|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Apr 10, 2013 13:27:12 GMT -8
I recently caught up on the podcast by listening to a bunch of episodes back-to-back, and I've been chewing over something that Stu (IIRC) said in one of them: that there should never be GMPCs, just NPCs.
I think I've mentioned a game that I play in called "Artifact Busters," a fantasy game using Mutants and Masterminds rules. All the PCs come from different worlds, and we've been assembled in Sigil by a supernatural power called the Lady of Balance. She gives us assignments to travel to other worlds and destroy items that she considers too powerful to exist. Two guys in our group co-GM; one has run a character as part of the party since the beginning. For kicks, let's call that character Sparky.
Now, the GM does an admirable job of making sure Sparky doesn't fall into the classic traps of the GMPC. Sparky is no more powerful than the rest of the party. He doesn't rescue us when all seems lost, and he doesn't drag the other characters off on his own private quests. In combat, he fills a niche that none of the rest of the group has covered. On the other hand, he gets advancement points and "levels up" along with the rest of the PCs. Perhaps more significant to our group, Sparky has a story. Any time we have "downtime" to describe what our characters are doing, Sparky is included.
Basically, it's pretty clear that the GM has a different and more proprietary attitude toward Sparky than toward other NPCs he runs. Sparky is his to play and participate in the game with, while the other NPCs pretty much do what they need to do for the story.
I can't really find any logical fault with it. Furthermore, Sparky is a fun character, and I wouldn't think twice about him if the GM were sitting next to me as a player. I just can't quite put my finger on what's bugging me about it, and I'm not even sure whether it's a legitimate worry or not.
And now the other GM has added a character of his own as well, which doubles the situation. We now have three PCs and two GMPCs in the group.
So, I dunno, what do you folks think? Is Sparky an example of a "good" GMPC? If not, why not? Do you think GMPCs can be done right, and if so, what does it take to make a good one?
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Apr 10, 2013 13:44:49 GMT -8
I am from the old school mentality. First: ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK (pg 110, AD&D 1e DMG) No matter if it is a shopkeeper or the Big Bad or a PC Henchman - or, for that matter, the PC of someone who could not attend the game or left early but is with the party in an encounter. Second, after impartiality, is distance. There has to be some objectivity. If the shopkeeper is beaten (or killed), or an NPC's plea for help goes unanswered, or the Big bad fails his save and dies then that has no conflict of interest and nothing to do with me, personally, at all. I have no investment to win or lose. My investment is in watching my players play. Repercussions such as the Angry Villager Rule (for the dead shopkeeper), the future derailment of a plotline (unheeded NPC) or a situation that leaves me at a loose end (death of the Big Bad) are more probably tied to the game story and less tied to my emotional prejudice. Saying all NPCs are the GM's to play is one thing. Equating that to GMPCs is emotionally unbalancing to a game and not a little bit disingenuous. I feel a disturbance in The Force.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 4:13:31 GMT -8
I frequently make what would be considered GMPCs. I think it's often a factor of having small groups (sometimes only two players), so I need to fill out the group.
But I don't play them as "bots." Frequently, they are the good friends and dear loved ones of my PCs. Family members, significant others, old high school buddies. They tend to get quite attached to them.
I also know why they're there. They're not there to be my characters. Or to be badass and save the day (okay, every once in awhile, they do save the day when it would be a TPK... *sometimes*). I tend to make sure they either have reasons to be away from the group a lot... or that, for whatever reason, they defer to the PCs when it comes to "what we should do."
So far, I've had no complaints... and my players always seem to like them a lot.
I sort of inherited this idea from an old GM of mine. We were playing Cyberpunk, and it was just myself and one other player. We were part of a large mercenary organization, of about 20 people. He played all the others as NPCs, and they were pretty much as fleshed out as the PCs. They all had their own personalities, their own issues, etc. But the action was always on us. And we loved it.
We loved those NPCs. They saved our lives in some cases, in other cases they betrayed us, and we had to kill them (and that was *really* emotional). Some of us slept with some of them. Some of us actually adopted a child and raised it with one of them. It was awesome.
I think GMPCs are fine, as long as they don't take away from the PCs. The story should be about the PCs, and NPCs, GMPCs, whatever, should help tell *that* story, and enhance it.
--Pukka Tukka
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Apr 11, 2013 6:24:30 GMT -8
I wonder if the line between NPC and GMPC is actually blurrier than we expect? Does an NPC become a GMPC when the GM gets attached? Does the transition happen when the NPC starts travelling with or fighting with the group? Or, is it when the players begin to regard the character as more than just an NPC? Is the BBEG that your players have run into the past 10 sessions actually a GMPC? Is that a bad thing?
