So, what's the borderline between a GM NPC, and the infamous "GMPC"?

Also, is a GMPC always automatically bad? Or can they at times be acceptable or even a positive influence in the game?

RPGPundit

Another thread ripped from TBP?

I'll copy-paste my own guidelines list for running GMPCs that don't suck from over there later, maybe this evening if I've got time.

I think the NPC becomes a GMPC when that character is an every session appearance, either as a villain or a PC ally.

I try not to use them too often, but I have on occasion used them when the PC group was short a man and they needed some extra firepower.  They had to pay the GMPC of course, equal shares and all that, but the GMPC made no decisions for the party as a whole.

As long as the GMPC doesn't morph into the proverbial Mary Sue, they can be a useful addition to the party when needed.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, what's the borderline between a GM NPC, and the infamous "GMPC"?

When it's an NPC that spends significant amount of time with the party, I think it has to do with spotlight time to some degree (NPCs should have less spotlight time than a PC) but also with leading vs. following.  The best way to avoid the bad GMNPC trap, in my experience, is to make sure that the NPC isn't better than the PCs (and if they are better in some area, it should be complimentary to the PCs and fill in a skill gap, not in competitoin with the PCs) and that the NPC doesn't make decisions for the party but, instead, goes along with what the party decides.  They can be used by the GM to point out things the players are missing or to support a certain course of action but they shouldn't be the voice of the GM always suggesting the right thing for the PCs to do.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, what's the borderline between a GM NPC, and the infamous "GMPC"?

Also, is a GMPC always automatically bad? Or can they at times be acceptable or even a positive influence in the game?

RPGPundit

I think they're acceptable in a game where they take orders frm the player characters. Instead of just a 'henchman' or nondescript junior officer - you wind up with a recurring character that the group starts to care about.

For example, over the course of BABYLON 5 it might be argued that the character of Lt. Corwin was a GM NPC at times. He was useful and did take orders from the main characters. Same thing might be said of Security guy Zachary Allan - but he later became a mahor player in the 4th and 5th year of the campaign. (er, um show)

 I've got THREE characters that might be conmsidered either "GM NPCs" or "GMPCs" in my current campaign. Th thing is - they are good for exposition sometimes, and sometimes they are good for when the players need a litle extra firpower in a gunfight and they know the folks holding the guns are loyal to them.


- Ed C.

It's a GMPC if it's put there by the GM as his own PC. It's an NPC the GM is more invested in as a character he plays than as an organic addition to the game.

All of my NPCs are GMPCs.  I wouldn't be doing my job if they weren't.

In my mind, the balancing point always involves self-determination.  The moment an NPC starts deciding which direction the adventure is headed -- and by that, I mean making the decisions for the players' characters -- then it's a GMPC.

Now, that said, on at least one occasion I ran a long-term GMPC very well.  It required a lot of restraint on my part, though.  In my long-running Traveller game, one of my players was always complaining that I, as the GM, was unduly and unfairly harsh to his character.  Eventually, I included a character named Ian so that the players could mistreat him as badly as they wanted.  They ended up hiring him as their ship's pilot.  I kept Ian mostly in the background, but he'd insert himself pointedly into certain discussions regarding the ship's operations.  He never did take over at any point, though, and almost always deferred to the PCs.  Eventually, he abandoned the ship when I, as GM, handed the PCs a golden opportunity to play the heroes -- they passed, and were even on the verge of acting as villain, so Ian took the opportunity himself.

!i!

These kinds of things aren't described on stone tablets anywhere, so we mostly get to make our own decisions about what the terms means.

I propose that we choose meanings that are clear and intuitive to most folks who might be in a conversation with those terms and useful in terms of describing a real, extant phenomena.

I think GMPC is most-useful / most-clear if it refers to a problematic NPC -- in this case, one that the GM is so attached to that the GMPC starts getting significant spotlight time and in some sense becomes the hero of the story.

I haven't actually experienced this -- but I believe that NPCs and most other plot elements should exist primarily to frame PC actions and agendas. In most respects a GMPC would be a bad thing (IMO).

I distinguish between a GMPC and simply an important NPC or a powerful NPC -- most game worlds (certainly heroic fantasy and supers) posit characters who are generally more powerful than the protagonists... they just have elements that keep them from being the focus of the story.

