GMPCs

[DShomshak]

Only once as a GM have I brought in an NPC who was a regular part of the PC team, written on the same points, and generally behaved like another PC. It was my first Fantasy Hero campaign. Nobody created a spellcaster and I wanted to playtest the spellcasting system I'd devised, so I made one. I took extreme care to avoid making the character all-knowing, always right, or otherwise a Mary Sue: He'd led a somewhat sheltered life before then and so tended to defer to the PCs' judgment.

 

The Avant Guard superhero team had an NPC leader, Dr. Future, who gathered the team together and was built on many more points. He was, however, deeply limited in many ways -- not actually a very good fighter, for one thing. Not always available, for another. As planned, he eventually died heroically, leaving the team to its own devices.

 

Dean Shomshak

[TheDarkness]

I forgot to mention that I have never used an actual PC as an NPC/GNPC. For some reason, I just dislike the idea of doing it.

 

For me, the GNPC is just an NPC I like.

[Armitage]

As others have said, they can be useful for filling gaps in PC powers or knowledge, and can be used by the GM to nudge players in the right direction when they get stuck, but it can be important to make sure they don't take the focus away from the PCs.  An NPC "guest star" can usually fill that role temporarily without causing problems.

 

I had planned to include a GMPC in a campaign I was working on.  The event that put the brakes on that was when I started planning out a potential subplot involving the GMPC and his NPC love interest.  I suddenly thought to myself "Wait...at what point do the actual PCs get involved in this story?"  The GMPC then became a local NPC hero who may become involved when his area of expertise comes up, and the NPC may or may not become a PC's love interest, with the subplot shifting to a PC if she does.

[Pariah]

I was GMing a group that started with myself and five players. The five characters in the group were a brick, a martial artist, a speedster, an energy projector, and a telepath. Fun group, good players, great group dynamic, and just the right size.

 

Then the players with the energy projector and the telepath (who were married to each other) moved away. It left a pretty big hole in the group--as well as a profound shortage of ranged attacks. So I brought in a GMPC to fill the gap. I gave him a comparatively simple power set, and I kept his power level a tad lower than the rest of the team. I made a real effort not step on the other players' toes in terms of powers, abilities, or screen time.

 

It worked out really well. He remained a member of that team for nearly a decade.

 

The best part of the arrangement? He could serve as an instant plot hook when needed. Example: Hero from the future comes back in time to assassinate one of the group members who will unwittingly trigger a war between VIPER and Genocide that results in an apocalyptic future. Guess who got shot?

[Hermit]

I'm with a small group of table top friends, 3 of them. So yes, I GMPC to help with gaps. Also, I'm almost always the Game Master so when I hint would someone else like to step up? they'd rather let me play a SQUAD of GMPCs than do that

 

Darkness said it better than I did on how best to keep GMPCs in check

[rjcurrie]

I simply cannot imagine playing a GMPC that was part of the players' team. Unless the game does not involve any decision making at all and is simply "Villain shows up. Heroes beat up villain. End of story." In which case, I don't want to play in or run that game. If there is any kind of decision-making, can a GMPC really contribute without players thinking that the GM is trying to tell the players what to do next?

 

As for gaps in abilities, those either call for a bit of help from an NPC or they're an opportunity for the players to have to get creative. I would think that only facing situations that suited the team's abilities would be boring.

[TheDarkness]

I simply cannot imagine playing a GMPC that was part of the players' team. Unless the game does not involve any decision making at all and is simply "Villain shows up. Heroes beat up villain. End of story." In which case, I don't want to play in or run that game. If there is any kind of decision-making, can a GMPC really contribute without players thinking that the GM is trying to tell the players what to do next?

 

I think it's doable, as long as the GM is not trying to lead the decision making. After a time, the players should know the GM pretty well. They should likewise know that GNPC or PC, the ideas they present might not be best for the group regardless.

 

The assumption that the GNPC will always be railroaded is predicated by the assumption that the GM uses all NPC interactions to railroad. I know more than a few GMs that are not averse to having NPCs give unreliable info and bad ideas.

