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

[johndallman]

A GM is a hard-worked individual. It seems only fair to try to entertain them. The characters I most enjoy GMing for are the ones who have ideas, who don't wait for me to feed the players things, but make thing happen by themselves. I recall a D&D thief who always had an immediate plan for any situation, usually involving string. It took several sessions for the other players to realise that some of these plans were deliberately absurd and intended to prod them into making proper ones. Another character belonging to the same player has solved some very large-scale problems with magical bio-tech - it's so much easier when you don't require the solutions to look sensible, and just worry about them working.

Myself, I can't manage that kind of maniac creativity. Sometimes I can just see through the fog to the easy way to solve problems, but mostly I look at the individual fog-banks and try to figure out what they're concealing. Taking a serious interest in the GM's hard labour as a player means thinking about it in character outside the play sessions, and trying not to plague them too much.

How have you managed to entertain the GM? How have your players managed to entertain you?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by johndallman

How have you managed to entertain the GM?

Mostly by noticing subtle clue, cues and hints that GM left. More rarely - by noticing and factoring into the plans some stuff that even the GM didn't think about. Usually weaving either of the above into a properly roleplayed representation of the new data.

Occasionally by picking quotes from songs to describe mental states of characters or situations in the campaign - ones spoken IC. I'm not sure why the GM likes that so much.

Originally Posted by johndallman

How have your players managed to entertain you?

Witticisms in dialogues are always entertaining.
Interesting working solutions for tasks are usually entertaining.
But also there is often much entertainment in seeing failures in funny, ultimately not-too-harmful ways.

[Agemegos]

Here's another subject that I have been banging on about for twenty-five years or more: grommets.

To make you character easy and fun to GM, one thing that helps is to provide him or her with features that make it easy for the GM to manipulate it with story hooks, scene hooks etc. I call these features "grommets" and advise that they ought to be firmly secured to the character's chassis, robust enough to stand up to repeated use, and painted bright yellow so that the GM can see them.

1︎⃣ A versatile grommet that can be used in several different ways is more use to the GM than a grommet that only motivates one specific action. For example, a gallant weakness for women that makes the character susceptible to feminine wiles as well as inclined to rescue ladies in distress allows the GM a greater range of effects to achieve with his story hooks than a mere sense of duty protect women.

2︎⃣ 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 advise players when they are designing their characters in such systems to emphasis entertaining and useful disads. For instance, disads that prevent a character from going places and doing things tend to close off possibilities and limit the GM, and are bad, you should not get points for them. On the other hand disadvantages that tend to force the character to go places (that the GM can choose) and to do things (as opposed to remaining inactive) are good and ought to get more points that their disadvantageousness alone warrants. Even if you aren't getting bonus points for grommets and entertaining disads, if you want your character to be fun to GM, take them anyway.

3︎⃣ You have to take account of what sort of game you a playing in. In a gamist sort of game in which the GM is to a large extent an opponent-player, and takes it as his or her role to frustrate whatever you are trying to do, this won't work. But in a narrative or dramatic sort of game even a propensity to make a particular sort of mistake can be an effective grommet.

4︎⃣ A grommet should not be insistent. It ought to be there for the GM to use when he or she wants it, it should not forcefully obtrude itself, and it ought not to be a conspicuous Chekov's gun when the GM chooses not to use it.


Try to avoid analysis paralysis. When the players are discussing their plans or possible solutions to a mystery out of character, their characters are not anywhere in particular, and there is nothing that the GM can do to provide the characters with more information or incentives to act. If you can't work out whodunnit with the information you have, if you can't devise as reasonable plan to infiltrate the where-ever and steal the McGuffin, or if you can't see that your characters have any particular reason to get involved in what seems to be the adventure, the problem is probably that your characters are missing some vital piece of information. You won't find it arm-chair style. Instead, you'll end up in endless tail-chasing out-of-character arguments with other character players. Don't do that. If after a short discussion you don't work out the solution the answer is to get back into character, go somewhere specific, do something specific, and create an opportunity for the GM to give you more information, more leads, more incentives, to sink a story hook into one of your character's grommets.

Help the GM, don't shut him or her down. Look for ways to take up his or her story offers, not for ways to refuse them. Do things that offer him or her story possibilities, not that turn your character into Captain Untouchable.

Play characters that are active and that react to things. If you can't think of a really good thing to do, at least do something. It's like story tennis: when the GM puts the story ball into your court at least return it. Even if you don't have a spectacular shot to play, at least set the GM up for another try.


Don't make the GM go to a lot of trouble forcing you into each damned adventure. If a suspicious blonde tries to hire your PI, and you refuse her case because refusing obvious trouble is what your character would do; and if she then turns up dead and you ignore that because your character wouldn't stick his nose into a case that he wasn't being paid to take; then you are not roleplaying well by doing what your character would really do, you are roleplaying badly by generating the wrong damned character for the campaign. Generate the kind of character who has adventures, not the kind who refuses them.

