How Do You Feel About NPC Party Members (A Poll)

[Gorgon Zee]

A GMPC is not an NPC. It's a Player Character run by the DM. It is the DM's personal mouthpiece and proxy, just like the characters are for the players. The party has no choice but to incorperate the GMPC, just like it does any other PC.

None of those apply to an NPC.

"The party has no choice but to incorporate the GMPC, just like it does any other PC"
I think you run a very different game than I then, which may explain my confusion. In my games, no-one -- GM or player -- gets to run a character that the players would prefer not to have around. Our goal is to have fun, and not force people to accept an annoying PC.

If the definition of GMPC is "a character that the GM has forced on you and you have no choice but to incorporate" then I guess meh new answer is no, I have never run such a thing. Nor will I ever.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, you ignore a huge part of the definition - the difference between a GMPC beign the DM's proxy like a PC is for a player. A DM runs NPCs according to their in-world goals, not as his private character.

Er...what's the difference? I run my private characters according to their in-world goals, just like I do my NPCs.

Or put another way: as DM the NPCs are my private characters. All of 'em, from the once-met shopkeeper to the ten-adventure party NPC.

Not quite sure what you're getting at.

But to get back to your claims, how many PCs were created by players and never got to adventure with the group because they weren't accepted? Checking your claim that they don't wear PC t-shirts.

It's rare, to be sure; but it does happen once in a while.

It's also rare a party rejects an NPC unless a) there's something obviously objectionable about it or b) the party feel they already have everything covered that the NPC could provide (e.g. if it's a Thief looking to get into a party that already consists of three Thieves and a Druid it's out of luck; but if it's a Fighter looking to join the same group they'll welcome it with open arms as it'll be the only Fighter they have).

 

[Lanefan]

If the definition of GMPC is "a character that the GM has forced on you and you have no choice but to incorporate" then I guess meh new answer is no, I have never run such a thing. Nor will I ever.

Have you never had a party patron send someone along as an adventuring observer? Example: a temple missions the party to recover some stolen items, and sends a Cleric along as an observer to make sure that a) the party maintain moral standards appropriate to the temple during their adventuring and-or b) the party doesn't turn around and steal the recovered items for themselves [edit: and-or c) to help the party recognize what they're looking for]

Have you never put an NPC into a party as a plot device? Example: Bob the Fighter insists on joining the party for the journey from Spieadeia to Cyrax, then on arrival reveals himself to be a major noble who needed to get out of Spieadeia incognito on an important mission, and he used the party as cover.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Isn't this equally as true if the GM is concentrating on making combat survivable by running allies with the party? Can't have it both ways.

I don't want it either way. It's up to the players to make combat survivable.

 

[Blue]

Have you never had a party patron send someone along as an adventuring observer? Example: a temple missions the party to recover some stolen items, and sends a Cleric along as an observer to make sure that a) the party maintain moral standards appropriate to the temple during their adventuring and-or b) the party doesn't turn around and steal the recovered items for themselves [edit: and-or c) to help the party recognize what they're looking for]

Have you never put an NPC into a party as a plot device? Example: Bob the Fighter insists on joining the party for the journey from Spieadeia to Cyrax, then on arrival reveals himself to be a major noble who needed to get out of Spieadeia incognito on an important mission, and he used the party as cover.

I am absolutely fine with an NPC in the party. The characters may need to take someone which is entirely different then the players being required to take someone along. One's in world, the other is social contract.

 

[Blue]

"The party has no choice but to incorporate the GMPC, just like it does any other PC"
I think you run a very different game than I then, which may explain my confusion. In my games, no-one -- GM or player -- gets to run a character that the players would prefer not to have around. Our goal is to have fun, and not force people to accept an annoying PC.

If the definition of GMPC is "a character that the GM has forced on you and you have no choice but to incorporate" then I guess meh new answer is no, I have never run such a thing. Nor will I ever.

So you're saying that you've never been in a game where there was inter-character drama but the players kept in managable because they wanted to keep adventuring together? Wow, that's some dry and bland groups.

 

[Blue]

Er...what's the difference? I run my private characters according to their in-world goals, just like I do my NPCs.

Or put another way: as DM the NPCs are my private characters. All of 'em, from the once-met shopkeeper to the ten-adventure party NPC.

Not quite sure what you're getting at.

It's rare, to be sure; but it does happen once in a while.

It's also rare a party rejects an NPC unless a) there's something obviously objectionable about it or b) the party feel they already have everything covered that the NPC could provide (e.g. if it's a Thief looking to get into a party that already consists of three Thieves and a Druid it's out of luck; but if it's a Fighter looking to join the same group they'll welcome it with open arms as it'll be the only Fighter they have).

If you are as invested in the success of every single one of your NPCs with goals related to, unrelated to, and against the party to the level that players are invested in their PCs, yet also an impartial DM, you can not exist. Regardless if you mean to, it feels like you are arguing in bad faith because twice in a row it feels like you have made nonsense claims just to take the opposition side. And when called on the last one you didn't follow up - How many of your parties have characters made who never get to adventure with them because there is no social contract that the party should ever be together?

 

[Jack Daniel]

For me—as always—it's a matter of verisimilitude. If the player characters are the only adventurers around in a world where there's gold in them thar dungeons, it utterly breaks the suspension of disbelief. The world needs to have lots of rogues and picaros who all want a piece of the action, and if some of these NPCs fall in with some player characters, so be it. After all, it's up to the players to decide whether they'd like to have a larger and possibly more effective party (and more warm bodies to hide behind) at the cost of having to share treasure and experience points with a larger number of allies.

 

[Jack Daniel]

If you are as invested in the success of every single one of your NPCs with goals related to, unrelated to, and against the party to the level that players are invested in their PCs, yet also an impartial DM, you can not exist. Regardless if you mean to, it feels like you are arguing in bad faith because twice in a row it feels like you have made nonsense claims just to take the opposition side. And when called on the last one you didn't follow up - How many of your parties have characters made who never get to adventure with them because there is no social contract that the party should ever be together?

Wait—are you seriously suggesting that a DM can't compartmentalize by both being true to the motivations of all the NPCs in the game while also serving as an impartial referee? Because to my way of thinking, true impartiality is only possible if a DM does account for the fullest extent of each NPC's motivations. Even if the DM isn't personally invested in the NPCs' goals, it's vital to recognize that the NPCs are! To the same degree as the player characters!

 

[Blue]

Wait—are you seriously suggesting that a DM can't compartmentalize by both being true to the motivations of all the NPCs in the game while also serving as an impartial referee? Because to my way of thinking, true impartiality is only possible if a DM does account for the fullest extent of each NPC's motivations. Even if the DM isn't personally invested in the NPCs' goals, it's vital to recognize that the NPCs are! To the same degree as the player characters!

No. I am seriously suggesting that a DM can not play every single NPC as their own proxy in the game as a player plays a PC, and also compartmentalize.

DMs should be runnign NPCs true to their own motives. He's not claiming that. He's claiming he's running every NPC as a PC.