Moments in your gaming career that should have told you....

[Princess]

If the PCs care more about some NPC than their own character, you have failed at telling a cooperative story.

Never heard about PC's who cared about npc more than about their character. Paladin or something like "true love" flaw?

[Lago PARANOIA]

It is of course relative.

For example, if one of the key NPCs is a wise, manly, handsome, badass warrior king who is charismatic as all get-out while your PCs are a bunch of small children, that would raise peoples' Mary Sue flags.

... but if the content of the game is trying to sneak into the enemy city to deliver a message to one of the king's spies and to free the princess from a jail cell, then the integrity of the game is still preserved. Because the story isn't about this Super King, it's about your band of street urchins trying to deliver messages to win the war.

[Datawolf]

Huh... I made one of these by accident. I threw together an NPC fighter once so that the (then low level) PCs would have an extra body to help them out in fights. I figured I'd kill her off or something eventually but they loved her so much she practically became the party mascot.

[Neurosis]

I am thinking of a few different types of characters in my different campaigns that might be considered GMPCs:

My aforesaid asshole GM had a character who...well, he was rather flummoxed when some of the party disliked her and did NOT go with her suggested plan right off.

He didn't have the chops to make a really charismatic character, and didn't realize his limitations and had a hostile reaction to the PCs which disliked her. When she started going on about how hope is the greatest treasure and how she MUST have hope or *swoon* I don't know what will happen, the DM was very much offended when a PC called her a dreadful insult in Ignan--'Candle'. He really did think she was a cool character, and was surprised when the PCs didn't take an instant shine to her.

His reaction to that led to the incident that made me quit him. The PC which had called the girl a candle was mind-controlled with no save in the first fight and told to go drown himself in the river. The resulting argument--and what we found out--led to me and a few others quitting that game.

Unfortunately, being able to embody a character with *attracts cult of personality* level Charisma is difficult. Fortunately I have long been comfortable with this kind of thing.

It depends on your skill as an actor, how well the character is written, the situations you're in, and the attitude of your players. I think that if that GM drowned a PC for insulting one of his NPCs, that is a bad GM. I think that if the character drowned a PC for insulting her, she is probably a terrible person...and also a badly conceived character, if she wasn't intended to be a villain.

Anyway...

1. The one I LITERALLY think of as a GMPC was a character I played as in the 4E D&D Campaign that I GM'd. (It is currently on hiatus.) This was because I realized that 4E D&D was REALLY hard to balance for a party of three PCs, so I added my own character, a Wizard, so there would be four PCs. Literally, the point of him was to be another warm body. He had the same level as the PCs, and the same chance of dying as the PCs, and gained experience (and treasure) at the same rate. (Okay, he was SLIGHTLY better built, concerning my understand of the rules was somewhat better than the players, but still the same overall power level and his main purpose was to give the PCs a chance at survival). That is what I think of as a GMPC.

2. This is a very different type. Wildly more powerful than the PCs, mysterious, charismatic, ominous, frightening, but ultimately aloof, disinterested, and concerned with greater matters. Used very sparingly--not to keep from 'annoying' the players but to keep the character impressive, because if they are shown too much they begin to lose their effect. They don't antagonize the players and they don't solve problems for the players--unless the latter is the most logical way to prevent a dramatically inappropriate TPK, in which case it would be more of a 'mysterious benefactor' type deal.

I am describing basically how I played/ran Harlequin in the original 'Harlequin' Shadowrun adventure. To be totally honest, I love this character. I associate with him--and played him as much like as possible--the character Cyrano de Bergerac, from the play of the same name by Edmund Rostand.

And I know a lot of people hate him. I think with this type of character, it IS sometimes necessary to (appropriately) show how awesome they are. They're not chilling with the players and beating monsters for them. They have better things to do than even explain to the players what the fuck is going on. But the demonstration of their awesomeness (or more specifically, their power) is important to cause the PCs (and if you're doing it right, the players) to feel the requisite fear and awe. It has nothing to do with +Penis Inches to GM and everything to do with hammering home to the player characters that, in a dramatic sense, there are entities to which their personal power is trivial in comparison. I have seen PCs get really into trying to help, hinder, or simply understand these kinds of characters. For bonus points, if one of these characters is working correctly, killing them off in a dramatically appropriate way can provoke a major emotional response from players.

This is the type of character I think of as an NPC, but I *think* it is what other people mean when they say a 'GMPC'.

