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.