GM's PC

[Ultraviolet]

In my experience players hate it when NPCs steal the spotlight. A GM saying "I'm going to be playing my own character along yours as well" should raise all sorts of warnings.

We play a Cliffhangers campaign with switching GMs. The character of the GM is always away or "inside the cupboard" as we say. Sometimes the GM uses his own character as plot device, but never actively play it.
The way I use NPCs is to never have them do too much. They are there when the players need them, but they are mostly forgotten about until them. If the characters talk about said NPC I assume they do it in private. If there is a fight I sually have the NPC hodl his own but not actually help, or eventually need help so the characters are challenged further. My NPCs are always less competent than the PCs, but they may be specialists in a narrow field.

Back in the day I've experienced twice by the same GM - otherwise a great GM - that a fully statted PC at the point value of the PCs outshone us.
One was a combat-specialized character who was way better than us.
The other, in another campaign, was created to fill the gaps in our skillsets. But he had such a great IQ that he aced all defaults and eventually it became tragi-comic.

Also, in "that other game" we played with a real power gamer. One time he ran ad adventure for us, which was completely inconcistent and he was a killer DM - but we just rolled with it. We made it through, but the treasures we found were valuable for sure but completely useless to us and sold off for a fraction of the price. Meanwhile his own character had "been on a private adventure" and coincidentially levelled up and found a magic item worth what we found but just perfect for him.

[Tomsdad]

Yep I'm pretty much in agreement with most here.

Even if you intention is to encourage the players to do awesome things, having your GMPC show them awesome things would not be IMO the way to go. It too easily becomes "the awesome GMPC show" as the players look on and occasionally make basic attacks and defences against whats left.


Honestly my advise you want to yoru Players to learn to do awesome things in the GURPS combat, run some practice fights.


My other suggestion is find an examples of awesome combats in movies, tv and books you all like and show how it could be run in GURPS using the system flourishes that describe the specific things you all like*.


Douglas Cole on his website does a great write up of the Blackwidow hallway fight scene in Ironman 2.

Hans-Christian Vortisch has series of gun fight write ups on his website

What's particularly good about it is not only does it demonstrate the system in play, but it also demonstrates how to match awesome things to the system (and indeed the system to awesome things in fiction)


*A nice side effect of this is it gets everyone on the same page as to whet you all think certain things in GURPS combat represent!

[Icelander]

I understand the visceral reaction against something called a 'GMPC' and consider the concept fairly silly. GMing is already fairly demanding, you don't need to branch out. In fact, having one or more of the players assume some Assistant GM role seems to me much more helpful than diluting the focus of the GM from his main task.

All the same, I don't think it's all that common for PCs in a game I run to adventure, in any sense of the word, without allied NPCs who share the risks and rewards. And these NPCs can be and often are equally capable as the PCs.

In modern special ops games, it's rare that there are enough PCs to fill out the unit that is assigned to a mission. It's more common in covert ops to have small teams, but even so, any real life-and-death operation mounted with the resources of a nation state will have a lot of support personnel and not infrequently more members of the primary team than there are players. Often, these NPCs would be former PCs, created by players who joined the game, but then could not always make sessions, moved away or something.

In fantasy gaming, PCs deliberately recruit allied NPCs. Two PCs ended their first adventure by joined an adventuring party of NPCs who were more experienced than they were. Most of those NPCs are retired by now, some decade and a half in real time since we began that campaign, but the PCs still seek allies whenever they know they are heading somewhere dangerous.

Why wouldn't they? The players know that dangers in the game world don't magically scale to party size or gamist balance, so their characters don't make stupid decisions based on metagame concerns, like entering the Temple of All Dooms without a puissant priest, wise wizard or a hardy band of delvers, simply because no other players could make the session.

Managing to convince a powerful NPC, like a legendary wizard or a prophet of the orcish God of War, that the PCs goals align with his for some purpose, can be the key to even having a chance of accomplishing them.

One PC in my campaign is travelling with a mixed group of about thirteen orcs and dwarves to find a lost mountain hall that both sides claim as the ancestral court of the kingdom whose collapse was caused by the other side. He spends almost as much time using Diplomacy to prevent his allies from internecine conflict as he does slaying warring gobgoblins, wereboar cannibal cultists and angry ghosts. He's meeting an NPC wizard worth a lot more points than him on the way to the mountain where he believes the lost halls to be, and he can't wait to have another powerful ally (and this one without ancient racial emnity for other party members).

[Tomsdad]

In practical terms I think you are absolutely right!

But in Dramatic terms I think unless the impact of the powerful NPC isn't somehow limited you start to get questions asked that can get in the way of dramatically fulfilling adventure like:

"if they could do this why didn't they do so from the start"

"were we actually needed other than to bring the situation to their attention, and if so their adventure sounds cooler than ours"

"if we ended up in a situation that merited the attention of those more powerful than us, how were we not squashed like bugs in the action, and if we weren't was our adventure just ensuring that we weren't?"

