How to make the best of a GM PC?

[Cap'n Gravelock]

I need to make a PC for my game since all my players are beginners.

Any good suggestions out there?

[Mike Miller]

Have the DMPC fill whatever role is missing from your party. What is the party makeup? Don't have the DMPC control NPC interactions. I dislike using DMPCs, but in the event I have to, they are in the background unless a players talks to them. You don't want the DMPC outshining any players, either.

[umbergod]

Have the DMPC fill whatever role is missing from your party. What is the party makeup? Don't have the DMPC control NPC interactions. I dislike using DMPCs, but in the event I have to, they are in the background unless a players talks to them. You don't want the DMPC outshining any players, either.

This a million times. Make them helpful but in the background. Most of my players dont like casters so i usually make a cleric buffbot henchman to follow em around

[Gnaeus]

I think DMPCs are massively problematic and almost always a bad idea. I am using them in my current game because:
1. We have 2 players
2 the players are 12 and not mechanically up to any of the almost always better solutions, like gestalt or giving each player a retainer or companion to run.

That said, I agree with the above advice. They should be weaker than PCs, not protected by plot armor, and shouldn’t be making any decisions.

[Fizban]

New players need to be taught how to play, and having an NPC tagging along only makes that process slower and more difficult. Even the idea of filling in whatever role the players are missing means they don't learn the fact that they needed to have someone in the party filling that role rather than just doing whatever.

What you really need is a good training module and set of pregen characters- too bad basically every 1st level adventure is terrible and the number of things that need to be taught don't actually fit within a single level. I sat down once to take a crack at it and got fed up pretty quick.

Honestly the more I hear this question the more I want to just say "play the starter set," but you can't get those anymore. That's one way to strangle an old edition.

[OgresAreCute]

It might be sacrilege to say so on this forum, but you might want to start off new players with a simpler game, especially if they're kids. 5e is as simple as it gets, and once they've got the basics of that down, it should be easier to understand more complex games like 3.5e and PF (hopefully).

[bean illus]

1. Have them play 2 characters each, one melee and one caster? That way gmpc becomes 5th wheel.
2. Have three gmpc that rotate? So that you're not always a fixing the same type of problem?

[Elkad]

Skip the GMPC.

Just baby-step them through things.

At most, you might stick a couple guards in an encounter, so they can demonstrate reach weapons or flanking or something like that.

And anyone you stick in a group as the GM should avoid anything resembling the Party Leader or Party Face role. Make them make the calls.

[HighWater]

I need to make a PC for my game since all my players are beginners.
Can we get more info as to why this statement is the case?

Games with only beginners and no GM PC's are usually perfectly viable and as others have mentioned adding a GM PC is unlikely to improve the situation as they at best don't serve as a proper teacher's crutch and at worst distract from your players.

As a personal example: I am GMing a game with 60% new players and the others were never hardcore either. I often do have an NPC that hangs out with the party for story purposes, but because I get a lot of questions and am also catering to a party of 5, the NPC would often a be distraction from helping out my players. I solve this distraction-problem by mostly forgetting about the NPC until one of the more experienced players says something along the lines of "Doesn't NPC X also get an attack?..." Whoops! :smallbiggrin:

@Some of the responders:
The post by Gnaeus, while helpful in illustrating that there are situations where not adding a GM PC is simply not viable, is not actually a post by the OP (Cap'n Gravelock). We don't know player count, age or party composition that sparked the original post yet. :smallwink:

[Pleh]

New players need to be taught how to play, and having an NPC tagging along only makes that process slower and more difficult. Even the idea of filling in whatever role the players are missing means they don't learn the fact that they needed to have someone in the party filling that role rather than just doing whatever.

Meh. I think they'd have to be pretty dense to fail to notice how useful having this other guy is. Just telling them the game expects 3 to 4 players will tell most people what they need to understand about the game.

You can verbally explain the basic mechanical roles in about 10 minutes. If your party doesn't cover all the bases, you can build encounters that don't over emphasize that weakness until you INTEND it to be a special challenge.

But if you really want them to appreciate the difference that ally makes in the group, have the DMPC get captured and let the other two conduct a rescue/prison break to get them back.

I like the idea of having a robotic DMPC, so they take little initiative with the plot, follow the PCs unerringly, and have keenly useful abilities the heroes lack. It makes them all that much more fun to break out of prison later.

[16bearswutIdo]

Have the DMPC fill whatever role is missing from your party. What is the party makeup? Don't have the DMPC control NPC interactions. I dislike using DMPCs, but in the event I have to, they are in the background unless a players talks to them. You don't want the DMPC outshining any players, either.

This is absolutely correct. Only have your DMPCs interact with NPCs if the players request that they do.

