Forums of the Megaverse®

The problem here seems to be to little information, and well bad wording. If the GM is giving unfair amounts of EXP just to make sure their character is powerful? Then that's not cool, and you need ot speak up.

If he is just making sure that his character is equally powerful as the other characters, so that he doesn't fall behind in both credits and XP because he took time away from playing his guy to GM the party? then that seems only fair, though to stop complaints of cheating have somebody else note down xp for the character as he comes up with clever idea's, kills powerful enemies, etc etc.

Keeping yourself on par does NOT equal cheating, helping yourself to unfair situations, via hidden dice rolls? yeah that kind of thing does not fly.

SamBell wrote:[Is it wrong for a GM to make his character a NPC?]

I'm just wondering cuz I've been in a campaign were it's happened before.

I was going to say, sure it's fine within reason, but hey, you're bothered enough to ask about it - obviously go talk to him.

SamBell wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

SamBell wrote:...he cheats to give his guy EXP. Just so he could be on Par.

If the goal is be on par, I wouldn't consider it cheating. It sounds both fair and reasonable.

I respectfully disagree. He's a GM not a PC.

SamBell wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:

Grell wrote:Obviously, cheating is wrong. Sounds like someone needs to have their GM priveleges revoked.

IT IS NOT CHEATING. Geeze.

...Would you prefer GM to just hand-wave their NPCs levels whenever they wish to ?

The way he is doing it IS cheating. He gives his waaay to much EXP. And btw npc's when you make the generally have a leveling thing.

Now I'm just kind of annoyed.

If you already felt so strongly and disagree with any support for the idea, why ask the question? You did try to talk to him, and the other players didn't agree with you? So you're looking for online cites to hit them over the head with?

Kinda a waste of everyone's time, isn't it? I don't think this is going to sway their minds any.

Giant2005 wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Grell wrote:That is a better question.

Read the post.

It was without a doubt one of the most amazing games I have ever been apart of. I was so proud of them.

Hold off that pride until they come back with helicopters so they can air lift Rasma to their enemies and drop him off and re-awaken him.

We see Rasma return cyborgized as MECHA-RASMA

SamBell wrote:The way he is doing it IS cheating. He gives his waaay to much EXP. And btw npc's when you make the generally have a leveling thing.

Technically it's not cheating.

It's not GM fiat when you like it but cheating when you don't like it. It's GM fiat in both cases - and your playing one of those games which says GM fiat is sooo wonderful.

However generally you might come to some sort of understanding about it.

Or otherwise, if it really bugs you, stop playing.

Some people play silly. What are you going to do, stop them from being silly?

Noon wrote:Some people play silly. What are you going to do, stop them from being silly?

Well, at least force them to convert their ley line walker to a ludicrous mage. :nod:

TechnoGothic wrote:We see Rasma return cyborgized as MECHA-RASMA

Yup, because the players couldn't think of a way to stop the Splynn from getting him back and Splynncryth re-awakening him I had Doctor Bastardstro build a brainbox-mechanized harness and then steal Rasma so he could use it with Joltron to attack Atlantis. Long story short, the next time they see Rasma he will be Mecha-Rasma, bound in the chains of science to serve the will of the diabolic Doctor Bastardstro.

yes. the "npc" just turns into an ultrahero and the rest of the party no matter how skilled become sidekicks. lame and most cheese like for a gm to use his character as an npc.

say652 wrote:yes. the "npc" just turns into an ultrahero and the rest of the party no matter how skilled become sidekicks. lame and most cheese like for a gm to use his character as an npc.

No, I use NPC PCs with my group all the time. They are a small three man group of players and I usually have an NPC who i play as a sort of guide and supporter. Is that wrong?
In fact, I also have a GM who uses NPC PCs on a regular basis. He is our meal ticket, and is again, almost a form of a guide.

So your argument is wrong. The GM PC isn't always an "ultrahero". If you are a bad GM it turns out that way (unless your party is cool with being sidekicks...) But for a good GM, it's just a way to keep the game moving and adds a nice set piece to help the players. I don't see how this makes me a bad GM...

I'm going to say no, it's not wrong. Mind you my group had a rotating GM policy so we tended to be fairly honest, fair (probably outof enlightened self-interest^_^) and had another player roll (and choose attacks/actions) for whoever was fighting the GM's PC. We also pooled the XP and divided it up evenly.

I also found that a GM PC was a great way to give out information, disinformation, and ideas when the other players can't think of anything (not that they were always good ideas and they didn't always work even when they were).

Giant2005 wrote:

SamBell wrote:What I meant is he cheats to give his guy EXP. Just so he could be on Par.

If the goal is be on par, I wouldn't consider it cheating. It sounds both fair and reasonable.

This is fine. It doesn't truly matter if the GMPC starts at the same level that the PC's do in terms of XP. Then he's just keeping pace with everyone else.

When it starts to matter in people's heads is if the GMPC lives longer than a few others. My suggestion is this: If you're gonna do this, don't use a GM screen. That way, everyone can see your die rolls and know that you're playing fair.

And yes, I have had GMPCs where this has happened. I've also had them DIE. Whoops, that's the third crit in a row, Makundo expires! It happens. In Champions, I had a GMPC killed by a rocket fired by Santa's Elves. Worst character death ever. But there it is. In Pathfinder, I had a gnome cleric go from 2 HP to -64 HP after being critted by an Ogre Mage. There wasn't enough left of him to sweep up. These things happen. We were like "That's...a lot of damage."

