Quote from: HackmastergeneralI'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.
.

Yeah, I haven't dealt with it since my late teens/early twenties. Back then, though, I wasn't so good about picking my friends.

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

The border is definitely every session appearances by the NPC.

The bad is when the GMPC solves all the problems and kind of just lets the PCs watch (haven't seen it happen, but it's not hard to imagine).

The good is when the GMPC gets the party over humps they'd rather just not deal with themselves. A low level cleric GMPC might be acceptable if you're running for a small party and no one wants to play the healer, to give one example.

Quote from: beejazzThe border is definitely every session appearances by the NPC.

The bad is when the GMPC solves all the problems and kind of just lets the PCs watch (haven't seen it happen, but it's not hard to imagine).
.

 I had a friend who told me a horror story about something like this. He and the other players in his group were hired by a GMNPC to go on a long quest. The quest took over a year in play. when they finally arrived at their destination (which was incidentally packed with danger and bad guys and a Sauron clone) they worked a spell or something (I can't remembr the exact mechanism) as they had been instructed to do by the GMNPC. As it turned out the spell opened a dimensional gate and the GMNPC walked through. He then proceeded to kill all the bad guys including the Sauron clone while the party watched. After this he paid them some gold and  that was the end of the campaign.

Quote from: David RI 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

Well, the point is, lets say you have an NPC who shows up in every (or nearly every) adventure, and plays a support role (or comic relief, or a love-hate style necessary ally), who is clearly a character the GM is running as a substitute for some kind of significant PC role.  The GM might even show some kind of particular attachment to this character.

I could see a few circumstances where GM PCs could be useful: the most basic and obvious of these would be, say, in a D&D game where you have a small number of players and no one is playing a Fighter, or a Cleric; something essential to the party that needs to be in the group but no player has chosen.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SaphimAs soon as you don't want to kill him for no reason.

I agree that this is a clear point where the GMPC has become a serious problem; but I think its not the FIRST point; it can be bad earlier, say if the GMPC is outshining the PCs on a regular basis.  I think one of the things that's very important in a "GMPC" type situation would be for said GMPC to either have a very limited range (ie. he's the guy who's good at killing things, and nothing else; or he's the brainy guy who gives the PCs clues, but couldn't fight worth a damn), or to have some serious character flaws which prevent him from regularly upstaging the PCs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit...something essential to the party that needs to be in the group but no player has chosen.

Why is it esential though? At one point in D&D's history this was more true if you ran rules as written. Healing potions weren't particularly economical/available/portable/durable, natural healing was really slow, and alternatives were not that plentiful. If you weren't willing to take on a henchman or a player run hireling? But that's been changing in a number of ways. It's even less so in many other systems.

Once you go extrapolate outside the rules as written box a bit and/or tailor your campaign a bit? I find it's exceedingly rare in games that there is a particular character archtype you can't get by without. If the players really wanted to play the original campaign concept, and not play a secondary character? And you won't provide a non-personified plot tool? Then they have to figure out which one is going to step up.

The other reasons though I buy wholeheartedly. It is just dangerous territory.

A GM PC does 2 things:

- Their activities lie in the sphere of activity the PCs involve themselves in. They're an dungeon-crawling hero in D&D, a mythos-busting investigator in CoC, an Imperium-wandering adventurer in Traveller.

- They are perceived as being able to act in said sphere of activity far better than the PCs can hope to. (Note that it's the perception that's important. It's easy to forget that a situation which seems entirely fair from a GMs' eye view looks utterly different from the players' viewpoint.) Our D&D hero can spit in the eye of Orcus and live to tell the tell, our Traveller adventurer hijacks Zhodani battlecruisers with only a laser pistol and a tinfoil hat, our CoC investigator slaps Great Old Ones about with impunity.

If those two things are different, then you've got a GMPC.

(Closely related, in my mind, is the phenomenon of the "pet NPC", which would be an NPC whose sphere of activity is different from the players, but whom the GM is clearly partial towards anyway.)

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, the point is, lets say you have an NPC who shows up in every (or nearly every) adventure, and plays a support role (or comic relief, or a love-hate style necessary ally), who is clearly a character the GM is running as a substitute for some kind of significant PC role.  The GM might even show some kind of particular attachment to this character.