My players will routinely convince NPCs to come along with them on their adventures. Often, this ends with the NPCs dying. I usually just make the NPC something they're missing in the party and make them a few levels lower. Outside of combat, the NPC is almost completely in the background unless the PCs start interacting with him.

IMO, only put a DMPC in there if the story or party's actions demand it.

[Eldariel]

I recommend just running a slightly less rules-heavy intro into the game á la this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?476248-Campaign-Journal-Dad-is-the-DM). It's a good way to get them into the swing of things and let them enjoy the game without all the hassle. They can go more hardcore later if they feel so inclined, but I do think that's a better approach.

[Quertus]

So, how many different ways can I buck the norm in one thread?

Personally, I have nothing against DMPCs per se. There are just many ways to use them poorly. In fact, even the classic "bad" DMPC, who overshadows the PCs, can be fine if, say, used as a tool to teach the players, mirrored by the DMPC teaching the PCs - especially if they're idiot farm boys on their first day of the farm - such that they eventually outgrow the need for the DMPC.

I, personally, love the "how do we make this party work" minigame - making a DMPC to fill need roles takes away that minigame. And filling roles that aren't covered can, if done poorly, look the same as the bad, overshadowing DMPC.

I'd argue that Shadowrun is the best use of a DMPC - heavy niche protection, where the DMPC is handling one of the minigames, and not taking up game / spotlight time to do so.

In 3e? A heavily niche character, who has little value outside their specialization, seems optimal for avoiding the classic pitfalls of DMPCs.

[zlefin]

just becuase your players are beginners doesn't mean you need a gmpc. you just need low powered encounters, which is how most modules are designed anyways.

or if that's somehow insufficient, just make the encounters a bit lower in CR than normal, and it'll be fine.

[Pleh]

So, how many different ways can I buck the norm in one thread?

Yes, there does seem to be an unhealthy allergic reaction to DMPC in this thread so far. I think the fact that the person proposing a DMPC be used is coming online asking for advice is evidence this is not one of the players prone to abusing the DMPC.

The big thing you have to do with using a DMPC is make them the Caddy to the Player's Golfers. They hold the baggage and occasionally offer some advice when prompted. If the players express interest in the DMPC's backstory and investigate, feel free to let them make the DMPC a sidequest, like in Knights of the Old Republic. Just remember the purpose of such quests is to show how helpful the PCs are to this DMPC and how their adventuring together is truly bringing these characters closer to one another.

[Peat]

So, how many different ways can I buck the norm in one thread?

Personally, I have nothing against DMPCs per se. There are just many ways to use them poorly. In fact, even the classic "bad" DMPC, who overshadows the PCs, can be fine if, say, used as a tool to teach the players, mirrored by the DMPC teaching the PCs - especially if they're idiot farm boys on their first day of the farm - such that they eventually outgrow the need for the DMPC.

I, personally, love the "how do we make this party work" minigame - making a DMPC to fill need roles takes away that minigame. And filling roles that aren't covered can, if done poorly, look the same as the bad, overshadowing DMPC.

I'd argue that Shadowrun is the best use of a DMPC - heavy niche protection, where the DMPC is handling one of the minigames, and not taking up game / spotlight time to do so.

In 3e? A heavily niche character, who has little value outside their specialization, seems optimal for avoiding the classic pitfalls of DMPCs.

I don't think I've ever played Shadowrun without a Hacker DMPC tbh.

Based on this, my thoughts is that a trapfinding/lock-picking character (who doesn't scout) and isn't much use in combat could be a good answer. Or the walking band-aid. Although, really, there's just not a lot of uber-specialised stuff like hacking in D&D.

Part of me would love to run a Golem as a DPMC. Literally only responding to the party's orders.

[Hish]

Yes, there does seem to be an unhealthy allergic reaction to DMPC in this thread so far. I think the fact that the person proposing a DMPC be used is coming online asking for advice is evidence this is not one of the players prone to abusing the DMPC.

The big thing you have to do with using a DMPC is make them the Caddy to the Player's Golfers. They hold the baggage and occasionally offer some advice when prompted. If the players express interest in the DMPC's backstory and investigate, feel free to let them make the DMPC a sidequest, like in Knights of the Old Republic. Just remember the purpose of such quests is to show how helpful the PCs are to this DMPC and how their adventuring together is truly bringing these characters closer to one another.

I agree. I DM for a small party, and I often have an NPC tagging along. The NPC is generally party level-2, and out of combat they mostly do what the party tells them to. I think it works pretty well.

[EldritchWeaver]

I think DMPCs are massively problematic and almost always a bad idea.

