Positive GMPC experiences?

[Tanuki Tales]

As the title states, any one have positive experiences when a GMPC was part of their game sessions? I've never actually encountered one in any of the games I've been in, but I usually only hear horror stories.

[KaussH]

It kinda depends on how they are used. If they are the gm's toy, that tends to be bad. But they can be hired help, temp friends, escorts, prisoners, ect.
So when you say gmpc, what exactly do you mean? :)

[Velaryon]

I have one friend who likes to run GMPC's in games if the party wouldn't be thrown off too much by it. He often fills role gaps that no one else wants, and is always good about not stealing the spotlight.

A few of his more memorable GMPC's for me include:
1. a medic with powered armor in a Star Wars game that was otherwise dominated by Jedi (and one Mandalorian)
2. a Sith Lord's bodyguard in another Star Wars game in which we were all playing dark side characters
3. a nearly indestructible night watchman with a disintegrating touch in a superhero-themed Aberrant game

Another friend ran a pirate-themed D&D 3,5 game many years ago where there were several prominent NPC crew members in addition to the various PCs. A couple of them might arguably have counted as GMPC's, especially the knight we basically kidnapped out of the very first encounter and turned into a crew member (he was named Ringo and had the voice of Wakko from Animaniacs).

[Rusvul]

I played in a 3.5/Pathfinder game once. The party was small, so the DM introduced a pretty prominent Fighter DMPC very early on, and it went great. His name was Sergeant Teagan, and he was excellent because he was a distinct and interesting (often very funny) character--but also solidly disinterested in everything that wasn't a fight, worth money, or directly related to his personal comfort. When the PCs were examining strange mechanisms in some ancient ruin, he would be a non-presence, but he was great when background hijinks were appropriate (or when something needed to be hit with a hammer). He was also occasionally very useful, on account of being comically overprepared and carrying a frankly absurd quantity of mundane goods--everything he needed to live in comfort and then some, plus a half-dozen crossbows so he wouldn't have to reload between shots.

The bare minimum for an okay DMPC is not stealing the spotlight. A great DMPC is also able to contribute to problem-solving in unintrusive ways without stepping on other characters' toes, and is an interesting (or, let's face it, probably mostly just funny) character in their own right.

[Waterdeep Merch]

When they're just called 'NPC's', no one really bats an eye. Players even like having capable allies along with them. They never once consider the fact that these are all essentially GMPC's.

It starts becoming a problem when the GM starts treating a certain NPC favorably over the party, or focuses way too much on them. Only then will players usually call them GMPC's. Much like how a character isn't really a Mary Sue until their nature starts getting irritating, no matter how many signs they show before then.

[JadedDM]

A GMPC, by definition, is bad. It is an NPC that the DM considers their own PC, inserting into the game so that the DM can 'play' as well. It is a NPC that the DM puts at the center of the story, fudges their rolls to make them always succeed, and overshadows everyone else in the group, or even turns them into an audience for the GMPC's heroics.

Any NPC that the DM creates just to flesh out a party, who stays in the background and only offers support, is not a GMPC. That's just an NPC. A henchmen or follower or cohort or companion. Whatever you want to call them.

[chainer1216]

A GMPC, by definition, is bad. It is an NPC that the DM considers their own PC, inserting into the game so that the DM can 'play' as well. It is a NPC that the DM puts at the center of the story, fudges their rolls to make them always succeed, and overshadows everyone else in the group, or even turns them into an audience for the GMPC's heroics.

Any NPC that the DM creates just to flesh out a party, who stays in the background and only offers support, is not a GMPC. That's just an NPC. A henchmen or follower or cohort or companion. Whatever you want to call them.

That's a very narrow view filled with bias and assumptions.

[JadedDM]

It's really not. It's what the term means.

We have all these terms for bad gamers of different stripes. Munchkin. Ruleslawyer. Monty Hauler. GMPC. They all have negative connotations. None of them are good. But people keep trying to water down these terms until they are basically meaningless, and this just seems to cause confusion. So you see people saying things like, "Why are people always so down on ruleslawyers? Having a good knowledge of the rules is beneficial in many ways and..."

But that's not what a ruleslawyer is. It's not someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. It's not someone who quotes the rules to make sure the game is fair and balanced. It's someone who twists the rules to always get their way. Hence the 'lawyer' part.

If you want to redefine GMPC to mean any NPC ever, then you can, of course. But then the term GMPC has no meaning. It's completely interchangeable with NPC, which raises the question, why do people keep asking if they are good or bad?

[zarionofarabel]

Applying JadedDM's logic as to what the difference between the definitions of a GMPC vs. NPC, I'm going with none. GMPCs always turn out poorly. NPCs on the other hand are required for the game to work because the GM needs characters or the PCs would be the only inhabitants of the game universe.

[King of Nowhere]

That's just a matter of semantics. It's about how we define the word.

[Khedrac]

I think most players would define a GMPC as any NPC who is a full member of the adventuring party.

This is not, in itself, a bad thing. Plenty of GMs can run such characters fairly, not using knowledge they shouldn't have or overly favouring the character while successfully making up for low player numbers and/or playing a role that no-one wants to play (I have done so with a D&D 3.5 Healer). If anything, they may bias against the character in trying to avoid bias!

It is when the GM starts to have their characters dominate the proceedings and/or bias rolls or loot in their favour that an issue develops.

Personally I thought this was what was referred to as a "Mary Sue" character and was a bad sub-set of GMPCs. If you define GMPC that way then yes, you are right they are always bad, but I don't think the term "GMPC" has those connotations that you can assume people will know that that is what you mean.
To most people it is simply a PC (i.e. party member) run by the GM.

