GM's PC

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gnome

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.

That definition doesn't work for me, because I don't assume party loyalty. I've run campaigns where the PCs were an actual team with missions, or a firm with jobs, and cooperation was assumed. But even in those, there could be internal tensions. And I've also run campaigns where the PCs were thrown together by circumstances, and even campaigns where they weren't a "party" at all, where the viewpoint bounced around between different groups of PCs doing different and even conflicting things. But I didn't think that made them "not PCs."

If you want loyalty, to my mind, you don't look to other PCs necessarily; you buy an Ally, or maybe a Patron or Dependent.

I'm also surprised that you have public PC sheets. I require players to show ME their character sheets, so that I can verify that the designs are legal, and suggest improvements. But I don't have players showing EACH OTHER their character sheets; I've never had them offer to do so. And I've heard of campaigns where the players go off and design their characters secretly, bring the sheets to the table, and start playing; this seems to be a thing in Champions, for example.

As I've said before, the essential thing about the PCs is that they're in the spotlight, and are entitled to be; or to use literary language, they're the protagonists.

[Kromm]

The definition is hard to nail down, but FWIW: I consider a GMPC to be any character that would otherwise be an NPC save for the fact that the GM spends unusually generous time resources playing the character.

Suppose the "spotlight time" or "air time" at the gaming table consists of one share for each player, playing their character, plus one share for the GM's story tasks (describing events and areas, giving NPCs voices, etc.) and one share for the GM's rules tasks. That's a pretty typical division – in my experience, the GM has about twice as much speaking time as any one player.

A GMPC may steal spotlight time from the players. In effect, the GM takes an extra share for roleplaying the GMPC, separate from the share used for NPCs in general. This usually comes from the player's shares. In a group with three players, say, what was formerly 1 (player 1):1 (player 2):1 (player 3):1 (GM's story tasks):1 (GM's rules tasks) edges toward more like 2/3 (player 1):2/3 (player 2):2/3 (player 3):1 (GM's story tasks):1 (GM's rules tasks):1 (GMPC).

A GMPC may divert the GM from the primary tasks necessary to run a fun game. In our group with three players, the balance might drift toward something like 1 (player 1):1 (player 2):1 (player 3):2/3 (GM's story tasks):2/3 (GM's rules tasks):2/3 (GMPC). You end up with worse stories, a less-well-run-game, and very often a badly played additional PC.

Very often, both happen at once; e.g., 5/6 (player 1):5/6 (player 2):5/6 (player 3):5/6 (GM's story tasks):5/6 (GM's rules tasks):5/6 (GMPC). That is, everything suffers a little bit.

And because the GM is ultimately in charge, there's the risk of even worse cases, like 2/3 (player 1):2/3 (player 2):2/3 (player 3):1/2 (GM's story tasks):1/2 (GM's rules tasks):2 (GMPC). That is, the GM sacrifices everything for Mary Sue.

So . . . it's best just not to do it. If you really need a major character as a more-or-less permanent NPC addition to the party, give that NPC to the players to run by committee. That might distract them a little from their primary characters, but they retain spotlight time and maybe even gain a little more, while the GM is freed up to run the other NPCs and the game in general more capably.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If you really need a major character as a more-or-less permanent NPC addition to the party, give that NPC to the players to run by committee. That might distract them a little from their primary characters, but they retain spotlight time and maybe even gain a little more, while the GM is freed up to run the other NPCs and the game in general more capably.

In once campaign I was in years ago, that evolved by accident: One of the players had to resign from the campaign, but he had characterized his PC so vividly that the rest of us could propose lines he would have said and/or describe his actions. So he became a virtual extra PC run by whoever came up with something for him. I don't recall anyone ever coming up with something that was rejected; he had a really distinctive personality. ("Toby like beer! Crunchy on outside, foamy on inside.")

Another trick that works once in a while is the cameo NPC: A guest player who takes on the role of a major character in one episode, who isn't being run by the GM and thus can be brought more to life. If this is done once in a while it can add to player enjoyment, especially if the cameo goes to a good roleplayer. (One of my biggest successes had a somewhat mad Galadriel in an alternate Middle-Earth as the cameo role; I asked the woman playing her to leave the players unsure if Galadriel had fallen under Sauron's power, and to scare the crap out of them, and she did a brilliant job.) But this can go wrong if not handled cautiously; my biggest mistake was allowing a cameo player to come back for a bigger role that she really wanted to play, both because it took time away from the PCs and because the storyline clashed with the character concept of one of the players. That wouldn't stop me from having more cameos, but it makes me handle them with care. But having that extra person play the vivid NPC frees the GM to focus on more background stuff.