 

If the GM is actually role playing, the usefulness of a GNPC in railroading is heavily mitigated. The NPCs character traits should railroad the GM more than the players.

 

[DasBroot]

I often have rotating casts of NPCs that join the team for specific scenarios (or when requested).  They could be considered GMPCs - same power level as players, something I'm interested in playing but never will get to because nobody else will GM a game, ever - but they're definitely closer to the 'allied for a task NPC' side of the spectrum. Sort of a mix between GMPC and free points in Follower, in practice - the players like having them around and ask them to do both a lot of off camera stuff (like in last session, for example, when they asked a brick they knew to attack the far side of a villains compound) and on camera stuff (help with the boss fight).

 

The brick is a campaign regular, is as powerful as the PCs, and has been a hook for a few stories (such as saving her from being framed).  They like when she's around, like her as a 'person', and feel they can trust/depend on her in a fight.  

 

They also know that her entire life has been nothing but bad decisions, really, so tend to not rely on *any* suggestion she has about a current situation, 

 

That part is always important, in my opinion - I make the GMPCs likeable and loyal but always give them quirks that make any non-combat suggestion suspect *unless* the players are counting on said GMPC to know something they don't about the situation at hand.  Transparency goes a long way in my games - if they ally with a selfish manipulator it's obvious to them from the start that he's aiding them out of self interests, and they can be fine with that (or not, if he's not useful): Moments of 'curse your sudden yet inevitable betrayal' go over like a lead balloon at our table.

[Hermit]

I think it's doable, as long as the GM is not trying to lead the decision making. After a time, the players should know the GM pretty well. They should likewise know that GNPC or PC, the ideas they present might not be best for the group regardless.

 

The assumption that the GNPC will always be railroaded is predicated by the assumption that the GM uses all NPC interactions to railroad. I know more than a few GMs that are not averse to having NPCs give unreliable info and bad ideas.

 

If the GM is actually role playing, the usefulness of a GNPC in railroading is heavily mitigated. The NPCs character traits should railroad the GM more than the players.

 

Yes, it is indeed doable, for reasons you mention. I'm not saying its for everyone, but it can be done if you are honest with the players and if you have their trust while you stick to your own personal lines you don't cross as a GM.

[Shadow7]

In my campaign, my GMPC is named Nocturnal and is limited to only coming out at night.  The PCs functioned well without him, but were actually rooting for his return, not because they needed his help (he is much weaker than the other PCs) but because he is well liked by them and considered a member of their team.  In group discussions since we have two vocal PCs and two PCs who are more quiet, it's easy for him to remain in the background, and as of yet he hasn't been directly asked what he thinks, but often encourages the PCs if they come up with a decision.  

[Trechriron10]

Lion Rampant was the company that became White Wolf. Their flagship game was Ars Magica, and it established the formal notion of troup play wherein the entire group served simultaneously as players and GMs, co-guiding the campaign together. This concept was subsequently carried into the World of Darkness games.

 

Actually (sorry to nit-pick) but that wasn't really the goal of Troupe Style Play or how it works. TSP was about forming a cadre of supporting characters outside everyones' Magus who worked within the chantry. A Magus can have long periods of downtime for research or item creation, so instead of long periods of dead time you pick one Magus as the focus of an adventure, and the other players pick up one the supporting troupe characters (called Companions in Ars Magica). The idea was to build a guild house and run campaigns over a long-term in-game-time as the house develops. It keeps everyone involved vs. splitting up the party each week as you focused on the one Magus who needed or wanted to head out into the big wild world.

 

Also, I've never seen any focus on "troupe-style" play in any WoD games like Ars Magica. I've played and owned several iterations of Storyteller/Storytelling games from the first Vampire to the most recent CoD. In this context a "troupe" is just a group of characters like you find in most RPGs. TSP was not super popular even among AM players and I never read its inclusion in any WoD games.

 

On the subject at hand:

 

I think GMPCs are "bad form" and can detract from the PCs, which in my opinion are the focus of the game. PCs don't like it when the GMPC saves the day and detracts from their participation. If the GMPC is the only person that can get them through something, the game quickly becomes a GM showcase where the PCs are observers. This is horribly boring!