[AdmiralCheez]

One of our group's rotating DMs loves to use them, and they're quite effective. He always uses them as a "guide" type character, someone who can be there to fill in background information about places the party is in, and contribute advice when it's desperately needed. Otherwise, they sit in the background, out of the spotlight. They never take the lead on anything, they don't outshine players in combat, they're just there to add a companion to talk to, and get information from, and that seems to work really well for our group.

[Pleh]

It's really not. It's what the term means.

We have all these terms for bad gamers of different stripes. Munchkin. Ruleslawyer. Monty Hauler. GMPC. They all have negative connotations. None of them are good. But people keep trying to water down these terms until they are basically meaningless, and this just seems to cause confusion. So you see people saying things like, "Why are people always so down on ruleslawyers? Having a good knowledge of the rules is beneficial in many ways and..."

But that's not what a ruleslawyer is. It's not someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. It's not someone who quotes the rules to make sure the game is fair and balanced. It's someone who twists the rules to always get their way. Hence the 'lawyer' part.

If you want to redefine GMPC to mean any NPC ever, then you can, of course. But then the term GMPC has no meaning. It's completely interchangeable with NPC, which raises the question, why do people keep asking if they are good or bad?

The problem is that *people* frequently don't fit group labels. The entire idea of absolutely defined descriptors for people always become self defeating, because invariably you find those edge cases that challenge the very concept. Either the descriptor gradually becomes so broad as to become meaningless, or so narrow as to become useless.

I think it far more useful to think of these terms as not implying a very specific type of person, but more a general mode of behavior and accompanying attitudes and presumptions.

We created the term, "munchkin" in order to define a problem we were experiencing with this Modus Operandi it describes, but not everything within this described behavior is a problem for all groups at all times.

No, I agree that *not all* rules lawyers are living rule compendiums and many are the childish, one sided debators who try and leverage or manipulate any game advantage they can. And the latter is more the complaint people raise when talking about Rules Lawyers.

But this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't refer to the living rules compendium people as ruled lawyers, or that the term loses its meaning if we do.

Because people understand that our language has room for nuance. We can use the variance of these terms to expand the conversation around the problems they highlight, especially because they can ALSO highlight how these individuals aren't ALWAYS causing problems by their behavior. We can understand the real problems better by letting terms like these be less one dimensional.

[comicshorse]

In an Eberron game we ended up with a party with no magic user (Halfling Dinosaur Rider, Shifter Ranger and a Drunken Monk). T o ensure we didn't just die the GM played an Elven Healer. Worked great, the Healer didn't steal anybody's role, kept us alive and moving and was a useful contact into areas of the city and groups we'd otherwise have no 'In' with

[False God]

I almost always play one since I have a small group of friends and I would only get to play once in a blue moon otherwise.

But I have a few rules to follow:
Don't build cheese.
Build for party usefulness.
Let the players act first.

Having a DMPC is also useful for expositing information that shouldn't require a role, but would feel more natural coming from in the game rather than outside of it; or helping the party find a clue to move the game forward if they're doing poorly on their rolls.

[Mastikator]

I've had many good experiences with NPCs that travel with the party, but these almost never contribute in battle, never contribute with a plan, never give the party any orders- only quests/missions. I think if an NPC were to become "one of the group" it would be a negative experience.
IMO there is no excuse from the DM to insert them. The DM doesn't have to give the group a healer if they lack one, he can give them healing potions or make healers in towns available and give a larger treasure reward so they can afford it, he can adjust the encounters.

For the GM to add his own PC would create a conflict of interest with his GM duties which is where all these horror stories come from. It's a bad idea and it's not necessary, it really isn't, no not even then.

[The Insanity]

Every time I GM.

[Alcore]

Mongoose Traveller.

It was a standard game, in that the PCs were a traveling band on a merchant ship trying to earn money for retirement. It ran more like cowboy bebop. Still had to pay the bills. So the party forgot to make someone competent at trading.


Enter Bob (A.K.A The Golden Goose) who went well over term limit and fudged a few skill rolls. Came out of character gen with broker 4 and an edu bonus. That was his only positive stat as he was potbellied, balding, glassy eyed, washup has-been. He could cover for any PC with his skills but trust me you don't normally want that... it was a bad day when he was doing anything that didn't revolve around his education stat.


But as long as the cargo hold was stocked he could crap out gold bars on demand at the next planet.


Once sold 80 tons of beans for x15 profit to cost margin.

[Batcathat]

As already been pointed out, it depends on how we define a GMPC. If it's "a character the GM consistently plays the same way a player does" I'd say it probably can be done well but probably not very often and personally I don't really see a point to it. Even if the GM plays fair and doesn't put their character in the spotlight more than anyone else, I suspect it could still be an issue since I think the GM's focus should be on the group and world as a whole, rather than a specific character.

Most of that's admittedly just theory. I haven't used a GMPC myself since very early in my GM:ing career (for long stretches I only had a single player and even then the GMPC kinda came and went a lot, if I remember correctly) and the rare ones I have encountered as a player has varied between "kinda okay" and "really wish they weren't here".

[OldTrees1]

It's really not. It's what the term means.

We have all these terms for bad gamers of different stripes. Munchkin. Ruleslawyer. Monty Hauler. GMPC. They all have negative connotations. None of them are good. But people keep trying to water down these terms until they are basically meaningless, and this just seems to cause confusion. So you see people saying things like, "Why are people always so down on ruleslawyers? Having a good knowledge of the rules is beneficial in many ways and..."

But that's not what a ruleslawyer is. It's not someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. It's not someone who quotes the rules to make sure the game is fair and balanced. It's someone who twists the rules to always get their way. Hence the 'lawyer' part.

If you want to redefine GMPC to mean any NPC ever, then you can, of course. But then the term GMPC has no meaning. It's completely interchangeable with NPC, which raises the question, why do people keep asking if they are good or bad?

I notice that your definition is not universally shared and that difference in definition explains why people keep asking a question that you find so self evident.