I'd also distinguish between a GMPC and an NPC the GM is simply attached to or enjoys playing -- I enjoy running NPCs and I like it when the people who GM for me are really into the NPC's they're running.

I think the test for "GMPC" is "is the NPC causing a problem?" -- if the people at the table aren't enjoying his presence (for whatever reason), it's a good indication he ought to go. A self-test for GMPC would be if I really don't *want* to get rid of a problematic NPC... it's almost certainly a sign I really, really should.

Cheers,
-E.

When you balk at removing from play or reducing the power of an NPC due to legitimate player character actions, you have a GMPC and have made a mistake. You might not, at this time, be well equipped to identify these symptoms, but your players will.

When the NPC's story is more interesting to you than the PC story, something is also wrong, though that one might not be your fault.

Quote from: HalfjackYou might not, at this time, be well equipped to identify these symptoms, but your players will.

That is the insidious part of a GMPC gone bad. It is very easy for it to go bad in a blindspot of the GM, and the GM will be in complete denial that there is a problem. I've even seen it where the players altogether said openly "it's a problem, fix it". After the chorus grew to loud to ignore it changed, for a couple sessions and then they slipped back because they really just couldn't see the problem during play. :shrug:


Anyway, I don't immediately see my list in the RPG.net thread, maybe I didn't actually type it all out in one post there because I saw someone come really close, so I'll retype in full here:

- The character must not 'outshine' the PCs.
- The character should follow all rules applicable to those of the other players. This includes not acting on out-of-character knowledge and general game mechanics.
- Of importance is any character should be able to fail and/or die [as much as any other player character].
- The character should be below any single PC in power if they are allied. The character must be, or become, an overcomable opponent by the combined strength of all other characters if they are not allied with the PCs.
- If allied the PC shouldn't have this mysterious ability to be in the right place at the right time to save the PC's bacon.

'Opponent' GMPCs are usually less cumbersome because opponents are expected to attacked and defeated and opponents naturally get some face-time anyway so the focus they do get tends to feel more natural.


Any transgression of these guidelines is dangerous. Transgression in more than one way likely is producing suckage. 'Ally' GMPCs I find useful for comedy relief. The are also a good source of plot kick-offs as an occational screw-up become something for the PCs to fix. Some people use them for things like supplimental roles like 'healers' when the party doesn't have them. I prefer to handle that via a 'henchman' that the player runs [most of the time] or usually better yet just tweaking the world/game so the role being filled isn't actually necessary.

I'll add that the GMPC certainly isn't the most evil thing in existance if you keep within these boundaries. Right now I'm playing 4 "GM controlled characters", which are definately different than an NPC, in a game and it not only is fine but it is expected by the game. But that's Burning Empires which was built specifically to allow that sort of thing to work well.

If the players ridicule the character in question and he/she in turns jumps several power levels and pulls a tpk while the GM rolls all hits and high damage on each attack (behind the screen, of course) in a red faced, indignant fury- it's probably a GMPC. It is also likely the end of your game, if not the group itself.

Quote from: RPGPunditAlso, is a GMPC always automatically bad? Or can they at times be acceptable or even a positive influence in the game?

I don't see how. I agree with the definitions provided by Dwight/blakkie and -E . Once the problematic NPC has been identified , the best course of action is to modify the way how the NPC is played (difficult) or remove said character from play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, what's the borderline between a GM NPC, and the infamous "GMPC"?

Also, is a GMPC always automatically bad? Or can they at times be acceptable or even a positive influence in the game?

RPGPundit

As soon as you don't want to kill him for no reason.

NPC is just a guy who walks around with the party, filling in holes the party hasn't filled.

GMPC is a PC the GM plays, as if they were an actual PC.

I've played and used both, and I have no problem with them in theory.  But I play with friends, and we don't get into power wanker fantasies.  So, we trust each other.

But, were I to join random group X and found out they had a GMPC, I'd be trepidatious.  For me, its not a game breaker - few things are.  I'll see how it runs in practice, and make my mind up from there.  If its a mary sue power wank nightmare, I'll just leave.  But I'm not as hardcore against them as some are.  I just take each on a case-by-case basis.