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.

How is "all NPCs are GMPCs" are useful definition?

Quote from: ffilz;992259How is "all NPCs are GMPCs" are useful definition?

It's not, but since we don't agree on the definition of 'GMPC' at all, it isn't a useful term, barring starting with a statement something like, "now take a DMPC, and that I mean..."

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.

No. All NPCs are not GMPCs. The PC part is the key here. Otherwise its just an NPC. The GMPC in you're second example. The GM effectively has a party member. As opposed to a Pet NPC the GM just wont let go of.

I rum multiple characters in my solo RPG ing as GM. Never a problem. Keep the characters personality and desires in mind over your own and be fair. Its doable.

Quote from: Dumarest;992157I just don't see the need or point.

Then it's clearly not for you.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;992264It's not, but since we don't agree on the definition of 'GMPC' at all, it isn't a useful term, barring starting with a statement something like, "now take a DMPC, and that I mean..."

Actually, my read of this thread is that many of us agree to a significant degree on what a GMPC is.

Now there seem to be some folks who include ANY NPC that is statted like a PC and/or gets XP and/or gets treasure as a GMPC. I guess for some that may be a useful definition, but I think it's quite possible to have NPCs that fit one or more of these categories, and are part of the "party" but are not problematical. But the key is the GM needs to be objective about the NPC.

To me, the term GMPC pretty clearly implies an NPC the GM plays as if he was a player in the game. The GM may or may not intend to favor the GMPC (but it often happens even if not intentional).

I do see one place where a GMPC maybe is more reasonable, the rotating GM scenario, but then in that case, you have the rotating GMs to hold each other accountable.

Then there's other kinds of pet NPCs that aren't "party members" but still steal the show from the PCs.

Frank

Quote from: Omega;992267No. All NPCs are not GMPCs. The PC part is the key here. Otherwise its just an NPC. The GMPC in you're second example. The GM effectively has a party member. As opposed to a Pet NPC the GM just wont let go of.

you realize you re-stated exactly what I just said. You guys are all hung up on the term "GMPC" - when we generally agree, or ought to, that an actual party-member played by the GM is a stupid idea. Hence - I said it's a stupid idea. But otherwise I DO play all NPC's as "my characters" in my sandbox. They have motivations. They have agendas. They are as smart or ignorant as I need them to be for the purposes of fleshing out my game in relation to the PC's. Just like it's *their* job to do the same for their characters.

That people want to split-hairs over the term "GMPC" is not really what I'm talking about.

So if the group decides the 3-4 player characters they have aren't enough to do what they want to do, and none of them want to play two characters, you don't let them recruit an NPC into the party?  You tell them "Sorry guys, of course this city you're in has dozens of people you could recruit into the party,  but you can't do that because then I would be running a "GMPC" apparently, and teh intartubez in it's infinite wisdom declares that bad GMing.  You'll have to stick with the NPCs who have the imaginary sign over their heads that says "henchmen" or "hireling"?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;992310So if the group decides the 3-4 player characters they have aren't enough to do what they want to do, and none of them want to play two characters, you don't let them recruit an NPC into the party?  You tell them "Sorry guys, of course this city you're in has dozens of people you could recruit into the party,  but you can't do that because then I would be running a "GMPC" apparently, and teh intartubez in it's infinite wisdom declares that bad GMing.  You'll have to stick with the NPCs who have the imaginary sign over their heads that says "henchmen" or "hireling"?"

I don't even understand why this thread is a "thing". Players control the PC's, the GM controls everyone else. This idea of the GM inserting an NPC into a party and calling it a GMPC is like saying "I have a white albino". If the PC's don't need/want the NPC in the party - they tell him to gtfo or eat some steel.

I happen to run sandbox games where the PC's make all kinds of contacts, allies etc. that may be individuals or groups, that the PC's become involved with for various reasons. I never assume they're joining the party unless the party needs them for something - which like when the PC's are approached with offers, requires, usually something in return. If they're hirelings/retainers or whatever - that's slightly different, but they're still NPC's with their own agendas that happen to be aligned with the PC(s) in question - they're not full party members unless the PC's decide it's that way.

what am I missing here other than that someone thinks the GM gets to "play a PC" in the PC party as an assumption? That sounds silly.

Edit: I would add that GM's that do this probably are not very experienced. OR they're running a game with few players and simply have some NPC's filling in important jobs that otherwise are needed for the conceits of the game the PC's will be working with.