In most cases I have heard DMPC defined as DM using an NPC as a PC (in contrast to all other types of NPC). Now you will notice that definition does not have the negative denotation but does contain lots of risk for negative mistakes. That would lead to a generally negative connotation to the neutral denotation. That dissonance between denotation and connotation also explains the observed pattern of people asking if there are any positive GMPC experiences.

And yes, there are positive GMPC experiences. They are far and few between but they exist. They are rare enough that I have seen between 0 and 1 total.*

However examples I have heard that worked are:
1) Some groups are just okay with it.
2) A support PC that is there to help heighten the spotlight on other PCs.
3) Hired help that fills an undesirable by valued hole. Healbot DMPC is a common example. Although I think a Rogue DMPC showed up once.
4) An NPC that the Players grew attached to and made into a DMPC.


*I was an assistant DM for another DM and they structured the separate of duties to allow me to be a player with a PC during the sessions. I also ran it as a healbot NPC. Whether it counts as a DMPC or not is questionably, but it was a positive experience for the group.

[Quertus]

A GMPC, by definition, is bad. It is an NPC that the DM considers their own PC, inserting into the game so that the DM can 'play' as well. It is a NPC that the DM puts at the center of the story, fudges their rolls to make them always succeed, and overshadows everyone else in the group, or even turns them into an audience for the GMPC's heroics.

Any NPC that the DM creates just to flesh out a party, who stays in the background and only offers support, is not a GMPC. That's just an NPC. A henchmen or follower or cohort or companion. Whatever you want to call them.


That's a very narrow view filled with bias and assumptions.


It's really not. It's what the term means.

We have all these terms for bad gamers of different stripes. Munchkin. Ruleslawyer. Monty Hauler. GMPC. They all have negative connotations. None of them are good. But people keep trying to water down these terms until they are basically meaningless, and this just seems to cause confusion. So you see people saying things like, "Why are people always so down on ruleslawyers? Having a good knowledge of the rules is beneficial in many ways and..."

But that's not what a ruleslawyer is. It's not someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. It's not someone who quotes the rules to make sure the game is fair and balanced. It's someone who twists the rules to always get their way. Hence the 'lawyer' part.

If you want to redefine GMPC to mean any NPC ever, then you can, of course. But then the term GMPC has no meaning. It's completely interchangeable with NPC, which raises the question, why do people keep asking if they are good or bad?

Clearly, how we define the term will affect people's responses.

My question is, can the term "Mary Sue" be applied to PCs? If so, then "GMPCs" defined as Mary Sue's in GM's hands could still give the words a distinct meaning.

I say as someone who uses DMPC to mean any PC-like experience from the GM, even if they are not a Mary Sue. I say as a self-proclaimed Rules Lawyer, which I define as someone interested in debating the rules, regardless of their knowledge or whether they exclusively argue for the side most advantageous to themselves.


Applying JadedDM's logic as to what the difference between the definitions of a GMPC vs. NPC, I'm going with none. GMPCs always turn out poorly. NPCs on the other hand are required for the game to work because the GM needs characters or the PCs would be the only inhabitants of the game universe.

Untrue: you can run a game with no NPCs, only PCs, where the GM has 0 parts to play, and only acts as arbiter of the rules.


I've had many good experiences with NPCs that travel with the party, but these almost never contribute in battle, never contribute with a plan, never give the party any orders- only quests/missions. I think if an NPC were to become "one of the group" it would be a negative experience.
IMO there is no excuse from the DM to insert them. The DM doesn't have to give the group a healer if they lack one, he can give them healing potions or make healers in towns available and give a larger treasure reward so they can afford it, he can adjust the encounters.

For the GM to add his own PC would create a conflict of interest with his GM duties which is where all these horror stories come from. It's a bad idea and it's not necessary, it really isn't, no not even then.

When you have a rotating GM? When the GM disappears and a player takes over? When there aren't enough players / PCs?

[Cluedrew]

Back when I played a lot of free-form games the moderator would often create a PC. Sometimes it would be a mentor/quest-giver (so really just a major NPC) but other times they would be indistinguishable from the other characters.

[Mastikator]

Clearly, how we define the term will affect people's responses.

[snip]

When you have a rotating GM? When the GM disappears and a player takes over? When there aren't enough players / PCs?

In all of my many RP groups we've always had the same rule: for players that are not present their PC fades into the aether, they use no resources, they lose no resources, they don't contribute.

If there's a rotating GM: We did the same as above with the GMs PC with one exception: the GMs PC still gets their share of loot and exp.

If there's not enough PCs? The GM can adjust the difficulty of encounters.

If there's not enough players? Well the GM isn't one so that doesn't count anyway.

[Dimers]

I'm in a 2e AD&D game with a frequently rotating cast. One of the party stalwarts is the GM's wild mage, who has more XP than almost any other character because the GM is always present. (Circumstances take him out of some encounters and he gets no roleplaying XP, so he's not the absolute highest.) Sometimes he's in the spotlight; occasionally he solves an encounter with a spell, whether on purpose or accidentally -- wild mage, doncha know -- or a stashed item. He's a good character and the whole group enjoys having him around, including when he's center stage. It's not a big deal.

That's my easiest example of a positive GMPC experience. I've had lots of good and neutral ones, and only one negative that I can recall, in a Deadlands campaign.

[RifleAvenger]

Ran a several year long game where the party built up a survivor's headquarters in an apocalyptic scenario. Some NPCs rescued had class levels, or could get them, and I let the PCs take one at a time whenever they did missions. All had their own personalities and stories, and had some degree of agency, but generally deferred to the PCs (because they respected them). Went over very well.

In another game I'm playing in, the GM inserts a 4th party member because he doesn't want to recalculate encounters for 3 PCs (two of which are low-tier martials, and the third is an Occultist Arcanist God-Wizard style character). The 4th rotates adventure to adventure, but they very much have their own ideas and ideals given their attachment to the plot at hand. I've liked all of them OOC, despite having severe differences of opinion with one ICly.