3. The evil version of the above. They are also mysterious, ominous, optionally charismatic, and far more powerful than the players. They should get the best lines. And they should eventually go down. Note that unlike #1 or #2 this (the super-awesome villain) is a character who is almost required for a good campaign. Once again, the power level of this character is not about +GM Penis Inches. It is that the final victory of the heroes will be more meaningful if you can genuinely make them feel like major underdogs.

[Neurosis]

If the PCs care more about some NPC than their own character, you have failed at telling a cooperative story.

Never heard about PC's who cared about npc more than about their character. Paladin or something like "true love" flaw?

It is more that the players themselves just engaged with those characters in a very meaningful way. It is an exaggeration to say the PCs cared more about the NPC but not an exaggeration to say the players cared more.

Anyway, in response to the "thou hath failed" bit, I am going to try and get some of my players on here and see if they can explain this phenomenon. All I know is that these "universally reviled" types of characters have unfailingly been the most popular and beloved part of anything that I have run. And I do want to explore that disconnect.

For example, if one of the key NPCs is a wise, manly, handsome, badass warrior king who is charismatic as all get-out while your PCs are a bunch of small children, that would raise peoples' Mary Sue flags.

... but if the content of the game is trying to sneak into the enemy city to deliver a message to one of the king's spies and to free the princess from a jail cell, then the integrity of the game is still preserved. Because the story isn't about this Super King, it's about your band of street urchins trying to deliver messages to win the war.

This seems like a pretty valid elucidation.

If you want to write single author fiction, do that, but don't do it in a game about cooperative storytelling, and call it cooperative storytelling if it isn't.

It is MY PLAYERS who have elevated these characters to an importance above the PCs. What do you call that?

[Kaelik]

It is MY PLAYERS who have elevated these characters to an importance above the PCs. What do you call that?

I call it your audience liking your single author fiction.

[Neurosis]

Well, I can think of worse things than that.

But I am really fascinated to see if they feel the same way (i.e. that it is essentially non-interactive).

[Lago PARANOIA]

The basic thing that I'm getting at is that it is OKAY if some or even most of the NPCs in the game are better than the PCs, as long as:

A) Being personally awesome isn't a PC goal.

B) The story isn't about these awesome people.

Someone mentioned awhile ago that WHFRPG could've gotten a lot of mileage out of playing up the 'muggles stuck in a world of crazy shit who nonetheless do important things' angle. Some people seriously do want to play Saving Private Ryan or Enemy At The Gates.

The problem of course is when the PCs define their goal as 'We want to become the biggest badasses the world has ever known' and stick them in the role of second bananas and don't let them accomplish this goal in a reasonable timeframe.

You being rookie superheroes working as interns for the JLA is only a problem if A) Superman intrudes on the stories you're trying to fish up for your junior heroes, B) you actually wanted to play as Superman's equals and while the game will let you do that the DM won't, or C) the game advertises you as being junior heroes now but eventually getting to Superman's equals but actually keeps you at the role of junior heroes for the reasonable length of the game.

Mouse Guard thus does not offend my sensibilities. Neither does Shadowrun. 4E D&D does.

[Neurosis]

Well of course the story isn't about these awesome people...it is about the PCs. And I personally like the 'muggles stuck in a world of crazy shit who nonetheless do important things' angle. The way that I think of it, internally, is that an NPC can be more important to the UNIVERSE, but the PCs are always the most important to the STORY.

The problem of course is when the PCs define their goal as 'We want to become the biggest badasses the world has ever known' and stick them in the role of second bananas and don't let them accomplish this goal in a reasonable timeframe.

In SR, which is by far the rules/setting I am most familiar with, it is flat-out impossible for you to become the biggest badasses the world has ever known. You not being that is and-has-always been a feature of the setting and the game (largely because, to intentionally oversimplify, that is not cyberpunk). This doesn't mean that you are not important, and it doesn't mean that the story is not about you. Personal badassery is largely irrelevant when compared to the power of (faceless and soulless organizations) anyway.

[Starmaker]

It is MY PLAYERS who have elevated these characters to an importance above the PCs. What do you call that?

I call it your audience liking your single author fiction.

I call it "my two options for a romantic subplot being (1) a reasonably hot NPC and (2) a meh PC played by a very attractive lady already in a relationship".

[Datawolf]

It is MY PLAYERS who have elevated these characters to an importance above the PCs. What do you call that?

I call it your audience liking your single author fiction.