As others mentioned, DMPCs aren't bad per se. I have one doing healing stuff and is employed to provide exposition on the game world, when I fail to provide it otherwise. Players actually trigger the DMPC on occasion. (Ironically, the bard PC was decommissioned. My DMPC has also bardic knowledge, so unless a PC replacement comes up, I'll fill that gap, too.) Also it was requested that I shouldn't keep the DMPC too much into the background, so I'm involving her a bit more in discussions (I leave the decision making to the players though). Since I haven't outshined anyone and was largely useless in combat, no one has complained about this situation.

[Eldan]

Start by not thinking of it as a DMPC. Think of it as the party's henchman. That puts you in the right mindset. By which I mean:

-Be loyal to the party and never take much agency.
-Be quiet and never tell them what to do.
-Be competent but not too competent

What you want is a character who operates as a tool for the party, not a leader or guide. That is essential. After that, it really doens't matter what your role or class is.

Fighter? The party tells you to stand in front of them and hit things while they prepare their spells or set up their backstabs.
Cleric? The party tells you to buff them and heal them.
Rogue? The party tells you to scout ahead and report back and to disarm any traps they find.
Wizard? The party asks you to identify things and occasionally break a magical barrier.

Never be the face.


The important thing is that you set up your adventure so that the character a) has a reason to be there b) never overshadows anyone. If you have a wizard henchmen, don't make the an adventure that requires teleporting to the BBEG and battling him with spells. If you're a fighter, don't have an arena duel to show how awesome you are. If there's a rogue henchman, don't make the entire story about stealing from the royal treasury. And so on.

[RoboEmperor]

Good DMPC: Heal Buff Bot because no one wants to do that. Makes 0 contributions to the story except as a possible quest hook.
Bad DMPC: DM plays D&D Solitaire with AI party members (you).

[Pleh]

Never be the face.

Actually, even this can work, but at this level, I'd recommend the DMPC be a remote ally than a party member. What I mean is that being a Face only helps in social encounters, so there's no need to take that person through a dungeon or wilderness unless there's someone to talk to on the other side (in which case it becomes an escort mission).

In general, that kind of DMPC would be better served staying in town running their own personal affairs, remaining on call for the party whenever they need a favor getting someone's cooperation in the city.

Here, the DMPC Face becomes the party's Lawyer.

[Fouredged Sword]

Give the party agency over their DMPC. Make a couple options and let the players IC have the option to fill out their party with what they think they are going to need.

And so when the party goes to hunt the beast of Ivoryvale, they can take Rick Ranger to track the beast. When they need to hunt the lich of Southhampton, they call up Suisie the Cleirc of Pelor.

But remember, the DMPC is under your control, but it is THEIR party member. The players pick strategy and tactics.

[martixy]

Let me ask a question of these boards:

Do you guys believe a DMPC can be an equal participant in the game, and get a share of the spotlight, and not have to be artificially pushed to the back?

Me, I'll continue Quertus' bucking, aka actually answering the question OP asked.

I'm of the opinion that a DMPC is the perfect vehicle for delivering drama. You're never going to be completely impartial, so why not take advantage of that in very specific ways.

P.S. Obligatory reminder
Thread question: How to make the best of a GM PC?
Bad answer: Don't use GMPCs.
Good answer: Here's how I think a good GMPC can be used...

[Fizban]

The DM is supposed to be running the game, which entails a lot more work than running a PC. If they're also trying to act as a PC, they can't very well be putting their all into DMing. It's an innate conflict of interests and roles.

Thus, if what you really want is another player who happens to control the monsters, you need to change the nature of the rest of the game. Whether by passing narrative control around or handing off some of the details to random generation, the DM needs to cede some of the DMing if they're going to actually be a player.

Using mindless or animal foes whose actions don't require decision-making is I think something that might happen without people noticing it: the DM can play a character much more readily when it's no mystery why the foes are doing what they're doing, everyone is equally capable of predicting what they'll do, and they don't have to concern themselves with making intelligent tactical decisions. A DM can honestly play dumb foes while also playing a character.

A lot of the suggestions on how to make good use of a DMPC. . . aren't DMPCs. At least not by how I've picked up the term, specifically as a character the DM is playing which is decidedly not a henchman, but is basically the DM playing the character they want/ed to play alongside the player characters. A henchman is a henchman. An NPC that comes and goes for plot reasons is an NPC.

It's not hard to undercut certain party roles to make up for being short on characters. Plenty of DMs just don't use traps or locks (or don't penalize people for smashing their way in). Healing magic at 1st level is mostly just stabilizing and not having to spend a week in bed, which can be accomplished with minor starting items (ie: Blessed Bandage) and an NPC in town who's healing them for free. Arcanists are for hitting groups and physically hardened targets: don't outnumber the party (which is a bad idea anyway) and don't use things with high AC.