Currently running a game where a backstory character meant to be a bodyguard for the PC's patron ultimately got dragged into adventuring with them actively, and is pretty much 100% a GMPC at this point. Has a more personal connection to the current plot than most of the PCs, but that's because the PCs partly selected this mission arc because it had to do with her. I made her personality such that she's a poor face and not a good planner, but she's willful in her own ways. The character is much liked by all except one of the PCs, who is indifferent (and the GM of the game with the rotating guest character detailed above).

I'm sure that many of the people in this thread would likely hate some or all of these characters, but my lived experience with semi-to-permanent NPC party members is strongly positive.

Not that I don't see problems; in the first and last games mentioned, I think PC focus on developing relationships with the NPCs atrophied interest in developing strong off-mission relationships between the PCs. This is less an issue with the second since the NPCs there are guaranteed to walk out of the party's lives by adventure's end.

[Cybren]

I agree with the idea that using “DMPC” to mean “any npc accompanying the party as being rather odd. The term is itself a pejorative, it does not mean “any npc”, or even any npc that insists on getting a share of treasure or influencing group decisions. It refers to a specific kind of negative table experience where the DM uses an NPC as an author insert or central protagonist

[King of Nowhere]

I I think if an NPC were to become "one of the group" it would be a negative experience.
IMO there is no excuse from the DM to insert them. The DM doesn't have to give the group a healer if they lack one, he can give them healing potions or make healers in towns available and give a larger treasure reward so they can afford it, he can adjust the encounters.

For the GM to add his own PC would create a conflict of interest with his GM duties which is where all these horror stories come from. It's a bad idea and it's not necessary, it really isn't, no not even then.

in my experience, if the gm can create compelling npcs and get the players interested in the world, the players themselves will want to bring some npc with them on adventures. because it's their friend, because they respect the guy, because it would make sense story-wise to get some help. perhaps not as a full time party member, but certainly they will want to share some adventures.
in my previous campaign i had to try to dissuade my players from getting more of those. I'm proud of that, as it means i created npcs that the players liked. and many of those were former enemies that the players managed to persuade to their side

none of those npcs was a full party member, so it's up to you whether you'd consider them dmpc or not. but regardless, having npcs adventure with the party can be done right

[OldTrees1]

I agree with the idea that using “DMPC” to mean “any npc accompanying the party as being rather odd. The term is itself a pejorative, it does not mean “any npc”, or even any npc that insists on getting a share of treasure or influencing group decisions. It refers to a specific kind of negative table experience where the DM uses an NPC as an author insert or central protagonist

I notice there is a large jump from "any npc" and "central protagonist". Not even a PC is the "center protagonist" because there are multiple PCs. So what about "DMPC" meaning the DM has a PC? That situation has a high risk of negative experience (explaining the pejorative connotation) while also having a use denotation for answering threads like this in an informative rather than trivial manner.

[Mastikator]

in my experience, if the gm can create compelling npcs and get the players interested in the world, the players themselves will want to bring some npc with them on adventures. because it's their friend, because they respect the guy, because it would make sense story-wise to get some help. perhaps not as a full time party member, but certainly they will want to share some adventures.
in my previous campaign i had to try to dissuade my players from getting more of those. I'm proud of that, as it means i created npcs that the players liked. and many of those were former enemies that the players managed to persuade to their side

none of those npcs was a full party member, so it's up to you whether you'd consider them dmpc or not. but regardless, having npcs adventure with the party can be done right

No. NPCs are forbidden. Even creatures, animals and mindless zombies are not allowed. If you break this law then the RPG police will arrest you and you will spend the rest of your life in prison experiencing the worst torture known to mankind: a railroad campaign.


Okay but seriously, GMPCs are a bit like art: you can't really define it but you'll know it when you see it. And worse of all we may end up disagreeing on what it is. As far as I can see this disagreement on what an GMPC is an impasse. If you think any NPC that sticks around is a GMPC then just put an asterisk in your mind that when you see me talk about GMPCs I'm not talking about what you are talking about.

The Players job (one of) is to win. The GMs job is to be a fair referee and game narrator/simulator. If the GM is also a player then he has conflicting goals. And like I said it's not necessary. The GM can adjust the game.

If the players have a hireling or a VIP to protect or a quest giver then those are all NPCs, the GM's goal is not for the hireling to survive. The quest giver should not be the GM's avatar in the game. The VIP is just a mcguffin with legs. The players have the spotlight, the GM casts the spotlight.

[Guizonde]

turns out i got really lucky during my first time dm'ing. i statted out all important npc's, and during one fight, i had to play two of them for roleplay reasons mostly. one was an expert infiltrator and sniper, and the other was an extremely charismatic beatstick. both were statted as endgame pc's would be. nothing broken or fudged, just characters that had the dnd equivalent of 15 more levels than the pc's. they fought in a very roleplay manner, add to that they threw out quips and insight (things like: "you! hold the flank with me to save the close quarter combattants!"). by the end of it, they heartily thanked the pc's, gave them a part of their kit, and the pc's were off on their mission. these npc's kinda became de facto pc favorites, and each time they saw them as the campaign progressed, the players fawned over them, compared their achievements with them, and the players saw the progress they were making. what at first stank of dm preference was just unlocked talents/feats and gear. by the end of the campaign, the pc's asked the two npc's "help" for the last battle. they knew they didn't need the help, they did it just for sharing the glory. one of those npc's was mortally wounded in the battle, and the pc's spent a quarter of the epilogue saving his life. the beatstick, who as said was crazy charismatic, actually became a recurring character controlled by 3 dm's, and it's always a pleasure for the players to see him in action.

we consider the beatstick to be a dmpc and not an npc because it's become tradition for dm's to have a go at a fight while playing him. he's got his personality and style, so it's not a mary sue overpowered character like one would assume, it's just fun for everyone to see him hit something very big with a very big axe.

another difference is that with my friends, we don't fully stat most story npc's, just the relevant ones (for example, the black marketeer will have his social stats rolled, but nothing on physical or combat). since the beastick has a character sheet and is treated like a pc in every way but having a fixed player, he's simply different.

he died peacefully at the venerable age of 96, loved by everyone. his legacy has lived on, since his signature weapon was mass-manufactured and named after him.

the rest of my friends who have seen this dmpc in action hold him as the golden standard for how a dmpc should be done correctly. what i haven't talked about is how many times i've seen mary sue dmpc's in action, so when i figured out i had to play him, i knew what not to do.

