the player who is a bit of a pain in the behind, though not enough to get asked to leave.).

Frank