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've seen an intermediate case where the GM identifies with the GMPC as "my character"; but does not protect them or give them additional benefits. This works best where the GM is not a powergamer type and does not focus the story too much on the GMPC. Or maybe they have the GMPC kidnapped and the PCs have to rescue her - story focus but not power.

We sometimes run DMPC/GMPCs, usually because the group is small (like two players and a GM). The character is treated like any other, targeted by spells and attacks like any other, has the same chance to die like any other, etc. It's not a special snowflake PC that's invulnerable or impervious to any/all plot changes and rarely gives advice in terms of what the group should do. It's like the game giving you a free A.I. character. usually when I run DMPCs they're either front-line meat shields taking lots of damage and sacrificing themselves for the group OR they're healing/support types that just buff the allies. I don't make them the focal point of any adventure and at most their "quests" are just a means to get the party more XP.

Quote from: Skarg;990884Exactly. 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.

Agreed!

Oh, another sign of a GMPC: The GM provides the NPC as a party member.

If the players recruit an NPC, and the NPC turns out to have a more significant role than a one off, and it's not overstaying it's welcome, then that may not be a GMPC.

A NPC patron who hires the PCs to do a job, and comes along as part of that job may not be a GMPC, but this can be overdone, or can be the source of deus ex machina, or is the "why does this powerful NPC need these weak PCs do do something he could cast a single mid-level spell to accomplish" kind of dude.

Frank

All NPC's are GMPC's. They're not necessarily PC party members unless they develop into PC-allies or henchmen and are asked to accompany them (generally). GM's having explicit characters *in* the party in order to let the GM "play"?

that's stupid.

I've used GMPCs. These were full-fledged player characters. Sometimes even one of my PCs I'd played before. They were full time party members. Equal share of treasure and all. Never once has any of them had plot immunity. Never once has any of them "stolen the spotlight." Never once... pretty much any of the nonsense that gets talked about.

Never once did a player even so much as object to me having a GMPC. More often than not, I ran a GMPC per the request of players to fill a gap (most often cleric). Or just to have another body. My first long-running campaign I ran when I was 11/12 years old only had 3 core players--that includes myself and the other player who took turns DMing. We sometimes had other players, sometimes the group was as large as 6, but probably half the time it was 1 DM and 2 other players. The DM playing a character while running the game, while each of the other players ran two characters each allowed for a well-rounded party.

One use we found for them is there were certain character types that were tough to get off the ground, like the monk. When the DM played one of these characters, who got very little "spotlight time" it gave the opportunity to level the character while the party enjoyed the unique skills they brought to the table without any player being stuck playing that character. Once the character begins to come into his own, the DM now has a good character to play when another DM takes over the game.

Another use, is by the DM running (and thus leveling) the character, when we had a player either new to the group or who wanted to sit in for a session or two, we had a ready made character, at level, with no unearned XP or items, who had existing connections to the rest of the party. And story continuity--no characters teleporting in and out.

I want to be clear. This is representative of 100% of my personal, first-hand experience with GMPCs. Nothing but positive experiences. This is "playing well with others 101" stuff.

If I really stretch, I can produce exactly two experiences which could be arguably negative.

First one, I was running a monk GMPC. We came to a four-way intersection in the dungeon. Players had no idea which way to go. One of the players (who I had never played with before) wryly asked my monk which way I thought we should go. Did I give away the whole plot? No. Did I lure the players into certain doom? No. Did I make my guy the hero? No. I simply said "Your guess is as good as mine." Incidentally, elsewhere in the adventure, this same player's character encountered some back alley gamers who invited him to make a wager. His response was, "Only if the DM lets me see his dice rolls."

Second, I was running a dwarf GMPC, which I had run in several previous adventures with the same group. We had a new player. He liked one of the magic items my dwarf had. So he backstabbed and murdered my dwarf. I'm guessing he wouldn't have done that to a character played by another player. Then again, he might. But did my dwarf become invincible with plot immunity? No. Did he hit extra hard? No. He did nothing but die. And did not come back to life. And the player got the magic item he wanted. It would later become apparent when this player ran a game that he's the most railroadingest railroader to ever railroad a railroad.

So even in the cases of these near-exceptions, these players certainly had other issues.