[tHEhERETIC]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Don't make the GM go to a lot of trouble forcing you into each damned adventure. If a suspicious blonde tries to hire your PI, and you refuse her case because refusing obvious trouble is what your character would do; and if she then turns up dead and you ignore that because your character wouldn't stick his nose into a case that he wasn't being paid to take; then you are not roleplaying well by doing what your character would really do, you are roleplaying badly by generating the wrong damned character for the campaign. Generate the kind of character who has adventures, not the kind who refuses them.

Sideways of that topic, that's why I make my GMPCs such foolhardy types who can't properly keep a secret. I need them to put the plot on the table, and discreet types don't do that.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by tHEhERETIC

Sideways of that topic, that's why I make my GMPCs such foolhardy types who can't properly keep a secret. I need them to put the plot on the table, and discreet types don't do that.

What does GMPC mean here? I'm used to it meaning "Mary Sue NPC that a terrible GM introduces into the game because they'd rather be playing a PC, or maybe writing auteur fiction".

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What does GMPC mean here? I'm used to it meaning "Mary Sue NPC that a terrible GM introduces into the game because they'd rather be playing a PC, or maybe writing auteur fiction".

That's what I think of first too. I don't consider it appropriate for the GM to have a "character" and would never do it in a game I ran. Of course sometimes the players bring one of my NPCs to life by interacting with them over and over. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What does GMPC mean here? I'm used to it meaning "Mary Sue NPC that a terrible GM introduces into the game because they'd rather be playing a PC, or maybe writing auteur fiction".

I have a somewhat different experience of GMPCs, although we didn't call it that at the time. In the 80s, back in high school and college, I was in two different groups that rotated GM duties for D&D games. We all used the same characters whoever was running the game, and the GM usually kept their character in the party. As GMs, we would have our characters provide support functions, and occasionally exposition. But it would have been seen as very bad form to make an adventure where your character took the lead or spotlight. If I remember correctly, the GM's character didn't get XP, and it would have been considered very cheesy to put a magic item or other treasure that was specifically beneficial to your character into any game you ran.

On the topic, I agree with a lot of the advice so far. Make and play your character to fit the game. Grab onto the adventure hooks your GM throws out.

Don't turtle! If the party gets stuck for an idea of what to do next, do something, even if you know it is sub-optimal. It will give the GM a chance to get your party back on track, or onto a new track.

Engage with NPCs. Have your character form opinions about the other people they meet in the game world and act according to those opinions, even if they aren't fully justified.

[tHEhERETIC]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's what I think of first too. I don't consider it appropriate for the GM to have a "character" and would never do it in a game I ran. Of course sometimes the players bring one of my NPCs to life by interacting with them over and over. . . .

Bill Stoddard

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

I have a somewhat different experience of GMPCs, although we didn't call it that at the time. In the 80s, back in high school and college, I was in two different groups that rotated GM duties for D&D games. We all used the same characters whoever was running the game, and the GM usually kept their character in the party. As GMs, we would have our characters provide support functions, and occasionally exposition. But it would have been seen as very bad form to make an adventure where your character took the lead or spotlight. If I remember correctly, the GM's character didn't get XP, and it would have been considered very cheesy to put a magic item or other treasure that was specifically beneficial to your character into any game you ran.

Right now I run a PbP where I have...well, too many NPCs. http://www.gliffy.com/go/publish/image/6001720/L.png But the two guys in the middle are the main characters I use to forward the plot. Instead of "there's a MacGuffin down the street under a pole" I have Ryuki say "Hmm, what is that under the pole?" IMHO it keeps the game more immersive, plus you have to account for whether Ryuki is trying to distract you from some little stunt he's pulling by looking over there.

But yeah, they're pretty MarySue, both of them. I work rather hard to tamp that down so they don't get ridiculous, and it's true I like playing a character and not merely being the GM. But in the end with this format I have to deal in a lot of tropes because too much subtlety can bog things down. I've tried.

[quarkstomper]

Back when I lived in Darkest Iowa, our CHAMPIONS group was doing a campaign for a while based on the LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES comic. My wacky brother Steeve had noticed that our group had a tendency to spend a lot of time discussing plans and over-thinking before we actually did anything. So he chose Ultra-Boy as his character, because (A) Ultra-Boy is impulsive and doesn't over-think; and (B) he's tough enough to survive the results of his impetuousity.

So things would work out like this. The team would come to a planet with a problem. The group would discuss the problem and argue about possible approaches. Steeve would let us do that for a few minutes, and then Ultra-Boy would say, "I'm going down to the planet. See you later!"

So then Cosmic Boy or whoever was leading the team would set aside all our plans and sigh, "I guess we better follow him and get him out of trouble!"

It moved the plot, and the GM liked it.

[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.