 

Teaching does not need to include a GMPC. You can teach by lending advice and reminding players of the rules. In the beginning you will be "cheating" - kind of. Likely offering help and suggestions you would not offer normally. Make this clear upfront! "Normally I wouldn't suggest this, but since we're learning...". It builds good will and sets expectations that the players will be stepping up as non-beginners sometime in the future.

 

You can also include a sage-type in various forms to lend important information to the PCs when they get stuck or appear to be missing something obvious, perhaps even something experienced players would pick up right away. So, in a sci-fi game with new players I might toss in the helpful robot that floats about and offers advice and info from time to time. Sure, the players could start leaning heavy on the little robot but you can discourage that in game. When the abuse becomes excessive, you can have the little guy power down to rest, or ask the PCs to stand-by while they make a long query... You might even suggest that the little robot is there so you can offer advice in-game and that pressing the little robot too hard earns you an XP penalty. :-D

 

NPCs are vital to a successful game, but in my experience they should NOT replace PCs. Hiring a wizard to research the location of a magical component can expedite the adventure. Hiring the wizard to fetch the magical component is boring.

 

There are few bad behaviors or intentions that drive GMPC use (IMHO). First is the GM that gets bored not playing in the PC group. The 2nd is the GM who thinks their players are dumb, missing important plot point or clues so they have to fill in the blanks, and finally the GM who is worried about missing capabilities.

 

1) I'm bored. Excellent. This is actually easy to fix. Increase the action in the game. Have more NPCs to interact with. Open up your adventure so it's not so A-B-C, so the players can wander into unexpected territory, thereby challenging you as a GM! Keep things moving. If you're bored being the GM I can only guess how bored the players must feel...

 

2) My players are dumb. No, actually they are not. They might have different expectations from a game, or not be as invested in the drama as you are, or don't have the life experience to pick up what you're laying down, but believing you're smarter than others is arrogant and self-defeating. Many GMs think they have an intricate plot that turns out so obscure or subtle that there might as well have been no plot. If you are running your adventure and you think to yourself "man this is genius, they will never figure out what is going on!" - you are doing it wrong. Bring it down a notch Albert. A GM's job is to make a great game for the players. You have to be a fan of the players, their characters, and the amazing outcome of everyone's choices. Obscurity or academic density is likely not as fun to the players as it might be to you.

 

3) What about the healer? Yeah, what about them? Did anyone choose to play one? Why not? Are they players maybe saying something to you about the game they expect? Toss in some extra healing potions. Make it clear what churches have paramedics for hire. The crack team of modern spies obviously has quick extraction options a quick radio hail away, yes? If the group decided that healing is boring and don't want to play the healing bot, then make adventures that don't focus on healing bots (or require them). You don't need a GMPC to hedge your bets for the PC group. You should instead focus on running a game the PCs want to play AND fits the characters chosen.

 

Of course, all this is IMHO, YMMV and my two cents...

[Balabanto]

Aaron Allston ran GMPCs, and therefore, so do I. I've never had problems. As a matter of fact, I have some of the stupidest deaths in my game under my belt. You just have to be careful how you use them. 

 

One of the best things you can do is screw over your GMPC super hard every so often. Because if you do that, whatever happens to the player characters, nearly universally, they were like "Wow, and I thought what happened to my character was bad."

 

Also, a GMPC can be used to fulfill a role that can't be given to a player character, for instance, "World's Greatest Superhero." He's not built on any more points. He's not necessarily the best at what individual PC's do. See Aaron Allston's comments about adding Lightrune to the group of grim dark stalkers. 

 

But if you have players who are likely to fight over who's the most awesome, take it out of their hands. This works very well in simulationist games. 

[Blue]

Do this all the time.  They tend to be in the background unless I get low player turnout for a game then the hero moves up front with the others.

 

Besides, I find I'm the only one who runs the type of campaigns I want to play in.  I run super campaigns and the other guys do fantasy and sci-fi.  So this is how I get my superhero fix.