GM's PC

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gnome

A good GM won't allow any NPC to steal the spotlight--this is totally unrelated, it seems to me, to the question of whether the NPC is a "GMPC," which I take to mean simply an NPC that's around all the time and essentially plays by the same rules as the PCs.

That's not how I define the term. As I've said before, a PC, no matter who runs it, is (a) a protagonist of the story or drama who is (b) entitled to an equal average share of spotlight time.

[Anthony]

I take 'GMPC' to indicate character the GM treats as his/her PC (in a game with multiple GMs, it's probably the character the current GM runs when there's a different GM).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I take 'GMPC' to indicate character the GM treats as his/her PC (in a game with multiple GMs, it's probably the character the current GM runs when there's a different GM).

I've done that once, when a friend and I were trading off running sessions of "DC Realtime," a campaign where all DC heroes started their careers in the years when they were first published (well, except the Legion of Super-Heroes, who started 1000 years later). When I was GMing he ran Captain Marvel; when he was GMing I ran Tik-Tok, Earth's first information elemental. But we didn't call them "GMPCs"; we just called them "PCs," because we weren't GMing when we ran them (we both agreed that that would be dubious).

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

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..

I wasn't really thinking of ignoring practicality, but rather keeping an eye on drama as well.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Maybe but I quite like that set up when it's combined with "and we're the only one's here to do it".

Originally Posted by Icelander

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

Well that's a issue in general because if they don't want to then the presence of the lower level PC's won't make them want to surely? And here's were we get to one of the potential inherent issues for me. The powerful NPCs have to go along with the needs of the story because if they don't there not really much the PCs can do about it! It really just another way to remove PC agency. Now if the PCs are acting as the higher NPCs agents and thus their respective motivations align as a part of the set up that's a bit different, but that can bring its own issues.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Right, but as you describe they either have no reason for acting or it's not the PC's story anyway. Either way both potential issues with putting the NPCs and PCs together. (I;d have no issue with both being in related bits of a wider story of course).

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Right but they're playing in the game we give them and according to the the set up we provide. So if we as GM's say OK make a party of footloose mortal-scale adventuring heroes for hire on say 200cp each, and after several sessions where that get to say 230cp and then we plonk them in an adventure about inhuman Powers That Be in the campaign world that has protagonists in the 1000cp range, well that kind of on us not them?

Don't get me wrong I'm not adverse to throwing power level curve ball, because sometimes there's a good game to be had seeing how they work it. But I still try and keep the NPCs at that level playing an active role at a minimum for the reasons given. Also sometime there are small cogs in a big machine/story, but if it's the players who are those small cogs I try and tighten the focus on the the small cogs and their actions.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

And that fine in abstract, I just find it has tendency to become how can we persuade X to come and squash our current issue today. And if we limit that how to avoid the limitation looking like arbitrary story fiat. Even if we do limit it in some way how do we avoid the issue of an adventure becoming "the NPC X ride" on the occasion they are there and available.

Basically super strong but available NPCc are hard to put back in the box once they have been introduced.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Sorry while I recognise a couple of those names from other threads I don't know how that example fits in with what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Ummm... yes?

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

And that's OK (as I said above I'm not adverse to the power level curve ball), but for me I like them to survive from their own actions rather than having them survive because NPC X was there to stand in font of them, or save them when needed.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Well one assumes the PC have a reason to do it anyway as a basic premise for the set up. But on the first point you're right it come down to does the NPC want to do it, which is kind of one of my issues here, as the story then revolves around what the NPC does or doesn't want to do. So taking the two points together the PC want to act (there's no story if they don't), but can't without the NPC, and the NPC either decides they do (NPC wins the day for the PC), or decide they don't (PCs can't then prevail and go and do something else). Ultimately the story risks becoming about the NPC and their choices.

I should say I'm not adverse to the "impossible situation" story or the "well find another way to do it" driver. I just tend to prefer not to base it around the whims of a NPC that is sometimes a get out of jail free card for the party and sometimes not. Because IME the more they switch between the two the more questions of why they do get asked.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

Well if they don't then why are they there? (again the question becomes based around the NPCs not the PCs)

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

That's certainly true, but those are adventures based around you powerful patrons not being there rather than being available.

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

That's certainly true, being agents for a greater power works fine, but IME it works best when you are operating on your own at a remove from your powerful patron and their "circle of protection".

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

OK but don't they just risk ending up being the Spear carriers in the NPC's story, rather than the heroes in their own?

Either way the closer they are in power level the less all these are potential issues.

And that's actually a good point for me to end on, all these things I'm posting are IMO potential issues and pitfalls to avoid, I'm not saying they all automatically happen!


Anyway

Cheers

TD