[Batcathat]

the beatstick, who as said was crazy charismatic, actually became a recurring character controlled by 3 dm's, and it's always a pleasure for the players to see him in action.


Obviously I don't know your group but I would guess that the character being recurring, rather than a party member who's always there, probably helped with him being liked. Not unlike how some bit characters in shows or movies can be beloved by the audience but when they get promoted to main character they're not as popular.

Personally, I wouldn't call what you describe a GMPC since it wasn't there all the time and from what you describe it wasn't so much the GM's PC as an unusually detailed NPC. But as this thread has shown, there are different definitions of GMPC.

[Psyren]

I'm struggling with the definition a bit too. I can think of four broad categories to help define this topic, based on degree of involvement.

1) No involvement - the GM does not control any characters that help the party during combat - only controlling hostiles, and perhaps some neutral (and largely unhelpful) participants like fleeing civilians, hostages, or victims/slaves.

2) Some involvement - For certain encounters, the GM controls one or more NPCs that are helpful to the PCs. For example, if the PCs are defending a town from raiders, it would be silly for the local guard/militia to not be involved, and their help (or that of their commander) may even be effective. However, there will also be many encounters without this sort of addition.

3) Recurring Involvement - while not around all the time, the GM controls one or more recurring characters that will show up throughout the campaign to assist the PCs in some way. Perhaps they're exploring a jungle, and renowned treasure hunter Harrison Jones happens to be in the area - he has his own agenda and reasons for being there, but he'll tend to cross paths with the PCs at opportune times such as if they get lost, or need relevant plot information. In several encounters, this character might be present, but may be doing something important offscreen (e.g. flipping switches) instead of fighting, or he might be fully participating in combat alongside the PCs.

4) Full Involvement - the GM controls one or more characters that are permanent fixtures of the party - travelling where they travel, camping where they camp, and being present for all (or nearly all) of their encounters to fight at their side.

Personally I consider the "GMPC" label to start at #3 - and I can easily envision examples of #3 that would be positive for the game overall. but I could also see other folks who either take a much broader view (GMPCs can start at #2) or a much narrower one (it has to be #4 to count as a GMPC, everything below that is just an NPC.)

As #4 is the hardest do do well, I would imagine most of the folks who have an immediate negative reaction to the term "GMPC" equate it with that one, though they could be thinking of the other numbers as well.

[Tvtyrant]

So I think visually DMPCs look like PCs. An NPC might be a knight, but a DMNPC is a Knight riding a totally sick werewolf that is her transformed boyfriend wielding a lance of light. The wizard that accompanies them to explain lore is an NPC, but Gerald Hearthsaver of the Million Spelltattoes is probably a DMNPC. In other words, PCs look like derpy super heroes almost every time and NPCs look like they fit in to the setting.

[AdmiralCheez]

The definition I go with is that DMPCs have the same power level as the rest of the party, share the same loot pool, stay with the party the whole campaign, and basically function the same as a PC, but played by the DM.

Regular NPCs will generally have more plot relevance, the potential for special treatment, have their own agenda separate from the goals of the party, aren't always around, or have their own resources and power level. They're something to interact with, but aren't a part of the party.

[Velaryon]

The positive experiences I listed with GMPCs involved characters who:

Received an equal share of experience points
Received an equal share of loot
Was present in every game session after being introduced
Had a voice in making party decisions, either equal to or just slightly less than the other PCs
Was controlled by the GM/DM, but otherwise functioned as a PC in any and every way
Almost always filled out a role that no one else wanted to play, or helped fill out a party that otherwise had too few players


So to me, saying "that doesn't count as a GMPC because it doesn't meet the pejorative definition" makes absolutely no sense. In all ways but one (being controlled by the GM) they resemble a PC rather than an NPC, so what sense is there in saying that's an NPC, not a PC?

[Lord Torath]

The only positive DMPC experiences I can think of are the ones where I was the DM. I like to think my players had a good time, as I never heard any complaints, and I was generous with loot for everyone, but it was my fighter who ended up with a young red dragon for a mount, and my mage who ended up with wings sprouting from her shoulders. It's been a couple of decades, and I'm no longer a teenager.

I don't do DM PCs anymore. There may be NPCs that tag along for an adventure or two, but they get half-shares of xp, and don't stick around after their bit of the story is done.

[Fredaintdead]

The main positive one ive seen so far is one ive done myself.
He's called CJ (it's short for Siege Engine), a Warforged Fighter/Paladin.
Originally he was just put in to give a very squishy party a frontliner. Their first quest was to investigate the ruin that he was buried in and they woke him up. They then made several choices to decide his Fighting Style, weaponry and subclass.
He's a big gentle boy and they love him for it, even going as far as to go out of their way to look for upgrades for him, and help him develop as a Paladin of the Allhammer (which resulted in him forging cool items for each player).
Overall he's a full party member. He got a share of exp up until we switched to Milestone, and by their choice gets a treasure sharw, which he's used to buy materials to build things for them and even buy them a big house in the dwarven capital. He contributes to decisions (though tends to just support ideas), and is played by me, but if the players have ever disliked having him around theyve kept it very well hidden (I will never forget the look of horror on a player's face when CJ got KO'd by a Vrock at Level 4. Probably didnt help that I described the hit as tearing a rent open in his chest).