I don't have a problem with the concept of a GMPC. I don't think that every GM can handle it properly, and I might even venture to say that I don't think that most GMs can handle it properly. I agree with Pukka Tukka; GMPCs should be introduced so long as they are contributing to the story being told, but they should never reach the point where they're more interesting than the PCs.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Apr 11, 2013 9:15:10 GMT -8
I do not think it is a question of "to bot or not to bot" (and, instead own[/]) an NPC, Pukka Tukka. I am going to pull out my AD&D 1e DMG for some wise words about handling NPCs without crossing over into either PC resource management or NPC slave ownership.
Also check out what it says between pages 100 -103
This wall of text brought to you by Gary Gygax (page 103):
I cut and paste from the PDF so some o's are actually a's and so forth. But that won't stop you from recognising the wisdom of balance - which is the crux of the problem with GMPCs.
Because, let's face it, to the great unwashed, the whole cast of characters in RPGs except the PC the players play are the GM's PCs. But that's not the connotation of relationship in GM-PC.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Apr 11, 2013 10:39:29 GMT -8
Part of the problem, as is often the case, is one of definitions.
What distinguishes an NPC from a GMPC?
I don't think there's anything wrong with a GM having an NPC that he or she is particularly fond of/attached to, etc. Very often these NPCs tend to be more details and feel like real people, which is great.
To me, an NPC crosses the line to a GMPC when the story at the table becomes as much or (even worse) more about the NPC than the PCs.
I started thinking about Mandeight Birdstaff, and while he was a favorite NPC of mine, I don't think he crossed that GMPC line.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Apr 11, 2013 10:44:22 GMT -8
Maybe a blog post is brewing...
|
|
lilappleblossom
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 51
Preferred Game Systems: 3.5, Dark Heresy, Only War, Grimm, Savage Worlds
|
Post by lilappleblossom on Apr 11, 2013 11:18:52 GMT -8
In just about every single game I've ever played in all the systems I've played in from 3.5 to Dark Heresy to Iron Kingdoms there have been GMPCs. (These are all different GMs as well) What usually happens is the GM will introduce a character, usually it has to do with some sort of romantic intent, we're all big romantics and we just like having that relationship when it would be impossible to have it otherwise. But once the character is introduced and begins to have a connection with the party then what happens is the GM asks if we want to run the character or if we'd prefer to stay single character players. If we decide that we want to play the character (Which we almost always do) then the GM and the player get together, make the character and bring it actually into the adventuring party on a permanent basis. The control of the now normal PC during combat goes to the player controlling them and during roleplay is to the GM. I have had at least 2 characters in just about every game I've played and it's never hurt, it's made it more fun and it gives me the opportunity to try out different classes while not giving up another that I may like.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 11, 2013 11:36:00 GMT -8
Part of the problem, as is often the case, is one of definitions. What distinguishes an NPC from a GMPC? I don't think there's anything wrong with a GM having an NPC that he or she is particularly fond of/attached to, etc. Very often these NPCs tend to be more details and feel like real people, which is great. To me, an NPC crosses the line to a GMPC when the story at the table becomes as much or (even worse) more about the NPC than the PCs. I started thinking about Mandeight Birdstaff, and while he was a favorite NPC of mine, I don't think he crossed that GMPC line. I think that the real separation is one of vested interest. If the gm has a vested interest in the future of the character and advances that interest in preference to the player characters then the character crosses the line from npc to gmpc. JiB
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Apr 11, 2013 11:50:13 GMT -8
I have a recurring "GMPC" of sorts in all L5R games I run. He is a character I played in a game once and I really enjoyed him and I never got the chance to take him where I wanted to take him. So now I get to represent him as an NPC instead of as a PC. He is never a main focal point, he is never the "save the day" type, and he is usually manipulating the PC's in some way. Not necessarily in a bad way, just to get something he wants. Which could be mostly innocuous actually. I don't have him grab the story and make it mostly about him, he is not a Mary Sue at all since he has quite a few character flaws... he's just someone I enjoy playing. Would that be a GMPC? I say no. The Level 18 Word Casting Wizard that the GM of my Pathfinder game has... is for sure. The character can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, isn't beholden to anyone, and flits about giving out treasure and solving problems.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Apr 11, 2013 12:32:56 GMT -8