I really don't think there should ever be a need for an NPC to show the players how to act, unless they're actually kids or have no experience in games. Otherwise, all you have to do is say "look at your hp, now look at your weapon damage, that's how fragile you are" and "see that corpse by the conspicuously charred ground and that other one in a spiked pit?" and that should be most recklessness curbed. I would hope. The harder parts are the rules and mechanics, and in my experience, if you let someone get away with not learning the rules they'll never learn them.

[Eldan]

Actually, even this can work, but at this level, I'd recommend the DMPC be a remote ally than a party member. What I mean is that being a Face only helps in social encounters, so there's no need to take that person through a dungeon or wilderness unless there's someone to talk to on the other side (in which case it becomes an escort mission).

In general, that kind of DMPC would be better served staying in town running their own personal affairs, remaining on call for the party whenever they need a favor getting someone's cooperation in the city.

Here, the DMPC Face becomes the party's Lawyer.

Okay, yes. "Escort the Diplomat through the forest" is absolutely a quest that can work. And they may well have a fixer who handles the local noble for them or negotiates their mercenary contracts. What I meant by "face" is more the one who talks to the random traveller they meet on the road. Or answers the riddle of the sphinx. Or bribes the guards into letting them through quietly.

[Eldan]

Let me ask a question of these boards:

Do you guys believe a DMPC can be an equal participant in the game, and get a share of the spotlight, and not have to be artificially pushed to the back?

Me, I'll continue Quertus' bucking, aka actually answering the question OP asked.

I'm of the opinion that a DMPC is the perfect vehicle for delivering drama. You're never going to be completely impartial, so why not take advantage of that in very specific ways.

P.S. Obligatory reminder
Thread question: How to make the best of a GM PC?
Bad answer: Don't use GMPCs.
Good answer: Here's how I think a good GMPC can be used...

I'd be extremely careful about giving spotlight to DMPCs. Just because I wouldn't necesarily trust myself to be impartial. I already have a tendency to make "really cool NPCs" and then have them do too much.

[Crichton]

I don't think it's impossible to have a good DMPC situation, it just has a lot of challenges to overcome. Many replies above about how it's pretty hard to be impartial, and that's absolutely true. I'd impose these guidelines on any DMPC, to help keep things from going off the rails:


1 - DMPC character sheet must be audited/approved by at least one other knowledgeable player. Stat rolls must be monitored, and mechanical choices audited.
2 - DMPC should not have input into party decisions that determine direction chosen, how they should overcome challenges, etc. The DM has knowledge of what's to come, and they need to be very careful not to use that knowledge to steer the party. So they need to willfully exclude themselves and their character from these choices/discussions.
3 - DMPC Wealth by Level, or at least equipment, should be carefully monitored, and perhaps even intentionally lag behind the rest of the party. It's way too tempting to drop in stuff they want, so perhaps let another player monitor this, or even decide it for you.

[Thurbane]

I prefer to think of it as a support NPC, but as we only have three players, I currently have a DMPC who is a Favored Soul. He is a buffer and healer, and pretty much takes direction from the rest of the party.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

I'm apparently the weird duck here, as I always have a DM PC when I DM. Mostly cause we have a small group, and no one else in the group will DM so it's either that or never get to play a character.

Really your DM PC can either be a character who has no voice, and just fills the role of support. Or you actually build a normal like character and have them as a sort of plot based character. But don't let them rely on you to make decisions, hell if they ask you which path to take roll a dice where they can either see or hear and have that determine your answer.

[Mister Tom]

How old/smart/mature are your party?

I've played very little a long time ago and when I did, had little or no competence, and nor did most of the other adolescent murder hobos. Someone who actually knew what they were doing would have been very useful.

I would suggest that- as long as you can do so without metagaming- being competent in combat is usefully instructive. Key as others have said is the PCs drive the story: so maybe make your DMPC nervous and rather bookish- they can ask questions and express worries, but not answer them. Yes, You will have to be careful that the DMPC asking questions doesn't become a crutch, so some of their questions should be stupid or unfounded.

[Pleh]

A lot of the suggestions on how to make good use of a DMPC. . . aren't DMPCs. At least not by how I've picked up the term, specifically as a character the DM is playing which is decidedly not a henchman, but is basically the DM playing the character they want/ed to play alongside the player characters. A henchman is a henchman. An NPC that comes and goes for plot reasons is an NPC.

I'd say an NPC henchman is one I'd hand the character sheet to the players. At that point, they control the henchman similar to an animal companion or cohort that everyone in the group shares.

DMPC is a character I control. I decide how they would help the party in each situation and make decisions for the character. The fact that I like to have the character default to acting like a henchman doesn't change the fact that I'm still the player behind the wheel.