Quote from: tenbones;992043GM's having explicit characters *in* the party in order to let the GM "play"?

that's stupid.

I approve this post. :cool:

The chap does have a way to getting to the heart of the issue, doesn't he?

Quote from: tenbones;992043All NPC's are GMPC's. They're not necessarily PC party members unless they develop into PC-allies or henchmen and are asked to accompany them (generally). GM's having explicit characters *in* the party in order to let the GM "play"?

that's stupid.

That's so well said that next time  we're together, I'm going to let you buy me a beer.

No, no need to thank me, you've earned it.

Quote from: tenbones;992043All NPC's are GMPC's. They're not necessarily PC party members unless they develop into PC-allies or henchmen and are asked to accompany them (generally). GM's having explicit characters *in* the party in order to let the GM "play"?

that's stupid.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1581[/ATTACH]

"You've earned it."

(What I find interesting is all the posts by GMs trying to justify their pet PCs.)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;990903That'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.

I've got to agree with Black Vulmea on this one. As long as you can avoid slamming your "big-gm dink" on the table for your special snowflake character and can separate player and character knowledge, don't grandstand and just play the damn character as a character it can work just fine.

So many people figure that everything has to be THIS or THAT. Nothing in-between. What about reasonable and sensible gameplay? Oh shit, ya, that's right. This is the internet. Nothing reasonable on here.

In my experience it can work just fine and as with anything, can be abused all to hell by fucktards. Just don't fucktard. And especially don't go full fucktard.
Just my 2 cents.

Quote from: DNDWoodElf;992147I've got to agree with Black Vulmea on this one. As long as you can avoid slamming your "big-gm dink" on the table for your special snowflake character and can separate player and character knowledge, don't grandstand and just play the damn character as a character it can work just fine.

So many people figure that everything has to be THIS or THAT. Nothing in-between. What about reasonable and sensible gameplay? Oh shit, ya, that's right. This is the internet. Nothing reasonable on here.

In my experience it can work just fine and as with anything, can be abused all to hell by fucktards. Just don't fucktard. And especially don't go full fucktard.
Just my 2 cents.

I just don't see the need or point. The GM is already playing; you could argue the GM gets to play more than anyone else at the table. I don't see why he needs a PC as well, leaving aside my disbelief in the existence of the perfectly unbiased GM.

Quote from: Dumarest;992157I just don't see the need or point. The GM is already playing; you could argue the GM gets to play more than anyone else at the table. I don't see why he needs a PC as well,

Assumes facts not in evidence, that the GM is like some kind of opium addict that just can't get enough play in at the table. When I started playing, finding players was easy. Finding GMs were hard. For a long while, it feels as though that flipped. But now I'm starting to see once again a relative scarcity in GMs. Whether nosy gamers like it or not, there's an emerging market of paid GMs. If you got a bunch of people who all just want to play, develop a character over a long campaign, whatever their motivation is, for some groups GMing is sort of like taking one for the team. It doesn't make sense in those cases that they would also be penalized the right to play a character on top of that.

Quoteleaving aside my disbelief in the existence of the perfectly unbiased GM.

Is this one of those gamer things where you toss in an adverb to avoid actually saying anything? Aberrations there may be, but being unbaised is GMing 101. You either meet the expectation or you don't. "Perfectly" seems to be invoking some kind of Nirvana fallacy.

Quote from: Lunamancer;992171Assumes facts not in evidence, that the GM is like some kind of opium addict that just can't get enough play in at the table. When I started playing, finding players was easy. Finding GMs were hard. For a long while, it feels as though that flipped. But now I'm starting to see once again a relative scarcity in GMs. Whether nosy gamers like it or not, there's an emerging market of paid GMs. If you got a bunch of people who all just want to play, develop a character over a long campaign, whatever their motivation is, for some groups GMing is sort of like taking one for the team. It doesn't make sense in those cases that they would also be penalized the right to play a character on top of that.



Is this one of those gamer things where you toss in an adverb to avoid actually saying anything? Aberrations there may be, but being unbaised is GMing 101. You either meet the expectation or you don't. "Perfectly" seems to be invoking some kind of Nirvana fallacy.

Wow, your response is so full of shit I needed a wheelbarrow to load it all up.

The GM is the GM. If they want to play pick up a GMless game.