Doing Things Better #3: Characters who are fun to GM

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I know that classic GMPC can be a major problem, though I've fortunately never had a problem with it.

I have also seen NPC's who can be considered GMPC's work extremely well: most of the time in the role as the link the employer of the party. The character is used for briefing sessions, bringing up points the PC's seem to have missed (which usually means I did a bad job explaining something), and occasionally filling in PC niche holes. The character is part of the group, and follows them around: we've had more PC's split from the party than our NPC. I think the thing that made it work was that the "GMPC" didn't step on anyone's niche, and that he played a 'GM-like role': he was an expert on the intricacies of the GM's world and represented our employer. Most of what he said had to be said by the GM anyway.

I don't understand what makes this a "GMPC" and not an "NPC".
"Representative of the employer" seems to be part of a Patron, or just as a non-patron employer NPC.
"Briefing officer" fits with any organization that has organized briefings.
"Follows the party around" is the description of an ally, dependent, follower or hireling.

I have NPCs that do these things, I don't consider them to be "my" player character or somehow distinct from other major supporting NPCs.

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Most games that include provision for players to build characters with disadvantages consider those as weaknesses that balance out character abilities, with the negative price of disads being a compensation for loss. I find it fruitful to consider them instead as features that ought to make the character more interesting and fun, including grommets for the GM to manipulate the character by, and the negative cost as an incentive for taking good disads, such as ones that can act as grommets.

I go one step further and tell my players "do not take any disads that you don't want to play, because I take all Disads [and Advantages] as requests."

Just like it's good form for a GM to let the player who can see in pitch black opportunities to "shine" in the dark, I think it's bad form for the GM not to use the weaknesses the player thought would be interesting. If as player likes to charge to the rescue and takes Bucky, the Boy Hostage as his Ally/Dependent, then I feel it is my duty as GM to make sure that Bucky is kidnapped by villains often enough to make it count.

[Agemegos]

Yeah. I either run games that don't give points for disads, or else don't set a point budget. So disads are never the cost of playing the character you want. They are always things that players take because they want to deal with them.

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by Tuk the Weekah

I go one step further and tell my players "do not take any disads that you don't want to play, because I take all Disads [and Advantages] as requests."

Just like it's good form for a GM to let the player who can see in pitch black opportunities to "shine" in the dark, I think it's bad form for the GM not to use the weaknesses the player thought would be interesting. If as player likes to charge to the rescue and takes Bucky, the Boy Hostage as his Ally/Dependent, then I feel it is my duty as GM to make sure that Bucky is kidnapped by villains often enough to make it count.

A Thing I Always Say (™ Ken Hite and Robin Laws): anything that goes on your character sheet, anything that distinguishes your character from the baseline, is a device for receiving spotlight time and GM attention. Doesn't matter whether the value is positive or negative: Super Strong Guy gets to bend bars and punch people, Post-Combat Shakes Guy gets to twitch and wibble once the fight is over. Which is why it's necessary to set a disadvantage limit.