[Nifft]

1 - Use some well-codified personality traits & taglines to give the players a quick & solid handle on the NPC's personality. Some writing tips on memorable side-characters may be helpful -- here are a few that look halfway reasonable upon 30 seconds of investigation each:
- https://www.novel-writing-help.com/minor-characters.html
- https://io9.gizmodo.com/5896488/10-secrets-to-creating-unforgettable-supporting-characters
- https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedesign/comments/7clgnf/what_is_a_good_way_to_make_memorable_side/

2 - When the NPC is relevant outside combat, have one of the players puppet the NPC. Give the player perks for doing well (inspiration for her PC, cookies for the player, plot tokens to cash in later, etc.). Rotate which player gets to puppet the NPC based on which player's PC would not participate, and try to rotate through all the PCs.

3 - Try to minimize the NPC being relevant outside combat -- which is to say, try to maximize the PCs being more relevant.

[Bucky]

As an exception to Nifft's guidelines, it's okay for the GMPC to be relevant out-of-combat as a Knowledge-bot, answering players' questions. It doesn't affect player agency because they're the ones asking the questions.

[Nifft]

As an exception to Nifft's guidelines, it's okay for the GMPC to be relevant out-of-combat as a Knowledge-bot, answering players' questions. It doesn't affect player agency because they're the ones asking the questions. That's true, but even then it can bite you in the butt.

A player might get angry that your DMPC didn't disclose this info earlier, before they made a mistake that seems obvious in light of the info they're hearing now.

In my experience, having an exposition-fairy DMPC is a losing game. You either stop the players from making mistakes (and thus reducing their agency), or you let them make mistakes and then they rant at you for not telling them stuff in advance.

This sort of lose-lose scenario is part of why I try to avoid DMPCs.

-- -- --

Having a literal robot DMPC might take off some of the sting -- the players' expectations are reasonably met when a literal robot only does exactly what's asked, and shows no initiative. So that's probably a good idea, and if I need a DMPC in the future I may steal it.

[Vaern]

Your character should have some impact on encounters without seeming like its presence guarantees the party's victory. You want to avoid stealing the spotlight, but you don't want your character to be so useless that the party decides to abandon him.
Ideally, you'll probably want either a martial character or a divine caster focused on supporting the player via buffs and healing. An arcane blaster may take too much of the challenge from combat encounters, while a utility caster or skill monkey may take too much challenge away from out-of-combat encounters.

As a class, paladins work well as complimentary characters for your PCs. Full BAB and proficiency with weapons and armor give them decent presence in physical combat, with a small amount of divine magic to support the party. Give one a shortsword and a shield - his damage won't be spectacular, but letting him take a few hits for the party will make him just useful enough to keep him around.
His presence may also serve as a moral compass if the party is determined to maintain a good alignment, but if you play a stereotypical no-nonsense my-way-or-the-highway paladin then your group is going to get really annoyed really fast. If you play a paladin, he should keep the mindset of, "My superiors have sent me to make sure these peasants finish whatever quest they were given. Making sure they behave themselves is secondary to the job." Let the paladin throw a disgusted look at the players when they do something that a paladin would find unsavory, but don't use the character to outright prevent them from doing their own thing or punish them for not doing what they're told.

Or, if you want your character to reeeally take a seat in the background, have a look at the warrior NPC class and give your party 2 or 3 of them. Make these warriors comically incompetent as far as any skill or combat exploits are concerned, but make them just sharp enough to give the party a nudge in the right direction when they don't know where they're supposed to be going. And feel free to give one of them a personality, just so you can kill them for dramatic effect later on.

[Fizban]

A player might get angry that your DMPC didn't disclose this info earlier, before they made a mistake that seems obvious in light of the info they're hearing now.
Ah, Knowledge skill problems. Gather Information and the casting of divinations such as Divination are things that can wait until someone asks for them before providing information.

I had a similar problem myself- one of the worst sessions of the campaign was the one where I told the players it was time to figure it out themselves (approaching the Ruins of Rhest in RHoD), at which point they suddenly couldn't think of anything other than go straight forward and complain about getting wrecked. So I said fine, the correct answer was Water Breathing, you sleep and have the healbot prepare it the next morning.

Turns out when no one is actually playing a Cleric, none of them have any idea what Clerics can do. Later on they got mostly TPK'd because the only person who was paying attention to spell slots didn't shut them down before the rest of the party overextended. Letting them lean on a healbot the whole game had left the less accomplished players with no sense of risk or problem solving.