So, yeah, that's CJ, he's shaped like a friend and rides around on an armoured mini-elephant.

[solidork]

There is a very long running Werewolf: the Forsaken actual play over on RPG.net where the GM did pretty much everything you're not "supposed" to do with an NPC party member and as far as I can tell the players were extremely into it. The game ran for like five years and completed the planned storyline.

[RifleAvenger]

There is a very long running Werewolf: the Forsaken actual play over on RPG.net where the GM did pretty much everything you're not "supposed" to do with an NPC party member and as far as I can tell the players were extremely into it. The game ran for like five years and completed the planned storyline.

Ties That Bind and Detroit Rock City both did this.

Ultimately, I think GMPCs are not an universal evil never to be done. They're dependent on GM execution and player buy-in, and badly tainted by some awful examples in the early days of story-driven metaplots. I do hypothesize that they'll likely work best in small groups (Ties That Bind was a one PC game, Detriot Rock City was a 2 PC game), as once the player count reaches 4+ you generally have a full ensemble cast right there.

[False God]

It's terrible when any participant at the table is a selfish egomaniac who wants to twist the campaign to be all about their PC and by extension, themselves. It's just easier for a DM to do this and the players only recourse is often to throw away all their time and investment and walk away from the game.

The "rules for DMPCs" can be honestly applied to everyone and really come down to one golden rule: "Don't be selfish."
And almost every "sub rule" I can think of is just a variant of that. "Don't make the game about you." "Don't give yourself things you haven't earned." And so on.

Reasonably speaking, we've all had our share of horrible players too, there's just typically 4/1 of those players/DM and DMs will typically see far more players than that than players will see DMs. We learned from those situations and made better characters, the DM is no exception.

Quite likely, the problematic DMPC we've all experienced was not the one flaw in that DM's otherwise flawless armor.

[Lvl45DM!]

I actually have a great track record with DMPCs in my games.

I play with two groups, one of which has a sprawling 30 year old campaign with about 8 different parties and people coming in and out at various intervals. My dad and I DM it. So we have characters that fit into certain parties even if we are DMing. Fair point they are normally clerics, because 1st Edition clerics make great DMPCs. But I've DMPC'd Mackord, Son of Kord, a barbarian with a girdle of cloud giant strength. I was the heaviest hitter in the party, a fully developed character and a source of comedy. But I didnt solve problems with the party, cos, I'm an idiot. But I also had Mithra Goldcrusher, my Dwarf Fighter/Cleric who secretly worshipped Llolth. He was cunning and evil but worked with the party. I had a great reason to tone down some of his better spells since summoning Yochlols would get him in trouble with the paladin, but he had the funniest rivalry with the other dwarf in the party.

Meanwhile my dad has had Banad the cleric, who, when we time travelled back to dino times, ended up fathering the human race, Lord Atran, a pompous and ruthless elven fighter/mage who everyone hates, but in a good way, and Hartog, the dwarf wielding Blackrazor, who ended up being the source and centre of an ongoing Cold War between every fighter and thief in the party because we all wanted Blackrazor, until we finally backstabbed him, and the wizard fireballed his corpse. Best evil storyline ever

The other group didnt have the sprawling campaign, but i wanted to play. So i just had characters in there. They uh...they died. Alot. About the time the party decided they were going to bring Cthulhu into the world to rule portions of it, i realized that my old NPC's that gave quests out no longer made sense, so I made an NPC they forced to read the Necronomicon into my DMPC. In a party of ruthless insane maniacal backstabbers, Kevin (they didn't like his name so they changed it) was a source of stability and wisdom, and also was totally encouraging of their insanity, if not their backstabbing. When they found the +4 Prismatic Scythe they chose Kevin to be the one to get it, because they liked him so much.

DMPC's are bad when the pull TOO MUCH limelight. But with the right group, they can be wonderful and make DMing more fun.

[Guizonde]

Obviously I don't know your group but I would guess that the character being recurring, rather than a party member who's always there, probably helped with him being liked. Not unlike how some bit characters in shows or movies can be beloved by the audience but when they get promoted to main character they're not as popular.

Personally, I wouldn't call what you describe a GMPC since it wasn't there all the time and from what you describe it wasn't so much the GM's PC as an unusually detailed NPC. But as this thread has shown, there are different definitions of GMPC.

he was liked day one. you could call his recurrence more of a "fan favorite demand", any excuse is good. when applicable, he became the de facto dm-controlled npc.

i seem to have a similar concept going with my current dark heresy game, where i treat the inquisitor (the dm personnified) as a pc who doesn't know everything about the game. he just pulls strings, gives suggestions and directives, and finds clues based on rolls during the investigation. i talked to the players about what i was aiming for based on recommandations in the rulebook during session zero, they said "go for it". the inquisitor is mostly well-liked. unique personnality, well roleplayed, has a habit of torturing the mental health of his team or putting them through the wringer emotionnally. usually there to save the team's bacon thanks to political influence and access to paramedics. i did roll up a profile for the inquisitor that is "telepathy psyker" and "sage", so really a support character, with endgame stats as well. no complaints so far, and i ask regularly. in this game, even as i specified by rp'ing the inquisitor that the team had operational ground control for the mission, the players insist on checking with the inquisitor if he's ok with their plan, and keeping them abreast of the situation. at first i found it a bit odd and grating (i wanted to encourage more spontaneity), but the players found that giving a recap to "the boss" helps keep their plans fresh in their minds and their notes readable. i won't complain. the inquisitor will, though, last session he got shanghai'ed by politics into participating in a ball, two of the players jumped on the chance to infiltrate high society. i'm giving the players access to a very powerful npc on the frontlines, i'll see how it plays out.

