So they ran across a male fighter and a female monk who needed a little help surviving a pile of pesky Kobolds. (Fighter skills x1.5 + some thief skills, excellent, what a coincidence.)

The fighter is always “Charge!”, the monk has taken a vow of silence, but is essentially always skeptical of everything the fighter says or does. (Picture a years-long comedy act/rivalry.)

So… I’m able to put forth the “Let’s rush them now” approach, and foil that off of the expression or actions of the monk. When a nudge in a specific direction does come, it isn’t a ‘whack, here’s a clue’ because these same characters pop off with (crazy) ideas all the time. They’re ‘part of the conversation’, but my daughters are more likely to recognize “Ok, _that_ plan is crazy” than to actually nod along with either GMPC.

In combat, each player takes over control of one of the GMPC, so they’re picking targets, rolling the dice, recording the hits, and letting the GM worry about which round the reinforcements for the bad guys might be arriving

More or less, they’re something we use in 3 PC groups. a 4th PC, run overall by the GM, at the same power level of the PCs, and used to fill a vital role (so, if you had a group of thief, fighter, and cleric, the GMPC would be a mage).

However, any time a player wants, they can step in and run the character.

Works, most of the time.

That doesn’t sound like a GMPC, that sounds like a standard NPC henchman/hireling.

In the past I have heard arguments about the term GMPC, but I feel like it is a useful term to indicate an NPC that receives special attention from the GM and is treated much like a PC (member of the party or whatever structure the PCs form in the game), gains XP and treasure, etc.

Of course, because of the special attention from the GM, there is risk of the character being used to push the GM’s agenda and that’s wrong. Even with care, there is still some risk. One is the GMPC having the most XP (and possibly treasure) because the GMPC never misses a session. Another is that the GM plays solo while the rest of the players watch when the GMPC is the last man standing in a fight (I have considered that it might be worthwhile to have accelerated combat rules to resolve such situations in at most a few die rolls). A third risk is that even with care, the GMPC might stomp on niche protection. Another risk in “designed character” games is that the GM knows the system, and especially his campaign, better than the players and so designs a more effective character.

Note that some risks are possible even for non-GMPCs. A GM can use scene stealing NPCs without them being GMPCs (at a minimum, I would expect a GMPC to be a continuing character that uses the game’s advancement/XP system). A GM can design a one shot NPC more effectively, or a henchman could stomp on niche protection.

Another, not so obvious risk of a GMPC is not that it is favored for protection, but that it is favored for death. I have definitely targetted GMPCs more brutally than PCs in the past. While in general this probably is ok, it may still offend the sensibilities of the PCs, whether it makes the GM soft on the PCs, or just spoils “realism” (why would the monster attack the buff NPC fighter instead of the wimpy PC mage?).

So the main risks of GMPCs are that they outpace the PCs and that the GM doesn’t balance between PC and GMPC.

Frank

1. Everyone else outranks him. It is a military game and he is by far the lowest rank of the group. So they say jump, and he does, hoping he guessed the height they wanted correctly.

2. If there is something that he would conceivably know or be able to provide information to the party for, then I have one of them make the roll for him. I still do combat and tedious rolls, but if it is a roll to see if they are being snuck up on, or if it is a roll to see if the GMPC can determine something that the party can’t, then I have them make the roll for it.

The only complaint I have is that, because by definitoin she’s at every session, she has the most XP of anyone in the group. (In our group, PCs of non-present players get little or no XP.) Luckily she doesn’t flaunt her power, which (for now) is only slightly higher than the normal PCs.

The distinction I see is that a GMPC is more than just a tool for the players. It is a voice for the GM. It does let the GM “play” (to an extent – care must be taken, allowing the GM to enjoy the levelling up process is good, allowing the GM to “compete” for most effective character is not good).

One thing I like to do is try and make sure the GMPCs get less XP, and I’ll retire them if they manage to get ahead (which can happen if player attendance isn’t perfect and absentee XP is lower since the GMPC does have perfect attendance). I’ll also retire a GMPC (or any NPC for that matter) if a player decides to fill in a particular role (and it’s reasonable, in a long running Traveller campaign, we didn’t just put GMPCs off the ship because some new player wanted to be a pilot, but then we already had several PC pilots and only 1 or perhaps 2 GMPC pilots).

freyar: Definitely, for a very small group, GMPCs often work well. In such a group, they can even be more flashy and take the spotlight more often (some people reccomend NPCs never take the spotlight, but in reality, NPCs DO have to take the spotlight occaisionally, certainly your opposition occaisionally takes the spotlight, so will an friendly NPC if it provides an important skill or ability – the key is to balance the spotlight).

Scott: your test is a good one. Another way to test is: “Are the players getting to make their share of important decisions and being in the spotlight, and does their input matter?”

Frank

Thanks for the suggestion! I keep a rainy day file for post ideas, and sometimes it takes a little while for them to pop out on the front page.

(Jennifer) The worst and most difficult feature of GMPC’s is that they are hard to deal with when you’ve got players to handle.

I’ve sometimes been distracted by handling my own GMPCs, but I hadn’t thought about that as being a potential downside of GMPCs in general — excellent point, Jennifer.

Calybos: Your GM’s carbon-copy pet NPCs sound like a perfect example of when GMPCs become stand-ins for a GM who really wishes he was playing, not GMing. Did he also play tough, no-nonsense fighter types when he wasn’t GMing?

That sent a pretty clear message about what type of game this guy wanted to run… and we weren’t interested.

I only enjoy them in games where the players know how to handle NPC’s and, heck, how to have a basic conversation without all trying to talk at once.

It made it easier to ensure that we lived long enough to enjoy the beginning of the campaign but didn’t take over anything; they existed to support our mission only and left us alone when we no longer needed them.

If the characters are supposed to look up at the NPC and the players want to do the stuff the NPC’s doing, they are pets.