[Deophaun]

GMPCs are good for:
-Extra rations when food runs low
-When the party needs to kill someone to show they're serious.
-Ballast
-Offerings to dark, unspeakable powers
-Offerings to angry dragons
-Loot piñatas
-Trap detection
-Cover
-Sealing holes
-Filling ditches

Signs you are abusing GMPCs:
-You are thinking of making a GMPC
-The words "Not all GMPCs are bad" or similar have crossed your lips
-You are running a Forgotten Realms campaign

[Tajerio]

It really depends on what your players are looking to get out of the game. The last campaign I ran was for my wife and her best friend, neither of whom are terribly experienced players, and they both carried over ~10th level casters from a previous campaign. They're both fairly low-op players and didn't want the hassle of having to handle another character to boot, so they were eventually joined by a couple of other characters to fill out the party. I made sure that the GMPCs contributed to combat without overshadowing (not hard given they were mundanes), and that though they had their own characters, they deferred to the PCs on everything important, butting in only when it was starkly obvious from their character sheets that they would have something relevant to contribute. They also had backstories that hooked into elements of the campaign without being critical to said campaign, which helped to flesh out the world.

They ended up being a great hit. And I think that's because of the last point I mentioned--if you have DMPCs around all the time, they can be a great aid to storytelling, because they're a part of the world you control that is in constant contact with the PCs.

[EldritchWeaver]

GMPCs are good for:
-Extra rations when food runs low
-When the party needs to kill someone to show they're serious.
-Ballast
-Offerings to dark, unspeakable powers
-Offerings to angry dragons
-Loot piñatas
-Trap detection
-Cover
-Sealing holes
-Filling ditches

Signs you are abusing GMPCs:
-You are thinking of making a GMPC
-The words "Not all GMPCs are bad" or similar have crossed your lips
-You are running a Forgotten Realms campaign

Salty much?

[Quertus]

Let me ask a question of these boards:

Do you guys believe a DMPC can be an equal participant in the game, and get a share of the spotlight, and not have to be artificially pushed to the back?

Me, I'll continue Quertus' bucking, aka actually answering the question OP asked.

I'm of the opinion that a DMPC is the perfect vehicle for delivering drama. You're never going to be completely impartial, so why not take advantage of that in very specific ways.

P.S. Obligatory reminder
Thread question: How to make the best of a GM PC?
Bad answer: Don't use GMPCs.
Good answer: Here's how I think a good GMPC can be used...

:smallbiggrin: Glad to be a trend-setter.

So, in your first sentence, you've actually asked 2+ questions. Let's start with two: Can a DMPC be an equal participant, and Can a DMPC get an (equal) share of the spotlight?

The answer to these two questions will depend on the group.

Can a DMPC be an equal participant?

Well, in groups with a rotating GM, where the PCs were run as GMPCs when it was their turn to GM, for a good GM and a good GMPC, the answer was, their participation was approximately equal whether they were a PC or an NPC. If I wrote the stories, you couldn't tell when it was their turn to GM, because their character remained constant.

Some groups won't want GMPCs "dominating" the game, or even acting on even footing with the PCs. Other groups will be fine with overshadowing GMPCs. Know your group. Best to err on the side of underachieving GMPCs, though, if you lack the "Know your Group" skill, or are designing for an unknown or arbitrary future group.

Can a DMPC have an equal share of the spotlight?

This depends on the group even more, and, IME, is even less likely to work well as an equal. The Players rarely signed up for GM Story Time, or to watch the GM play with themselves. This is an area where the right answer is usually for the GMPC to take a backseat. However, there are rare cases where the GM has kept the GMPC in the spotlight for an even amount of time, or even made things be about the GMPC, and it actually was fun. So, what were the keys?

Well, if the players care about the tension, and the GMPC has equal CaW chance of failure as everyone else, then watching the dice play out the GMPC's (and, thus, the party's) fate can actually matter. Does the hacker manage to get the guns offline so the healer can get to the wounded party member before he bleeds out? That's equally tense, no matter which character is the GMPC.

However, personally, I'm not generally interested listening to the DMPC party face talk everyone up, or the GMPC party questgiver running through the details of their Gather Information checks, or the GMPC party Hacker going through all the minutia of their rolls in Shadowrun.

So, still, know your group, and know when you can pre-roll or narrative-out the mechanical bits, and just report on the final result, to keep the spotlight on the PCs.


I really don't think there should ever be a need for an NPC to show the players how to act, unless they're actually kids or have no experience in games.

In my previous conversations about DMPCs, I've actually brought up exactly that scenario - pre-teens with no experience with RPGs, who also happen to be your kids. :smallwink:


Ah, Knowledge skill problems. Gather Information and the casting of divinations such as Divination are things that can wait until someone asks for them before providing information.

I had a similar problem myself- one of the worst sessions of the campaign was the one where I told the players it was time to figure it out themselves (approaching the Ruins of Rhest in RHoD), at which point they suddenly couldn't think of anything other than go straight forward and complain about getting wrecked. So I said fine, the correct answer was Water Breathing, you sleep and have the healbot prepare it the next morning.