[GodBeastX]

I just read this website. Sums up a lot of what was said here nicely.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GMPC

[Algarik]

Originally Posted by whswhs

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.

If it's only a difference in terminology and your difinition of a GMPC is a NPC stealing spolight, then i agree it’s unhealthy for the game and it will push your player off. I think the OP had a somewhat the same idea i had about GMPC, which is: an NPC that stick around and share the players adventure. He seemed genuily concerned about not stealing player spotlight even going as far as making the character mute.

Originally Posted by Kromm

The definition is hard to nail down, but FWIW: I consider a GMPC to be any character that would otherwise be an NPC save for the fact that the GM spends unusually generous time resources playing the character.

I also agree that by going with this definition a GMPC is a bad thing, and i agree with your explaination of why it’s bad. That being said, i don’t completely agree with the definition i’d rather have the word define something more neutral, like an NPC sticking around and sharing the adventure with the players, following the same character guide line, so we can refer to good ways of pulling off a GMPC and bad ways of doing it.
Beside, as a Player, i don’t think GMPCs hurt the game that much, unless they continuousely steal player spotlight. The only time i got annoyed as a player regarding GMPCs was when everyone of them was better at doing was i built my character to be good at, which prevent me from doing anything useful beside second hand task.

About the game screen time I also think it’s fair for the GM to have a somewhat larger part than it’s players. Afterall, players only responsibilities is to build a character sheet, a character background and to show up to the game and act as decent human being, GMs on the other side have to prepare all the adventures, have to do all the worldbuilding( or at least as to read the campaign worldbook), acquire good system mastery and basically have to do anything that a player don’t have to do.

Edit:

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

I just read this website. Sums up a lot of what was said here nicely.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GMPC

I agree that this would be a good definition of the term GMPC, there's good way and bad way to pull it off.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Algarik

If it's only a difference in terminology and your difinition of a GMPC is a NPC stealing spolight, then i agree it’s unhealthy for the game and it will push your player off. I think the OP had a somewhat the same idea i had about GMPC, which is: an NPC that stick around and share the players adventure. He seemed genuily concerned about not stealing player spotlight even going as far as making the character mute.

Well, most basically, that was why I started out by saying, "I don't know what you mean by 'GMPC'; the meaning I'm most accustomed to is this and I think it's unwise to have that sort of GMPC."

I don't think my definition of a GMPC is an NPC stealing spotlight. My definition is slightly different: the GMPC is a protagonist run by the GM rather than the [other] players. Being a protagonist means, among other things, that they're on the scene in all the episodes (unless the player is absent—but if the GM is absent you don't have a game!); that they make key decisions that shape the course of the game; that they're likely to be changed in some way by the events of the game (even if the change is only "I gained three levels"); and also that they have a right to spotlight time.

That last isn't necessarily stealing. If, in Kromm's example, we go from PC1: 1, PC2: 1, PC3: 1, GM(world): 1, GM(rules): 1 to PC1: 3/4, PC2: 3/4, PC3: 3/4, GM(world): 1, GM(rules): 1, GMPC: 3/4, and the other players are fine with this, that's no more a problem than if the GM adds PC4 and they get a share of spotlight time. The problem is that there are risks of it not stopping there. On one hand, the GM may not do a good job at their primary tasks because they're thinking about the GMPC; people really aren't good at multitasking. On another, the mindset of "I want to have this character in the spotlight and I want to have them do dramatic things" is really hard to combine with "I want to run the adventure to see that these other people are in the spotlight." And going on from that, there's a risk that the GM will distort the world and the adventure, even without intending to, to give the GMPC more spotlight time, and there's a risk that the GMPC will make more effective use of their spotlight time, and be more successful in the tasks they attempt, because the GM can't help but take their world and scenario knowledge into account. This isn't fair to the other players if it happens, and they also may be suspecting that it will happen even if it doesn't.

To avoid those risks, I think it's better avoid having any one focal NPC.

That's not to say you can't have a persistent NPC. But I think it's more prudent to give them spotlight time only when this helps bring a PC into the spotlight, the same way you would with any other NPC.

[GM Joe]

Originally Posted by Kromm

So . . . it's best just not to do it. If you really need a major character as a more-or-less permanent NPC addition to the party, give that NPC to the players to run by committee. That might distract them a little from their primary characters, but they retain spotlight time and maybe even gain a little more, while the GM is freed up to run the other NPCs and the game in general more capably.

That’s my preferred method (with the understanding that I can step in if they decide to have the NPC do something that’s out of character or inappropriate). I started using it for hirelings that go dungeon delving with the party. It became standard practice for me through the years, when an NPC is essentially acting as a PC.

