GM's PC

[cabaiomonte]

So, what are your opinions on Master's PCs?
I'm soonish conna start a game session with 3 players new to RPGs.
I wanted to give them a character to show them all the sick moves they can do in GURPS (with moderation, i guess. i think it's a pretty fine balance between too many and too few options).
Meet Orazio Astali, a martial artist with a vow of silence (i hope this make it easier for me to not make it interfere in the roling heavy parts, but i'm afraid it can get really annoying or so they told me).
I hope that if he gets to stay won't steal the show from the pc and therefore he's a little bit less optimal. I'm planning on basically just making him throw attacks avoiding any final hit) yet i don't want him to be just fighting meat. i hope i can find the balance into making it an interesting secondary character, with a callous nature and some everyday annoyances who might make it more interesting (like the fact that he's terrible at meditation for his special tecniques and needs a quiet place which really clash with his not so joyful relations with non characters).
So. GM's PCs. should they be avoided altogether? should they be demoted to NPCs? sidekicks? even with unprepared players? GURPS' Manuals are silents on it and can't give me any advice on the matter

[JoelSammallahti]

I'd say the votes are about 9 to 1 against. I know I just skipped out on a game I was supposed to join because of a GMPC. Not the only warning sign, but a major one.

[Empada]

for some combat options you can print the Combat Cards.
I don't think it is a good idea, you can say to them what they can do. but you can put a redshirt to take the first damage, and they see how deadly it could be.

[cabaiomonte]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

I'd say the votes are about 9 to 1 against. I know I just skipped out on a game I was supposed to join because of a GMPC. Not the only warning sign, but a major one.

I think the same, ironically, and i never used one in my not so long carrier as a GM.
Still i can't help but think back at my first roleplay. we were ten 10 years old and we had a GM's PC of my beloved master and i can't help but remember fondly the time Zephyrickas who we always thought as an ally betrayed us and when the next GM's PC came back we were all super in alert because of the previous burn.
Probably it has to do with my young age at the time.
Yeah, Orazio is now a glorified NPC. now i have to put it somewhere in the adventure as seen that i statted him

[MIB.6361]

The only time I've seen GM PCs work without problems is when we were running a round robin GM game. Almost all of the players were also GMs. Every few months, when the current adventure arc ended, we'd switch GMs and the new GMs character would usually stay with the party.


In most other cases, I'd suggest a character that can't outshine the PCs. A hireling is a great example.

If you're concerned with the players not learning the intricacies, start them out somewhere small with low-threat challenges and let them decide to take it up a notch when they're ready.

If you want to teach them combat mechanics, you could also run a "mock" combat. Call it a simulator, have them beset by various forces in waves with some terrain for cover. When it's over, talk with them about small changes to their character design and then start the real game.

[whswhs]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "GMPC." My impression is that most people use it to mean a single character that has a full character sheet, that is played continually like the regular PCs, and that is a main focus of the GM's attention. And I think that's a bad idea, for a couple of reasons:

* It's really hard for the GM to shut out their GM knowledge while making decisions for the GMPC, which gives the GMPC an advantage over the other PCs. This is made worse if the GMPC also becomes the GM's method of guiding the party through the adventure, as it limits the other players' freedom of choice.

* If the GM is looking at the world through the eyes of the GMPC, they're distracted from running the world as a whole, and from watching what the other PCs do from an impersonal perspective. There's a reason that GURPS gives you -2 to effective skill when you try to do two things at once.

Now, I've had regular NPCs that the players liked, quoted, interacted with, invited along on missions, and so on. That's perfectly viable, and in fact is a sign that the GM is doing a good job. But it works, in effect, because the NPC isn't brought into the focus by the GM, but elected by the players' approval; and also because the NPC isn't on camera all the time.

[Colarmel]

Vow of Silence on a GMPC is a great idea. Insanely competent to show off GURPS combat options is a bad idea. If you want to do that, just coach your players. A GMPC should be either less competent, or less flashy than the players characters. Ideally a bit of both.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by Colarmel

A GMPC should be either less competent, or less flashy than the players characters. Ideally a bit of both.

Or super flashy and very incompetent so the other PCs learn what not to do while also acting like a comic relief.

[A Ladder]

My advice: don't do it.

If you want to show case all the "sick moves" that players can do it combat...tell them about it at character creation or in play.

Nothing is more annoying than having a martial arts focused GMPC show up the other PCs by doing a bunch of rapid strikes to various unprotected places and drop a ton of enemies to show the PCs "how it's done". And then tell them they have to try it without any of the options that allowed you to do that in the first place.

"No Trained by a Master? oh, all your rapid strikes are going to be at -6 instead of my -3. Oh, your brawling skill is only 14 when mine was 22? yeah, you're probably going to miss the throat chops at -5. Oh, you don't have striking ST, karate damage bonus and weapon master (fists)? you'll do 1d-3 crushing on your punch instead of laying waste."

When I was first GMing my players I would introduce a new combat option each combat scene. At first I gave them the basics, during the next combat I told them about All Out Attacks, then the next time they were fighting I introduced Deceptive attacks, then we got to do Techniques, etc. This showed them all the "sick moves", avoided information overload, and gave them time to adjust their characters with earned points so that they could do the cool options.

I suggest having a "support" GMPC instead of a "spotlight" one. This way when the PCs need to make a skill check at a boring skill roll "Who the hell has Research?" you can make it and move the plot along. Or you can give your GMPC a role that keeps the players the center of the action: typically a medic type. None of my players ever enjoy playing a healer and always go hire one (So I GM a lot of healer allies).


Edit: Whswhs also makes a really good point. Your job as the GM is focus on the world and present a place for PCs to interact in. Taking your attention away from the world you're describing to play as a PC really cuts into the other players' play time and adds a fair amount of cerebral load to you.

[GM Joe]

Originally Posted by cabaiomonte

So. GM's PCs. should they be avoided altogether?

Yes.

Originally Posted by cabaiomonte

should they be demoted to NPCs? sidekicks?

Nope.

Originally Posted by cabaiomonte

even with unprepared players?

Yes.