[Composer99]

A GMPC is, literally, a PC played by the GM. That is, such a character is a character with the same in-game role as the other player characters - for whatever that means at any given table.

Taking the term literally makes it clear that, in and of itself, it is not inherently a pejorative term.

However, the way most games define the roles of players and GMs, the GM isn't meant to play characters who fill that in-game role. With that in mind, there's good reason to think GMs ought to be careful about bringing such characters into the game, and the plenitude of horror stories about GMPCs shows that GMs often aren't careful, whether willfully or unwittingly.



Untrue: you can run a game with no NPCs, only PCs, where the GM has 0 parts to play, and only acts as arbiter of the rules.


That... doesn't seem possible in most table-top RPGs? I suppose you could (a) sensibly exclude creatures of "animal" intelligence or that are otherwise mindless from the category of NPC, and (b) play in a game where those are the only creatures in the game other than the PCs. Or, I suppose, you could adopt a rather idiosyncratic definition of the term.

But beyond that, any game is necessarily going to have NPCs. The slavers or brigands the PCs run into on the road? NPCs. The lich whose tower overlooks the escarpment they're standing on? An NPC. The innkeeper or shopkeeper that the PCs interact with in town? NPCs. The GM might use scripts or random guidance to determine the behaviour of such creatures, but they are still NPCs, as far as I understand the term.

[OldTrees1]

That... doesn't seem possible in most table-top RPGs?

Consider, what if the PCs were the only people. Most of the RP would be between each other with the world as a catalyst. Most of the challenge would be from the world rather than from other people. This could be a spaceship, a trapped dungeon (the movie Cube) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film)), a wasteland, a new world (lost in space original series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_Space))

From Dread to D&D or Paranoia to Pokemon, you don't technically need NPCs. But you probably do have NPCs. I think Quertus was having fun pointing out a technicality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo).


Sidenote:
I agree with you comment about the literal meaning of GMPC not being inherently a pejorative term, but the inherent risks make it generally prone to merit the pejorative.

[Alcore]

That... doesn't seem possible in most table-top RPGs?

But beyond that, any game is necessarily going to have NPCs.In most. Most you said. No, they are not necessary.

Fields of Blood, the Book of War can play without them if no random event or exploration generates NPC armies to fight against and if the scale stays at the kingdom level. The game rules do allow each player to manage their own kingdom and fight each other. The book goes so far as to suggest getting rid of the DM at one point.

NPCless and GMless games can happen.

[comicshorse]

In most. Most you said. No, they are not necessary.

Fields of Blood, the Book of War can play without them if no random event or exploration generates NPC armies to fight against and if the scale stays at the kingdom level. The game rules do allow each player to manage their own kingdom and fight each other. The book goes so far as to suggest getting rid of the DM at one point.



Surely at this point you're playing a Wargame not a RPG

[Unavenger]

The question is, if there are two competing definitions, and one of them makes the question meaningless, why can't all the linguistic prescriptivists in this thread humour the OP and roll with the definition that doesn't make the question meaningless long enough to answer it?

[Mastikator]

The question is, if there are two competing definitions, and one of them makes the question meaningless, why can't all the linguistic prescriptivists in this thread humour the OP and roll with the definition that doesn't make the question meaningless long enough to answer it?

Equivocation is one hell of a drug. And debating semantics is way more fun than talking about something of substance.

[Alcore]

The question is, if there are two competing definitions, and one of them makes the question meaningless, why can't all the linguistic prescriptivists in this thread humour the OP and roll with the definition that doesn't make the question meaningless long enough to answer it?

To continue the previous with thoughts of my own...


"And debating semantics is" a great way of showing the nuances of a word. If the OP wants a complete and total picture he needs to read all arguements. Then, inevitably, he'll come to a meaning he likes; possibly creating yet a different argument/nuance.



Surely at this point you're playing a Wargame not a RPGindeed.

But you can still role play the commanders, the troops, anything. It is still tabletop and is no less metagaming than each and every adventurer using the most efficient tactic against a monster they know nothing about regardless of mental attribute shortcomings...

[Quertus]

Imagine a one-shot - set, say, at a royal ball, or an abandoned space station, where every single person is a PC.

Or, heck, look at Among Us.

There are no NPCs; the GM just adjudicates the rules.

Looking at more videogames, Diablo requires NPCs; League of Legends does not.

It is entirely possible to play a game where the entirely of "uptime" (as opposed to downtime) contains exactly 0 NPCs for the GM to run.

Granted, yes, this would certainly be expected to be the rare event in D&D, which is usually about murdering and looting the corpses of NPC creatures - but even in D&D I've played sessions which involved exactly zero NPCs¹.

So, certainly, in the broader realm of RPGs, one shouldn't have much difficulty imagining this as possible without delving into war game territory.

¹ due to a blizzard, most players missed a session; those of us who were foolish enough to show up had our PCs chat while on watch. Great change of pace.

[Draconi Redfir]

i played with a DM who had a DMPC here on the forums once, worked out pretty well I'd say.

DM was pretty good about keeping DM information away from PC information, so it never really felt like the DMPC knew more then the players did unless there was good reason, like it was something the DMPC would have spent a lot of time researching.

it also helped fill in a role the rest of the party lacked. We didn't really have any kind of full-arcane caster, so the DM made a wizard who helped fill that role for us. For the most part he didn't do anything to actively drive the plot forwards, maybe subtly giving clues or ideas to other PC's for them to figure out, but still nothing beyond what the DMPC would know as a character.

it's pretty good if done right.