I think that the real separation is one of vested interest. If the gm has a vested interest in the future of the character and advances that interest in preference to the player characters then the character crosses the line from npc to gmpc. JiB This.But am I getting the spidey sense that it is u nacceptable for the GM to stat and equip all major NPCs? I do not think this or realism (as Gary advises above) equates a GM-PC. I have a chart (for 3.5) to stat an NPC on the fly according to how average the character is compared to the player characters. Even on the fly, isn't that why we have note paper and a big list of names - so we can create NPCs with depth within the game rather than populate the game world with two dimensional zombies named Bob? Bob, the target cutout.... acceptable if the game's theme is supposed to be silly. Or if it's to be a WoW hack'n slash raid. A GM's vested interest should be towards providing a game world that is congruent and immersive to the playgroup's social contract. Not to be invested in one (or even a few) personal player characters. That's another kind of narcisistic railroad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 12:40:35 GMT -8
How about this as a litmus test? If the thought of turning the character over to the players triggers spasms of possessiveness, he/she may be a GMPC. My games were once littered with GMPCs. Looking back I clearly see these as a disservice to the players and their characters, who deserved my full attention. In the words of Jeff Rients: Your NPCs suck and they are all going to die.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 11, 2013 18:59:23 GMT -8
I think that the real separation is one of vested interest. If the gm has a vested interest in the future of the character and advances that interest in preference to the player characters then the character crosses the line from npc to gmpc. JiB This.But am I getting the spidey sense that it is u nacceptable for the GM to stat and equip all major NPCs? I do not think this or realism (as Gary advises above) equates a GM-PC. I have a chart (for 3.5) to stat an NPC on the fly according to how average the character is compared to the player characters. Even on the fly, isn't that why we have note paper and a big list of names - so we can create NPCs with depth within the game rather than populate the game world with two dimensional zombies named Bob? Bob, the target cutout.... acceptable if the game's theme is supposed to be silly. Or if it's to be a WoW hack'n slash raid. A GM's vested interest should be towards providing a game world that is congruent and immersive to the playgroup's social contract. Not to be invested in one (or even a few) personal player characters. That's another kind of narcisistic railroad. That is a TOTAL misconstrual of what I said, and is in fact quite to the contrary. I am wildly in favor of more detail and more depth. That is NOT what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is, simply put, "Who's the star?" If in the gm's mind the character that he is driving is the star then it's a gmpc and I find that to be troublesome. If it is a deep rich evolved character in support of the player characters (from a literary sense) that's perfect. The GM's vested interest should be in the game, not in a character that he is portraying. Was that sufficiently clear for everyone? JiB
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Apr 11, 2013 20:57:16 GMT -8
As I often do, I'm in agreement with JiB here. If the focus of the story becomes an NPC and their exploits/adventures, you've crossed the line from NPC to GMPC. The story should never be about the characters who are not being "piloted" by the players.
In a game without a GM, that's not really a problem. In a game with a GM, I tend to think it's a conflict of interests for the GM to play as both the NPCs and another character with as much importance as the other PCs. A GMPC if you will. It can be hard enough not to metagame when you're just a player, but being both a PC and a GM is just asking for trouble in my book. Sometimes a favorite or important NPC will share the spotlight for a while, or even be the center of attention for a bit, but that should never last for very long. If the players find their characters playing back up for someone the GM is running, yeah. No thanks.
Also, detail alone is not enough to turn an NPC into a GMPC. In all the Apocalypse World-derived games, something the GM is explicitly told to do is "give everyone a life". Portray everyone and everything in your game as if it were real; name them, make them human with wants and fears, hopes and dreams, motivations and quirks. But don't make them special. They can, and should die at the drop of a hat if it's appropriate. In Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker tells GMs that "when your gaze lands on something, consider first blowing it up, killing it, tearing it down, or destroying it". Your favorite NPCs don't get special treatment just because you think they're cool. In Monsterhearts, Joe McDaldno put it another way. He says to "treat your NPCs like stolen cars". Enjoy them for the ride while the last, but be aware that they are ultimately not yours.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Apr 11, 2013 20:59:37 GMT -8
The GM's vested interest should be in the game, not in a character that he is portraying. JiB That is what I said. A GM's vested interest should be towards providing a game world that is congruent and immersive to the playgroup's social contract. Not to be invested in one (or even a few) personal player characters. That's another kind of narcisistic railroad. - I also emphasized that again.
- I get the sense that not everyone is on the same page when there is talk mixed in about creating detailed characters as part of the GMPC.
- I state that detailed characters are a responsibility for the GM not an irresponsibility. Also saying we have tools for that sort of thing on the fly - no extensive prep required.
. I pat you on the back and shore you up. Also, let me plug a book that is the most useful book on my book shelf: NPC ESSENTIALS.
|
|