"let's just get X to do it, they know us now"


It's not impossible to make work of course, but for me the potential downfalls of the NPC either overshadowing the PC's, or becoming the PC's magic wand are hard to avoid without built in limitations.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

In practical terms I think you are absolutely right!

But in Dramatic terms I think unless the impact of the powerful NPC isn't someone limited you start to get questions asked that can get in the way of dramatically fulfilling adventure like:

If a story relies on everyone ignoring practicality without any apparent justification to ensure the proper dramatic conventions are followed, it's usually not a story that appeals to me.

Without an established motivation for the protagonists to do what they do, beyond 'it was there and we are the protagonists', neither stories nor situations tend to be very dramatic, anyway.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"if they could do this why didn't they do so from the start"

Most often, the answer to that is: 'Why would they want to?'

Unless the task is something that brings a reward significant enough to matter to the movers and shakers of the world, it's highly likely that it will not suffice to cause any self-respecting arch-wizard or High Priest to interrupt his busy schedule of abstruse researches into Things Man Must Not Ken or administering the Inquisition against Heretics, Blasphemers, Schismatics and that Guy who Keeps Farting in Mass.

Well, unless it's literally the End of the World or at least that part of it where their pantries are kept, but in that case, it probably doesn't call for the PCs anyway, unless they are literally the last line of defence that reality (or a significant segment of it) has.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"were we actually needed other than to bring the situation to their attention, and if so their adventure sounds cooler than ours"

Boohoo. If the players wanted a game about inhuman Powers That Be in the campaign world, instead of footloose mortal-scale adventuring heroes for hire, they should probably have made characters for such a game instead.

Mind you, PCs who have made the acquaintance of many world-shakingly powerful beings and who are capable of mediating disputes, convincing them that their interests align and occasionally calling upon their aid as a favour, well, they are movers and shakers of the campaign world. They are just power brokers instead of elemental forces of nature.

The orcs of the Vastar and the dwarves of scattered clanholds that once were the kingdom of Roldilar, the Realm of Glittering Swords, are ancient enemies that would never ally with each other. But King Urbakh the Undying of the orcs bears Sir Michael Carragher, the human knight the orc King defeated in a duel but allowed to live, no ill will. And the dwarves of the Earthfasts love Sir Michael Carragher, who respects their ways, always offers his aid when needed and has spent incredible sums* on the best dwarven craftsmanship in weapons and armour.

So, 'Brash' Mickey, the rowdy and reckless PC, has suddenly become the mediators and peacekeeper between the orcs and the dwarves. In fact, from the orcish perspective, the young orcs on the quest are the plucky protagonists following the prophecy of Yuraurgh Farseer and the PC is the mysterious foreign ally who refuses to help** unless they agree to a truce with ancient enemies.

*Enough to apprentice thousands of dwarves as armourers, swordsmiths and engravers.
**The orcs might be able to find the right mountain, but not the way in. The dwarves know the secrets of the tunnels that lead in, but not necessarily the right mountain.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"if we ended up in a situation that merited the attention of those more powerful than us, how were we not squashed like bugs in the action, and if we weren't was our adventure just ensuring that we weren't?"

Ummm... yes?

If the PCs get themselves into a situation clearly beyond their powers, the adventure absolutely becomes about surviving that danger.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

"let's just get X to do it, they know us now"

That presupposes that 'it' is something X would be interested in doing. If it is and the PCs do not have any personal reasons to want to do it themselves, well, then it doesn't make sense for the PCs to do it anyway.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

It's not impossible to make work of course, but for me the potential downfalls of the NPC either overshadowing the PC's, or becoming the PC's magic wand are hard to avoid without built in limitations.

Well, if the NPCs are both much more powerful than the PCs and their goals line up exactly in any given situation, that's a bit odd. Even the most devoted servants have goals that are not the same as those of their masters, such as getting slightly higher pay and maybe a day off once in a while.

And, obviously, if the PCs are acting as roving informants for someone powerful, they might receive the odd reward from them and maybe even a modest stipend, but they are not going to share in any treasure that the really powerful people seize from the Evil Arch-Wizards, Grand Hierophants or Great Dragons of the Earth.

Not unless the PCs are capable of accompanying them and contributing materially. Even then, they can expect to receive similar shares as they allot to their own hirelings and henchmen.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Algarik

Oh Boy, I’m gonna go against the wave but I think GMPCs can be well done even if hard to pull off. If by GMPC you mean an NPC that will be sticking with the group and share their adventure, then yes, I think it’s totally possible to make it right. Here’s some guideline I try to keep in mind.

The thing is, all of the things you describe as guidelines for how to play a GMPC correctly, I would describe as guidelines for how to have an NPC NOT be a GMPC. In fact some of what I've said already contains similar guidelines, but with that different framing.