[Algarik]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, most basically, that was why I started out by saying, "I don't know what you mean by 'GMPC'; the meaning I'm most accustomed to is this and I think it's unwise to have that sort of GMPC."

Yeah it was mostly to clarify what i meant.

Originally Posted by whswhs

My definition is slightly different: the GMPC is a protagonist run by the GM rather than the [other] players. Being a protagonist means, among other things, that they're on the scene in all the episodes (unless the player is absent—but if the GM is absent you don't have a game!); that they make key decisions that shape the course of the game; that they're likely to be changed in some way by the events of the game (even if the change is only "I gained three levels"); and also that they have a right to spotlight time.

I can agree with this definition, and as i player i don’t mind GMPCs having some fraction of the spotlight, as long as it’s less than player time and it enhance the story and gives way to interact with our PCs.

Originally Posted by whswhs

That last isn't necessarily stealing. If, in Kromm's example, we go from PC1: 1, PC2: 1, PC3: 1, GM(world): 1, GM(rules): 1 to PC1: 3/4, PC2: 3/4, PC3: 3/4, GM(world): 1, GM(rules): 1, GMPC: 3/4, and the other players are fine with this, that's no more a problem than if the GM adds PC4 and they get a share of spotlight time.

Of course players should always have the final words concerning the presence of an GMPCs, but i’d say given fraction of the times is a bit too much for GMPCs, i got more with something that look like this:
PC1: 7/8, PC2: 7/8, PC3: 7/8, GM(world): 1, GM(rules): 1, GMPC: 3/8

That way the GMPCS can still have some significant moment, without taking too much time from other players. That being said the 3/8 GMPC's spotlight time should be use to bring more to the other player than to take away plot elements from them.

Originally Posted by whswhs

The problem is that there are risks of it not stopping there. On one hand, the GM may not do a good job at their primary tasks because they're thinking about the GMPC; people really aren't good at multitasking. On another, the mindset of "I want to have this character in the spotlight and I want to have them do dramatic things" is really hard to combine with "I want to run the adventure to see that these other people are in the spotlight." And going on from that, there's a risk that the GM will distort the world and the adventure, even without intending to, to give the GMPC more spotlight time, and there's a risk that the GMPC will make more effective use of their spotlight time, and be more successful in the tasks they attempt, because the GM can't help but take their world and scenario knowledge into account. This isn't fair to the other players if it happens, and they also may be suspecting that it will happen even if it doesn't.

Yes i agree, it can be risky, and it’s hard to pull off well, i wouldn’t recommend it to a beginner GM. Althought, at lot of things can be risky in game, some tropes, like child escort quest or having the big villain show off in the begining, are hard too pull off, but if done right they can make for some interesting stories.

[Gnome]

How is an Ally different from a GMPC? An Ally is an NPC, run by the GM, who participates in the PCs' adventures, advances along with the PCs, has the capacity to make important decisions, etc. The only difference, it seems to me, is that one of the PCs paid points for the privilege of having him around.

In DF for example, there's nothing about a divine servitor that makes it less likely to steal the spotlight or play a protagonistic role. Divine servitors have extremely powerful abilities that could easily upstage some PCs, they have disadvantages that will drive them to advocate for certain decisions or be pleased/displeased with the party's direction, in fact the only thing "special" about them is their loyalty...and any GMPC with Sense of Duty (Friends and Companions) [-5] will have that too.

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.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Algarik

Yes i agree, it can be risky, and it’s hard to pull off well, i wouldn’t recommend it to a beginner GM. Althought, at lot of things can be risky in game, some tropes, like child escort quest or having the big villain show off in the begining, are hard too pull off, but if done right they can make for some interesting stories.

My concern is partly that if you think of the character as "my PC" or "the GMPC" then you're likely to frame the situation as one where the character acts like, well, a PC: stepping into the spotlight, taking part in deciding what the other PCs do, playing a key role in solving problems, and so on. And then you need to consciously remind yourself to step back. If you think of the character as "an NPC," then they don't have a continuing story focused on them; they contribute to the continuing story of the PCs, and come into the spotlight when that helps them do so. And they may be visible fairly often, but that's "fairly often" relative to how often other NPCs are visible.

In other words, I think it's psychologically easier to get to the 3/8 that you think is desirable (in our hypothetical example) if you start out from the share of spotlight that goes to an average NPC and add a bit to it, than if you start out from 3/4 or 7/8 and cut down. And what you call a character seems to me to influence this.

An RPG is a drama with an ensemble cast. So it's like, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Xander are the central figures. But you also have major figures who appear in one episode, or in one storyline, such as Adam, and you have recurring supporting characters, such as Joyce or Anya. Both of those have stronger roles than the average bit part. But they're still not protagonists, and the actors who play them aren't stars.