I call it "my two options for a romantic subplot being (1) a reasonably hot NPC and (2) a meh PC played by a very attractive lady already in a relationship".

This is why pretty much all of my characters are asexual.

[Kaelik]

Apparently there has been some confusion, at least some of which is my fault.

I never meant to say "If your PCs (IE Player character's, or in other words, Harger the Fighter) care more about some NPC than their own characters." (Which is what I did say.)

I meant If your Players care more about some NPC than their own character (IE more about NPC X than Harger the Fighter) then you are just doing single author fiction.

And likewise, your NPCs should never be more important to the plot than the PCs.

If the PCs themselves care about the some NPC that can be fine.

[Red_Rob]

I generally find the problem with GMPC's is when the GM cares about them more than the PC's. As long as they are intentionally kept as bit players they're fine.

Schwarzkopf, in game I run once there was grossly overpowered NPC who could smash anything and almost everything with ease. But this NPC
1. First of all it used it powers rarely, usually buffing party, not killing all stuff and posing in BETTER THAN PC pose. One time it saved one of the PCs, and not in the ALLPOWERFUL DEMIGOD way. It posed as party ECL character, and never demonstrated it's full power, so the party never felt being insignificant.
2. Second, it used it's skills in PC's sake, not to manipulate and railroad them. It gave any advices only if asked and had no part in taking decisions.
3. This NPC was not key npc and plot guy of the whole storyline. On controversial, it wanted just to be personal scribe of one of the PCs so it could write about his deeds without scrying and spying.

Why did this character even have world smashing powers that were intentionally never used? Seems like pointless mental masturbation to me. If I use NPC's that travel with the party its usually for an out-of-game reason, like giving a player with a non-combat character something to run during combats, or to shore up a party weakness.

[Archmage]

I meant If your Players care more about some NPC than their own character (IE more about NPC X than Harger the Fighter) then you are just doing single author fiction.

Funny story--the first game I ran at college included a "plucky paladin-of-freedom" cleric who both the players and their respective characters really got attached to. He disappeared for a while to do some off-screen things to screw with the BBEG's armies while the PCs went after an artifact.

When the PCs received messages from said BBEG implying that the aforementioned cleric had been captured, the party's rogue went berserk--she had a bit of a self-loathing problem and was convinced in-characterly that the cleric was a much better person than she was and that she ought to go off and do whatever it took to rescue him even if it meant being killed in the process.

Sometimes your players just wind up playing characters whose motivations involve putting others first.

[Princess]

Why did this character even have world smashing powers that were intentionally never used? Seems like pointless mental masturbation to me. If I use NPC's that travel with the party its usually for an out-of-game reason, like giving a player with a non-combat character something to run during combats, or to shore up a party weakness.

Because it has no need in using them. The main flaw of this NPC is that it do not need anything. No need for power, no need for riches, it even do not need to sleep, eat etc. So the main motivation of this character to stop standing in a corner and move it's ass in our case were to write about one of the PC's. I'd like to tell more about why it chose this PC, but my players tend to stalk my forum messages.

If I'd ever to make NPC to masturbate I'll try not to show it to PC - you know they might be unhappy by this "uber-charismatic" NPC and insult him, and it'll cause me to butthurt. Good for me I feel no need in such NPC's, it brings me no fun.
My reason to insert this npc to party was to test whether can I use overpowered NPC so it won't irritate players or I end like most GMs with Mary Sueish GMPC hated by players. After I considered experiment successful NPC left the party (but one party member still paying it a visit in a skiptimes).

[Kaelik]

Sometimes your players just wind up playing characters whose motivations involve putting others first.

Are you just impervious to words? I literally just posted a clarification explaining why it's okay for PCs to care about NPCs because sometimes the characters care more about others, and only player feeling is what I'm talking about.

And then you went and tried to explain to me that sometimes the thing I just changed my statement to qualify for happens? Yes. I know that. That's why I fucking changed my statement.

[JonSetanta]

Playing World of Warcraft d20.

Oh yeah I tried 4e once a year ago, it was OK

[Judging__Eagle]

I honestly can't believe we had a "is Caelic = Kaelik?" discussion; Kaelik =/= Caelic. This was resolved like... years ago.

Back on topic..... the whole... 5% bullshit is... bullshit. It's not a "true" 5%, it's a 1/20, not a 5/100. If you were using a d% system; where every +1 gave +5%, then, and only then would having some sort of "crit fumble" work.

