Positive GMPC experiences?

[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.

Spoiler

Show

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), a wasteland, a new world (lost in space original series)

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.

---

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 RPG

indeed.

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. 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.