Dogs in the Vinyard is a better example of this idea, though the cooperation among players during chargen is more informal. However, it is also followed by a formal “initiation” that focuses on one character at a time, and both helps introduce the game mechanics, and also allows the player to help define his PC.

Frank

Everway has built in a round of questions that the players ask each other, more or less in-character. Each character is able to ask one question of every other PC.

The questions are usually based off of some short blurbs the players write about the characters, but the results -really- help get a better handle on how the character is going to function.

Hmm, another possible niche for a GMPC, the “commander.” Let’s say you’re playing Star Trek. You decide to focus on bridge crew, which means Scotty and McCoy are legitimate NPCs. But perhaps you don’t want to put a player above the others. So you decide Kirk will be an NPC. But clearly Kirk will be a foreground character, and will act more like a PC. Now other bridge crew that the players don’t play as PCs may well be able to be a regular NPC (play won’t focus on their niches).

(I’ve never seen Stargate, so I don’t have the reference, but I get the idea being raised).

A more general Star Trek campaign of course has to have Scotty, McCoy, Kirk, Sulu, etc. And then there may very well be more niches than players, and you still want to focus on engineering issues some, so Scotty becomes a foreground NPC, a GMPC if you will.

Frank

Coming back to my Stargate example, it isn’t that this niche is boring or mission-critical from a game design standpoint — it’s the fact that to emulate the feel of Stargate, you kind of need a Daniel Jackson character, and none of the PCs fit the bill. I think that’s a great reason to fill a niche with a GMPC.

Now sometimes this may be an issue of the players not totally buying into the genre of the game, in which case the GM should consider how to modify the genre to fit the players better. It may turn out that an NPC filling the niche is the easiest way to handle it. On the other hand, a cleric can be dispensed with by easing up (but not eliminating) undead, providing plenty of access to healing potions and such, and perhaps by allowing other caster types to have healing spells also.

Unfortunately, a niche filling NPC will occaisionally steal the limelight. If it steals the limelight often enough, perhaps a player will realize that niche actually could be interesting.

Other reasons for NPCs (and potential GMPCs) that don’t really relate to this topic are:

- increasing party size because the number of players doesn’t produce enough PCs for effective play.

- giving the GM a “voice” in the game (dangerous in a narativist game, quite possibly totally acceptible in a simulationist game, might work or not in a gamist game)

- giving the GM an opportunity to “play” in a game that doesn’t give the GM enough of the right triggers (D&D from modules may be an example here, the GM may not get much creative input, also, the GM doesn’t get the opportunity for long term strategic planning – though he does get to look forward to using more and more cool monsters as the PCs rise in level).

- stabilizing the size of the party when player attendance is variable

Ars Magica is an example of another solution to the boring, but necessary, niche problem. Rotate the duties among the players.

In the end, I think the GM needs to use a combination of:

- mentoring players during chargen
- modifying the campaign to fit the players desires
- providing filler NPCs or other mechanisms for missing PC niches
- letting the chips fall where they may

Frank

These are two keys to good GMPCs: they never (or very rarely) look better than the PCs, and what they are good at are things that the players don’t really care about.

And you’re right, GMPCs would be a good post topic. I think I’ll take that one out for a spin soon. Thank you for the idea.