Even then, it would have to be "your total dice roll is 5%, or worse".

People who own, hold, and use, weapons do not go around dropping their swords when they swing, they don't go around stabbing their friends "by accident"; or other such ridiculousness.

Critical fumble rules only do a few things right

1) fuck players
2) fuck fighters
3) fuck high level fighters
4) prevent player immersion, especially by anyone who has done live steel combat, or medieval re-enactment combat, or martial arts (when the Krav Maga instructor/student, Amtgard player, the SCA fighter, German Livesteel actor, the Medieval Times and the Ren Faire combat actors all are equally offended by this "simulation" happening one in 20 times, there's probably something they're all agreeing with. >_>)
5) make the game play like a Fantasy version of Toon

[CatharzGodfoot]

People who own, hold, and use, weapons do not go around dropping their swords when they swing, they don't go around stabbing their friends "by accident"; or other such ridiculousness.

I just today heard a story relating to this that happened this year. No names, but an iaido sensei was at a heavily attended seminar, and twice bumped his shinken while moving in a seiza position. The first bump knocked it part way out of the sheath; the second bump cut the length of his foot to half an inch deep.

Although he wasn't holding the sword at the time, a sword master did basically manage to stab himself in the foot.

[erik]

I honestly can't believe we had a "is Caelic = Kaelik?" discussion; Kaelik =/= Caelic. This was resolved like... years ago.

Me neither. Did that actually happen? I only saw me doing my favorite Kaelik-taunt a couple pages back. I try to do it once a year and had been slacking so far this year.

One good thing for critical fumble rules. I was playing in one campaign where they were used out the wazoo. So I buffed up my owl familiar's AC and would have it flying around provoking attacks of opportunity. Enemies would miss, and 5% of the time they'd kill or incapacitate themselves. That was a particularly sad party where my illusionist's owl was our tank. *sigh*

[Josh_Kablack]

I actually almost liked the old Rolemaster critical fumble charts.

• Fumble rate was weapon based, so players got to choose how high a risk of fumbling they could tolerate. They ranged from 2% to 8%, with only really high risk stuff above 5%. Oddly this had the side effect of casters taking high risk / high damage weapons - since if they needed to use their weapons then they were already in trouble.
• The actual chance of injuring yourself or an ally with any given fumble is generally 10%. This means that even with the clumsiest weapon available, you would, on average only hit a friendly once in every 125 attacks - half that often or less for most weapons. Sadly, given the other complexity of the system this was still way too high, as it contributed to the "4 hours to make a character, two rolls until it dies and you spend 4 hours making up the next one" syndrome that plagued that system.
• Roughly 75% of the results are "You miss and look foolish", "You miss and can take no further actions this round", "You stumble and can make no attacks - but can/must take the total defense action for 1-2 rounds"
• The remaining 15% of fumbles were other hosey stuff, like 2-3 rounds of Stun/Daze/Prone/Drop weapon. In a one-attack-per-round system that wasn't necessarily the whole fight.
• The results from the fumble chart were generally *funny* when you read them. This part is really important. Just saying "you drop your weapon" is not funny at all.

So if you must houserule in critical fumbles on a d20 system where you can't have less than a 5% you'll want to have some way for player choice to influence fumble rate and you'll want to make sure that the fumbles are very soft, with the vast majority just forcing people to miss on their next single attack or be forced to defend for a round. And you will want to write up memorably humourously over-the-top chains of coincedences for the small minority that are worse than that.

[Zinegata]

That was a particularly sad party where my illusionist's owl was our tank. *sigh*

...



...

I'm really sorry, but I could stop laughing when I read that.

Good God man, how the hell can an Owl even *tank* from a versimiltude perspective? Flap his wings threateningly? Pick off mice and other vermin before they reach the party?

[erik]

That was a particularly sad party where my illusionist's owl was our tank. *sigh*

...



...

I'm really sorry, but I could stop laughing when I read that.

Good God man, how the hell can an Owl even *tank* from a versimiltude perspective? Flap his wings threateningly? Pick off mice and other vermin before they reach the party?

It was certainly absurd.

My owl's name was "Bear", and I would refer to him as "my owl, Bear" with a very brief pause on that comma.

Oh, Bear was a damage machine! 1d2-2 damage can really wear down those unclassed goblins (4hp) and kobolds (2hp) we kept fighting in the Sunless Citadel adventure.

In addition to our primary foes for the first few levels being dire rats, goblins and kobolds, there were other contributing factors for the owl being a major contributor to combats.