Turns out when no one is actually playing a Cleric, none of them have any idea what Clerics can do. Later on they got mostly TPK'd because the only person who was paying attention to spell slots didn't shut them down before the rest of the party overextended. Letting them lean on a healbot the whole game had left the less accomplished players with no sense of risk or problem solving.

I'd contend that a true DMPC, played exactly like a PC, would have been better than what you ran in this scenario.


It really depends on what your players are looking to get out of the game. The last campaign I ran was for my wife and her best friend, neither of whom are terribly experienced players, and they both carried over ~10th level casters from a previous campaign. They're both fairly low-op players and didn't want the hassle of having to handle another character to boot, so they were eventually joined by a couple of other characters to fill out the party. I made sure that the GMPCs contributed to combat without overshadowing (not hard given they were mundanes), and that though they had their own characters, they deferred to the PCs on everything important, butting in only when it was starkly obvious from their character sheets that they would have something relevant to contribute. They also had backstories that hooked into elements of the campaign without being critical to said campaign, which helped to flesh out the world.

They ended up being a great hit. And I think that's because of the last point I mentioned--if you have DMPCs around all the time, they can be a great aid to storytelling, because they're a part of the world you control that is in constant contact with the PCs.

Great to hear a GMPC success story!

So, what do we have? New(ish) players - check. Small party needing more oomph - check. GM with a vested interest in the players - check. GMPC not overshadowing the players - check. Generally deferential - check.

But, contrary to conventional wisdom, we have GMPC being active, butting in, and being connected to the world - and winning and being loved in no small part because of that.

I think we need more GMPC success stories. So, the one I like to tell starts out, once upon a time, when someone agreed to run a module, and we all got excited about it, but then life happened, and the GM bailed. So I agreed to run the module. But, not wanting to not play the module, first time reading it, I asked, "WWDMPCD?". Turns out, what DMPC would do is, push the Questgiver's buttons, and provide the party with useful information. Turns out, all the NPCs in the module were ****s (the party even commented on it when they first interacted with an NPC). Thanks to DMPC, the party learned that said Questgiver was as much of a **** as the other NPCs in the module - as he teleported my "willful" character, who didn't just unquestionally accept the quest, away (and theoretically out of the module).

But, sadly, that doesn't tell us much about what made the DMPC successful. I roleplayed him only having the knowledge I would have had as a player, I cared about the success of the game (enough to run the module when the initial GM bailed), but what else?

Anyone else have any GMPC success stories to add?

[Gnaeus]

Can a DMPC be an equal participant?

Well, in groups with a rotating GM....

I think we need more GMPC success stories. So, the one I like to tell starts out, once upon a time, when someone agreed to run a module, and we all got excited about it, but then life happened, and the GM bailed. So I agreed to run the module. But, not wanting to not play the module, first time reading it, I asked, "WWDMPCD?". Turns out, what DMPC would do is, push the Questgiver's buttons, and provide the party with useful information. Turns out, all the NPCs in the module were ****s (the party even commented on it when they first interacted with an NPC). Thanks to DMPC, the party learned that said Questgiver was as much of a **** as the other NPCs in the module - as he teleported my "willful" character, who didn't just unquestionally accept the quest, away (and theoretically out of the module).

But, sadly, that doesn't tell us much about what made the DMPC successful. I roleplayed him only having the knowledge I would have had as a player, I cared about the success of the game (enough to run the module when the initial GM bailed), but what else?

So, if a Player had mouthed off to the questgiver, they would have been teleported out of the game at the very beginning?

If yes, I have serious doubts about the game.

If no, that probably wasn’t a DMPC, just a regular NPC being used as an exposition tool. Not much different than when “badass NPC gets murdered by bad guys in cut scene to demonstrate to party not to fight the BBEG and his army at once”.

Either way, does nothing to indicate good DMPC use.

Groups with a rotating DM are probably the single worst use of a DMPC. There is no way to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. And actual DM favoritism isn’t really worse than an appearance of DM favoritism. It doesn’t matter if the DM is impartial or awesome, every game presents a new opportunity for perceived bias. A statement like “we used a DMPC like this for an entire campaign and it worked fine” is exactly equal to “I let my kids play with this WW2 unexploded bomb for years and it never exploded”. I mean I’m glad it didn’t, but it is just as bad an idea the twentieth time as the first time. Our LARP group allowed stortytellers to play PCs for years. And it was always ok until suddenly it wasn’t.

[PunBlake]

... Groups with a rotating DM are probably the single worst use of a DMPC. ...

As someone who's played for many years in multiple campaigns from 1-15 with rotating DM, I only partially disagree.

It really depends on each of the rotating DMs' skills in scenario creation (keeping their character contributing but not in center stage) and mental partitioning (player knowledge vs DM knowledge). You also need to trust the people you're playing with to not be biased. If you can't, then you're right, a bomb will eventually go off. However, almost killing your own character is usually hilarious, and when you're DMing with your own character in combat, it's a decent idea to keep your dice in the open when rolling for attacks and damage to promote that trust.