What I mean by "GMPC" is not "an NPC that will be sticking with the group and share their adventure." That could apply to a lot of different characters; it could even apply to the mule that carries their gear and loot.

It's really a question of spotlight. The PCs are entitled to the spotlight, or to an equal share of it. The NPCs are not; if they're in the spotlight, it's to enable a PC to be in the spotlight with them, by giving the PC something meaningful and dramatic to do. The rest of the time, they fade into the background. When the NPC starts occupying the spotlight, and when the adventures are shaped to give them time in the spotlight in their own right, something has gone wrong. But if you aren't doing that, you aren't causing a problem—and you haven't turned the NPC into a PC, either.

[Gnome]

The enmity to GMPCs in this thread seems to come down to a matter of definition: "GMPC" seems to be defined, in many people's minds, as an NPC who is designed to steal the spotlight from the PCs, or an NPC that for some reason the GM "cares" about more than other NPCs or more than about the PCs.

This rather specific definition includes the reasons that it presumably doesn't work.

I've played in many games that included what we called "GMPCs," and they have never caused a problem. Usually, at the start of the campaign, the GM/players agree that an additional character would round out the party nicely (i.e. we could use a good cleric/swashbuckler/etc.). The GM makes a character, using the same chargen rules as everyone else (we've never seen a need to purposely depower the GMPC), and that character joins the adventure.

On keeping player knowledge and GM knowledge separate, as GM I will sometimes just ask the players, if I don't want to unduly influence important party decisions, "what do you think JohnnyGMPC would do/say here?" Or I just keep quiet. Or if the conversation needs a boost, I contribute in a way that makes clear the character is motivated by his personality. ("Gee, big surprise, Johnny wants to steal the orcs' food, you know he'll eat anything! But what should we really do?")

Important point: the GM should never be more invested in the survival/success of the GMPC than he is in any other PC or NPC. In fact, it's even more fun if he plays the GMPC somewhat recklessly, or makes sure he gets targeted maybe a bit too much, so that players know they have to worry about protecting him if they want to keep him around.

EDIT: So why do we call it a GMPC and not an NPC? Expectation of party loyalty: the big difference, in my mind, between an NPC and a GMPC is that a GMPC can be trusted just like a PC. We don't do PvP stuff. An NPC could decide to backstab the party any time, and his sheet is pretty much always secret. A GMPC's sheet is public, as are PC sheets, and he's not someone who would ever willingly turn on the party.

[Minuteman37]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's a common assumption, but not unavoidable. I ran, for example, a Mage: The Ascension campaign where three of the PCs were Wu Lung and one was Wu-keng, two Chinese crafts that had been enemies for thousands of years (the Wu Lung were allied to a Virtual Adept and the Wu-keng to an Akashic Brother). And I ran a fantasy campaign where each player had four characters—a senior aristocratic wizard, an adolescent/young adult aristocratic wizard, a guard, and a servant—and there were some conflicts between them. Both went well and were enjoyed by the players; in fact I'd call the fantasy campaign one of my best ever.

And again I said I was painting in broad strokes. 90% of TTRPGs are D&D afterall.

I'd love to run a game with a lot of PC on PC plotting. Less work for me.

[lachimba]

I would put "bad ass" NPC/GM PC in.

But only so they could be killed off (and show the PCs what not to do) and restore the PCs to being the protagonists

That might be the heroic opening or ending where they buy the PCs an escape for a bad mistake.

Or it might just be a really high powered NPC with "dumb" advnagtages and disadvantages who all out attacks the dragon for 50HP damage and is then bitten in two. "Now you guys only have to do another 50!... good luck"

[GodBeastX]

Adding to the pie throwing across the lunch room, I will put in my two cents.

GMPC is effectively what I call "The GM playing with himself." Even NPCs can become part of this scenario.

Any time the GM raises a challenge, then answers their own challenge, this is a bad scenario for players to watch. It's a story idea and RPGs tend to revolve around story ideas. Someone who is not the character of interest to the audience shouldn't be constantly filling the audience's view. We pick protagonists and antagonists to follow because they're interesting.

In RPGs this isn't as clearly defined, but in general, the PCs are the interesting characters that the group is following. And it's the GMs job to play supporting roles for that.

Any GM generated character that has to play against GM generated characters is almost always best done out of the limelight. A good example of this is when Gandalf had to fight a Balrog in the Lord of the Rings films. He's a support character, and they basically took that battle off camera and related it in story.

But there isn't anything wrong with NPCs having some spot light to bring out tension and plot. Consider when Dumbledore fought Voldemort, it can help you get an idea the scope of capability or a sense of seriousness in combat. But in scenes like these or even Galdalf, I wouldn't even roll dice as a GM. I'd have predetermined outcomes that help nudge story.

It's the PCs that have to overcome challenges, so I think any dice rolling should only apply to PCs and story elements that they interact with I suppose I am saying. Any thing that is an extension of their avatar in the story, like allies.