We had a 1/2 XP rule which meant it took twice as long to level up. DM preferred low level stuff which is easier to control... campaign explicitly will not exceed level 10. So we were doing goblin and kobold fights for far longer than normal in most DnD campaigns I've played or heard of.

We had an insufferable rule that all new characters must start at level 1 (after several years I finally managed to get it changed to "start at lowest party character level"). So my halfling illusionist had a few levels on other characters and that helped buff up the familiar comparatively.

My illusionist had a Con of 17 and rolled well for HP. I wound up having enough HP that even 1/2 my HP on the familiar was higher than some characters. With my BAB and the owl's okay combat bonus, he had the highest attack bonus in the party for a while too.

My illusionist would have done the frontline attacking/tanking himself, but for a while he had acquired some sort of curse to his vision that among other things gave him a penalty to attack, which he really didn't need since he was also wielding the +1 morningstar (our only magic weapon) that he wasn't proficient with since nobody else in the party either wanted it or could not lift it. My wizard mostly moved around to help the rogue flank and made sure not to actually swing the weapon since then I'd be on the bad end of the fumble stick.

The party changed composition frequently with players coming and going, but this was the most constant group in addition to my deep halfling illusionist.

Our leader. A shield bashing human paladin who had a small shield on one arm for defense, a large shield on the other arm for bashing, and carried around a tower shield on his back which he would sometimes take out when we needed the cover (3e game). Usual tactic was to shield bash opponents into walls to knock them down.

A twf-dagger stabbing halfling rogue/ranger/fighter. She was originally going to be pure rogue, but we had *another* rogue halfling (a psychotic patterned after Belkar from OotS) already and she decided to try filling the shoes of the fighter and barbarian who had left our group. And then our other rogue halfling died, unsurprisingly considering his reckless behavior.

Low-low str gnome cleric who did not want to be encumbered, as he wore light armor, had the Dash and Run feats in order to run away faster. My wizard has to carry around his crossbow and bolts for him since he cannot carry it himself without getting pushed into medium encumberance.

A wimpy human wizard (played by the former psycho rogue halfling player) who did not roll well for hit points and his spell selection was almost exactly the same as mine... and he was lower level. It was really hard not to show him up in combat as he was basically an inferior version of my character as far as mechanics go.

*face palm*

Sadly our leader the shield bashing paladin died on a night when Bear didn't roll well on spot/listen checks and some plant construct thing coup de grace'd him in his sleep (he had grown disappointed with his character and didn't mind it really... otherwise a really crappy way to die). At that point in time the remainder of the party was halflings and gnomes and nobody could carry his heavy body anywhere. Our next adventure was recovering his body and then after a state funeral and parade, taking it to Rappan Athuk to bury him there (it is the Dungeon of Graves afterall). In retrospect, we were really stupid to go to Rappan Athuk with that party. God bless obscuring mist, invisibility and a strong desire to run away.

It was a really fun campaign, we're just hopelessly ineffective in combat.
Actually we are still playing it, we have just been on a hiatus since my wife had been on bed-rest for the past couple months.

And of course, the critical fumbles. Oh. On the wimpy goblins and kobolds and what not, whenever they rolled a 1 and then "confirmed" their fumble (i.e. they rolled attack again and if they missed it was a critical fumble... kind of a reverse crit), almost always killed the guy who fumbled, and sometimes killed their buddy too. My owl would just fly past them all, draw AoOs, and watch them stab each other trying to get it. I'd say our DM was softballing us except I don't think he realized how helpless our party really was. We certainly did not fare well when we rolled critical fumbles either (perhaps a contributing factor as to why my non-direct damage caster kept surviving whereas the melee guys had a tragic turnover rate).

[Princess]

Judging__Eagle, Fumble is not necessary "you are so lame that you drop your sword or stab anything but the target" it can also be treated as cunning manoeuvre your opponent made.

One funny moment about DM's using fumbles - they treat swordfighting so it is possible to throw your sword 5 meters away from opponent like in a buffoonish comedy, but in the same world goddamn magic never fumbles, it is so easy to use and control magic, lol.

[RobbyPants]

Back on topic..... the whole... 5% bullshit is... bullshit. It's not a "true" 5%, it's a 1/20, not a 5/100.

Wat?

No, that is 5%. 1/20 is just a simplification of 5/100. You learn that kind of thing in middle school.

1/20 might work in 5% increments, but it's still 5%.