The hardest role to play in a rotating DM campaign is party face, which I personally end up doing a lot. I usually have someone else take over my character at these points so I don't talk to myself. I'm used to running whoever's character didn't show up on the night of the game as well, so asking others to do the same for me for a bit when DMing isn't terrible.

As I'm sure most people can see from the majority of posts in this thread, it takes skill to wear both DM and PC hats at once without coming off as a goofball or overshadowing. Come up with ways for your players to take control of your DMPC or be open about what you're thinking/doing as a character/personality/role, and it's much more manageable.

[Talverin]

There's a lot of super bitter and terrible advice about GMPC's.

When do I use GMPCs?

In a Deathwatch game I run, the party f***ed up. In a big way. On accident, totally, but now they have a Deathwatch... 'Blackshield' accompanying them.

He is neither Deathwatch, nor a Blackshield, but is actually part of a... certain shrouded order.

That is a good time to use a GMPC.

Or when the GMPC is... second-best at whatever the party doesn't have. Or third best.

Oh, yes! You need a healer? I am very good at that! See, I have bandages, and poultices!

Or perhaps they're a healer... Three or so levels below you (When applicable.)

Put serious limitations on what they can do. Have them give advice. Sometimes bad advice. But advice. The party will learn not to rely on them.

A GMPC is a great addition when used with a very small party. Let the understrength party do their own thing, and only intervene as a set piece. You should never roll anything but attacks for a GMPC. If you want the party to know something, your GMPC knows it. If you don't want them to, don't. Your GMPC never crits, but can still crit fail. Your GMPC will never be at the center of the party (Except physically. Because GMPCs should have some kind of awful vulnerability to explain why they aren't being real players like the rest of you.)

GMPCs should be from a moderately wealthy background; enough that they don't need money from adventuring, or are driven by something other than greed, but not so much that the party is constantly begging them for favors.

If the party starts to rely on them too much for something, have it break. Maybe the rope they always forget finally runs out or breaks. Maybe the GMPC's cart gets trampled by a dragon. Maybe his money is stolen by a very nimble thief when the party is elsewhere. A GMPC should always be the kind of character to be mainly forgotten, and remembered only fondly, in a distant sort of manner, like a rather nice man you once spoke to on the bus.

Oh yeah, and NPC levels are a nice balancer.

[Dalmosh]

Just treat them like a normal NPC (but with a bit more depth), and make them have their own agenda that is potentially problematic to the party's goals and make them more roleplay heavy than crunch heavy. This is a million times better than the Leadership feat or undead minionomancy because at least you get to moderate and balance how helpful/unhelpful they are based on what is fun and engaging for the group. There shouldn't be a clear difference between an NPC and a GMPC if you are doing this right. PCs are PCs, everything else is world for the PCs to interact with.


The best and most rewarding encounters my group plays are when I'm being 1-3 memorable NPCs who the party have to interact with through straight roleplay before we get bogged down by rolling lots of d20's.

Since my players never want to play good/heroic characters, there tends to be a high turnover of backstabbing and duping going on anyway, and I'd generally rather focus that on questionably helpful NPCs than have endless PC vs PC shenanigans. Don't get me wrong, I love a bit provided it fits with the story, but it can be overdone pretty quickly - but who doesn't love Lando?

Second paladin - having a totally inflexible preachy badass accompanying the group works well. Mercenary backstabbing rogue/assassin that you REALLY need to work with, but constantly need to keep an eye on in the mean time... nefarious wizard/cleric with a similar short-term goal in mind but something dodgy linked to the next leg of the campaign, the barbarian whose unstable fits of violence constantly undermine the party's plans. You've basically added a whole heap of nuance and fun to a dungeon crawl, which for me at least isn't there when the NPCs in question are Leadershipped into having to be loyal to the party, and become predictable bags of hps that clutter up the background and are hard to keep track of and remember. Nothing aggravates me more than hearing "But what about bland forgettable cohort X who I haven't mentioned all session? They totally would have detected that trap!" It potentially breaks immersion for everybody when players have more than one character, and starts to feel more like a strategy videogame for me.

NPCs are always counterpoints to the PCs to add and advance story elements, even when they are seemingly helping the party. That's how I play the game anyway. Getting bogged down with numbers and loot and stuff is the last thing you should be worrying about with this stuff - unless you are using that in game for a story-telling purpose. If in doubt just give the party proportionately less treasure per encounter if they are trying to take short-cuts this way.

I find if I've done my job well. the players try and recruit my random NPCs to join the party just because they like them anyway, and will try to keep them alive and give them bits of treasure just for the hell of it.