I could see a few circumstances where GM PCs could be useful: the most basic and obvious of these would be, say, in a D&D game where you have a small number of players and no one is playing a Fighter, or a Cleric; something essential to the party that needs to be in the group but no player has chosen.

RPGPundit

I wouldn't (and haven't) had any problem with my GM doing that.

I wouldn't use the term GMPC for this situation, though -- yes, it's somewhat applicable, but the absence of it being a problem makes using the term confusing.

A gray area is where the GM is doing something relatively low key like this and a player has an issue with it -- the existence of there being a problem means someone has to do something to fix it... but in a case where there's no obvious abuse going on (e.g. the NPC being superior to the characters, or getting more spotlight time, or whatever) it's less clear that the thing to do is get rid of the offending NPC.

But, again, if I were the GM and I realized I didn't want to get rid of one of my NPC's -- even if I didn't see the problem -- I'd hope I'd recognize that my attachment might be blinding me to something I ought to be aware of.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, the point is, lets say you have an NPC who shows up in every (or nearly every) adventure, and plays a support role (or comic relief, or a love-hate style necessary ally), who is clearly a character the GM is running as a substitute for some kind of significant PC role.  The GM might even show some kind of particular attachment to this character.

I could see a few circumstances where GM PCs could be useful: the most basic and obvious of these would be, say, in a D&D game where you have a small number of players and no one is playing a Fighter, or a Cleric; something essential to the party that needs to be in the group but no player has chosen.

Well I did say problematic npc, right? A GM who enjoys playing a particular character and players who enjoy having this character around, is normal in many games. The problem arises when the pcs begin to have issues with said character. This could be for a variety reasons....that have already been mentioned.

Having the GM run a "useful" PC for games such as D&D for example is not a vey good idea IMO. I think it would be better to tailor the game/adventure to the capabilities of the pcs without resorting to creating a character just to fill a "need" . It's rare that players ever consider the GMPC as part of the group because the perception (right or wrong) is "when god is running a character, how dangerous can the world be to this character"

My players often throw some grief my way when NPCs they enjoy having around meet some ill fate. Although I'm glad that these characters meant something to them, I always say the same rules that apply to players (with a few exceptions ) applies to these NPC/GMPC - "shit happens then you roll a new character".

Regards,
David R

Well as I said, GMPCs help the PCs get to that cool moment but they never, ever do the cool thing themselves.

What if these "GM NPCs' grow so much as characters that the PLAYERS get attached to them?


For examnple I play the ship's navigator in my TRAVELLER campaign as an NPC.

 Her name is Ms. BJ Scott.

She got stabbed really bad at a ball that was hosted by the Duchess of Glisten - or rather attacked as she was leaving fancy dress ball.

 My players went BALLISTIC - they wanted to kill the guy or group that attacked her immediately - get in on the tort...er um interrogation right away.

 When I played scenes of her in Glisten Hospoital - My players and their characters looked really shook up ., (at times they did not appear to be acting.)

Ever since then, the Ship's commander worries over BJ Scott like she's her own daughter.

...and yet - she's still techinically an NPC.


Oh....and I'm also playing the husband NPC to one of my player's character. (character is a woman, so is the player)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar.

 Her name is Ms. BJ .

I'm shocked by this, shocked!

Quote from: AosI'm shocked by this, shocked!

The "B" stands for Beverly - but she hates that name.....


- Ed

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

It seems apparent to me that some folks define the difference between GMPC and standard NPC by the fact that is has become harmful.

Myself, I'd call that a type 2 GMPC or a bad type 1.

1) NPC in PC role (e.g., adventurer, frequently appearing alongside PCs and/or doing a similar job or part of the party)
a) The "good" type, just shores up the party, fills in for missing players,
b) The "bad" type, takes the lead, one ups players, steals spotlights, makes decisions, gifted with omniscience.

2) Mary Sue NPC. Does not appear in PC role, but is a powerful, rule-breaking, and/or omniscient character that pops up at crucial junctures, lets the PCs know they are dirt, or at the very least, is a mouthpiece for the GM. Tom Bombadil.

1a is tolerable, 1b and 2 are not.

The difference between a GM NPC and a GMNPC is all about the spotlight. The GM NPC doesn't try to steal the spotlight from the players while the GMNPC does.