I think "Pet NPC" would be a better term than GNPC, myself.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992408I think "Pet NPC" would be a better term than GNPC, myself.

It would. Especially since nobody is using the term GNPC.

Quote from: tenbones;992372I don't even understand why this thread is a "thing". Players control the PC's, the GM controls everyone else. This idea of the GM inserting an NPC into a party and calling it a GMPC is like saying "I have a white albino". If the PC's don't need/want the NPC in the party - they tell him to gtfo or eat some steel.

I'm not sure what this thread is really about either.  The GM's always playing the other X billion people walking the surface of the world the PCs happen to be on.  Sometimes the PCs travel with one or more of them.

Quote from: tenbones;992372I happen to run sandbox games where the PC's make all kinds of contacts, allies etc. that may be individuals or groups, that the PC's become involved with for various reasons. I never assume they're joining the party unless the party needs them for something - which like when the PC's are approached with offers, requires, usually something in return. If they're hirelings/retainers or whatever - that's slightly different, but they're still NPC's with their own agendas that happen to be aligned with the PC(s) in question - they're not full party members unless the PC's decide it's that way.

Exactly. Occasionally I've seen PCs decide that, and amazingly, the entire campaign does not implode.

Quote from: tenbones;992372what am I missing here other than that someone thinks the GM gets to "play a PC" in the PC party as an assumption? That sounds silly.

As an assumption, it is silly.  However, I think it's just as silly as assuming that an NPC that joins the player's party is due to GM's wanting to play, wanting to insert their pet-NPC into a railroad or whatever has got people hitting the fainting couch left and right in this thread.

The kind of crap people are talking about happening in this thread I haven't seen since I've been in the first campaign of a 12 year old.

I don't know why someone hasn't written an RPG featuring clear rules forbidding the GM from ever playing a pet NPC. Certainly that should fix the problem.

I don't like the term but I understand the concept. It's fine to have favorite NPCs and even ones who might take advantage of GM Fiat for the sake of plot BUT they must never usurp player character agency. Favored NPCs should be there to move the plot or offer adventure seeds but Player Characters should still be the ones who take the risks and reap the rewards, or die trying.

My old 1e group kind of had what you could call DMPCs. Three of us rotated as DM, so it was natural that the current DM's PCs would act as NPCs at times. My oldest character became immensely wealthy and would go out and adventure when it was really important, but for the most part at a certain level ended up acting as a patron for lower level characters. It could even be fine if a similarly leveled PC belonging to the current DM went on and adventured with the PCs. But there are certain rules that we followed.

1. When a character owned by the DM was adventuring with the PCs, they would never earn XP.
2. These PCs would also not get their choice of loot though there were exceptions.
3. If a PC owned by the DM was to reap rewards for an adventure it would be under the condition that either the players were in agreement, or more commonly that another player was asked to make rolls for said character.
4. (I don't really have a list, I'm just making things up as I think of them) In the case of DM Fiat, favor shall not be shown to this character that is not shown to the other characters, ie in the case of a Deity who may offer limited intervention on an adventure important to said Deity.

There is nothing wrong with a DM/GM having favorite characters that they use as NPCs. But that character must never have a mechanical advantage over Player Characters. Having one could be handy but as a DM/GM I almost always followed the latter part of my arbitrary Rule 3, that is, having other players roll the bones for them. As someone who DMed as part of a rotating group, if there were rewards such as magic items that I thought my character might want, then I would either negotiate as a DM offering them opportunity to gain their own goodies, OR more frequently I would have said character compensate the other Player Characters financially. If a Player vehemently disagreed, then the DM/GM should just suck it up Your pet NPC is not a protagonist. They are not the heroes in the adventure. At best, they are support like any NPC retainer.

Seems to me like a GM who needs clear rules forbidding the problem of a GM running an NPC who accompanies the party and then abusing that in the ways discussed, is probably going to mess up all sorts of other things too.

It also seems to me like some people have encountered some in-between and  some of those people also think there should be a blanket solution/ban on NPCs working with PC parties, or ever upstaging PCs in any way, or whatever, and are proposing overly broad condemnation of stuff that isn't really the problem they want to avoid.

Meanwhile, some of us have pointed out that making off-target restrictions would limit stuff that can be useful and natural and isn't really the problem, thus creating problems by messing with games by needlessly restricting things.