[GravityEmblem]

Using JadedDM's definition, I never encountered a GMPC. I have, however, played with a DM who had a couple character in the parties. He was relatively young, though, and a first/second-time DM, so I can't really fault him, especially since he rolled publicly in both cases. :smalltongue: His sister had something closer to a GMPC when she ran a game, though they still weren't a combatant, and only stayed with the party for a few sessions. It was enough of one to get on my nerves, but it was her first time running a game, and she was 12, so I couldn't get mad at her.

[HumanFighter]

I personally do not like using GMPCs. I feel it "dilutes the mixture" and yeah it is a conflict of interest.
One of my players often insists I use a GMPC for the campaigns I play with him, because he is afraid of dying and thinks he needs the help. Bah!
I'm all for giving the players an occasional NPC companion, but they have to be earned, and they are nothing special. They're like the NPC companions in Skyrim, with cardboard personalities and can be killed (most of the time, when they're not randomly disappearing)
Although I like the idea of an NPC companion having an "Honor" stat which will determine whether they will leave the service of the player if the player does something really evil.
And no, you don't need the Leadership feat to have followers and cohorts. That's stupid.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The best GMPCs I've seen have been useful support characters with distinct personalities which don't require them to hog the spotlight. For instance, the low-level wizard with plenty of utility spells, an obsessive but quiet interest in one of the PCs, and a slowly escalating fear of the PCs dragging him into dangerous places to do things since that keeps ending with him getting hurt.

[farothel]

I most often see them in Shadowrun games where it's often the hacker (or decker, depending on how you want to call it). The matrix is a quite complex thing that not a lot of players and GMs really like to play, so that role is often filled by the GM (an NPC or GMPC however you want to define it) so it's still there and the GM can give some plot exposition over the matrix and security during runs.

Outside of that I've not really seen it being used.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I have a recurring joke, where I'll introduce a fake DMPC. I go all out with the ham, making them as cringe and insufferable as possible as they loudly force their way into the group. Then, in the very first round of the very first combat, the DMPC gets killed off in a hilarious way. My players have laughed out loud every time, so I consider it a success.

(Granted, I don't think it would work so well if I pulled this on a group I've never played with before, who don't know it's a joke. They'd be likely to revolt as soon as the DMPC appears and not give me time to get to the payoff.)

I've also had a DMPC join the group and be insufferable for a sidequest, where they get the horrible death at the end of the sidequest instead of immediately. That one was less enjoyable as he kinda wore out his welcome, but I'd still call it a success.

[zarionofarabel]

I have a recurring joke, where I'll introduce a fake DMPC. I go all out with the ham, making them as cringe and insufferable as possible as they loudly force their way into the group. Then, in the very first round of the very first combat, the DMPC gets killed off in a hilarious way. My players have laughed out loud every time, so I consider it a success.

Okay, I take it back, this IS an awesome use of a DMPC!

[aglondier]

I think we've all had a game where the players are left sitting around watching as the amazing gmpc saves the day, gets the girl and rides off into the sunset with the lions share of the loot...

I was involved in a group where we kinda round robined the role of GM, and so all had a pc in the party for when we were a player. It worked out quite well for us, as it gave an easy in for plot hooks, or let characters achieve longer downtime tasks while the party kept going. My mage was also the local Baron's court mage (as well as one of his sons), and made a good source for "quests", and also spent his time off researching new spells. Another player/gm had a witch who was apprenticed to the village wisewoman, who used her character similarly. Another used his drunken wisearse character to make life difficult for the rest of the players...but since he was our characters older brother, we were obligated to look after him...

[Jay R]

My definition of a GMPC is a character that the GM considers "his PC". He actually has some personal investment in the success or failure of this character different from all the NPCs that he also runs, in that he is doing well if this character does well, and doing poorly if this character does poorly.

That means that there is one PC in the party whose actions and motives are never misunderstood by the GM.

[solidork]

Ties That Bind and Detroit Rock City both did this.

Ultimately, I think GMPCs are not an universal evil never to be done. They're dependent on GM execution and player buy-in, and badly tainted by some awful examples in the early days of story-driven metaplots. I do hypothesize that they'll likely work best in small groups (Ties That Bind was a one PC game, Detriot Rock City was a 2 PC game), as once the player count reaches 4+ you generally have a full ensemble cast right there.

Yeah! Those are the games I'm referencing. They were crazy good, I followed them for years.

[Lord Torath]

My definition of a GMPC is a character that the GM considers "his PC". He actually has some personal investment in the success or failure of this character different from all the NPCs that he also runs, in that he is doing well if this character does well, and doing poorly if this character does poorly.This is pretty much how I see it. Anything else is some flavor of NPC.

[Duff]

My first BECMI campaign we shared the DMing. I remember no issues with people favoring their own character. A few games since where GMing moved around without issues re the GM's character

A Changeling game where the GM ran a character who was, by any normal interpretation a GMpc. The GM often hit "her" character first if we got ambushed which meant if anyone went down and missed the rest of the fight it was probably the GMPC - so that was good. She joined the character interactions a bit but wasn't a particularly dominant character.


The bare minimum for an okay DMPC is not stealing the spotlight. A great DMPC is also able to contribute to problem-solving in unintrusive ways without stepping on other characters' toes, and is an interesting (or, let's face it, probably mostly just funny) character in their own right.

Works. I like to sometimes have my NPCs/GMPCs to ask the dumb question that moves the conversation along. When the party needs to get up a cliff and their plan starts at the top of a cliff and goes from there "How do we get up the cliff?"


So I think visually DMPCs look like PCs. An NPC might be a knight, but a DMNPC is a Knight riding a totally sick werewolf that is her transformed boyfriend wielding a lance of light. The wizard that accompanies them to explain lore is an NPC, but Gerald Hearthsaver of the Million Spelltattoes is probably a DMNPC. In other words, PCs look like derpy super heroes almost every time and NPCs look like they fit in to the setting.
Wait, your PCs look like That???!!!