So GMPC's can be fun, but judge your group carefully before throwing one in there. There is a caveat to this. Don't plan TOO far ahead. If you do, this can look like cheating.

Player: That was awesome. Did you plan that in advance?

Me: No, I just outsmarted myself in the past thirty seconds.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:We see Rasma return cyborgized as MECHA-RASMA

Yup, because the players couldn't think of a way to stop the Splynn from getting him back and Splynncryth re-awakening him I had Doctor Bastardstro build a brainbox-mechanized harness and then steal Rasma so he could use it with Joltron to attack Atlantis. Long story short, the next time they see Rasma he will be Mecha-Rasma, bound in the chains of science to serve the will of the diabolic Doctor Bastardstro.

ROFL

GenThunderfist wrote:

say652 wrote:yes. the "npc" just turns into an ultrahero and the rest of the party no matter how skilled become sidekicks. lame and most cheese like for a gm to use his character as an npc.

No, I use NPC PCs with my group all the time. They are a small three man group of players and I usually have an NPC who i play as a sort of guide and supporter. Is that wrong?
In fact, I also have a GM who uses NPC PCs on a regular basis. He is our meal ticket, and is again, almost a form of a guide.

So your argument is wrong. The GM PC isn't always an "ultrahero". If you are a bad GM it turns out that way (unless your party is cool with being sidekicks...) But for a good GM, it's just a way to keep the game moving and adds a nice set piece to help the players. I don't see how this makes me a bad GM...

as a player not a gm. everytime and i have been playing rpg's since 87 the gm always had his character higher level with better equipment and somehow always seemed vastly stronger than the party like able to take on four or five party members and win. since i started as a gm the first thing i did was not play a pc in the adventure.

If a NPCs is doing more then the pc, then the players are doing something wrong.

yes, its horribly wrong and you are bad and you should feel bad for doing it.

If I am trading GM duties for a game, I generally gimp the rewards for my player. Basically provide half the XP that I provide the lowest player. And let the players provide the rewards to my player. As in give him weapons and/or equipment that he can use.

If I end up being the GM for the game, that becomes different. I'll retire my PC and then it's all NPC mode.

No doubt everyone is going to be at different stages of if and how a GM should include a party NPC.

Possibilities:
- Occasionally an absent essential party member has their PC temporarily turned into an NPC until the player arrives.
- Otherwise, a player and his character who then becomes a GM and keeps that character as a NPC should be a one-way change. These are also usually better utilized as static NPCs: such as the local Black Market rep, or the local Operator, the local tavern owner/barkeep, local weapon shop owner, and so forth.
- Preferably any ongoing GM party member NPC should be specifically designed only to ever be a NPC.
- Obviously in the event of a rotating GM or whatever scenario this could be difficult.
- All of this mainly just eliminates "conflict of interest" issues.

Preferences:
- Unless running an extremely small group of players (3 or less) then an ongoing NPC party member should not be necessary.
- It should have the least possible impact on the overall group dynamics:
-- If a NPC is necessary it should be a filling a specific gap in player capabilities. Often that is simply have a few otherwise missing essential abilities (healing, repairs) plus being an additional target for combat.
-- NPC ideally either be unable to speak, or only speak an unfamiliar language, or whatever. This means the players are required to do all the talking for their group.
-- The NPC should never intentionally become the center of attention or solution to every problem, though it may be incorporated into the campaign plot.
-- Depending on play-styles, the better NPCs may be more of a comic-relief or plucky sidekick style.

Alternative to Having an Ongoing NPC Party Member:
-- Instead of having a party NPC it should just be an opportunity for the players to improve and expand their gaming capabilities.
-- The GM could also simply choose to be lenient and allow a few extra options that might not normally occur:
---- Availability of magic tattoos due to a wandering tattoo master or being captured by Splugorth;
---- Allowing each player to have an automated sidekick (a Golem, a reprogrammed labor robot, a trained riding fury-beetle, etc) obtained via the PCs making, reprogramming, or training it (already domesticated and general training) themselves;
---- and so forth.

In my Rifts game, I started with three players and introduced a GM character (a Free Born Dog Boy Wilderness Scout). The players had a Special Forces Soldier, a Juicer that subed Safecracker for the class (didn't want the warrior abilities), and a Gunslinger from the New West. The players asked the Dog Boy if there was any more in his family and took on three more Dog Boys (a Rouge Scientist with specialty in medicine/engineering, another Wilderness Scout, and a Grunt) willingly.

Now the group includes six players and still has three of the four Dog Boys. The players lost the original Special Forces soldier. They now Have the other two original players plus Atlantean Undead Slayer, Ley Line Walker, Crazy, and a Changeling. They made some bad choices (without my characters input) which resulted in the death of the Grunt Dog Boy and almost killed the original Dog Boy Wilderness Scout. They were kind of broken up about the whole thing because they got attached to the Dog Boys.

The point here is that none of the Dog Boys do anything that the characters don't ask for. One of them pilot's the vehicle, one of them acts as doctor and another does the hunting. All of them still use the psychic abilities to help the group and will speak up if they sense something or if the smell anything. And they also get bent out of shape when the group takes them near a Ley Line.

It is not wrong for a GM to use his character in a game when the GM's rotate. He has to keep the character in the group and that character cannot sit there on his thumbs and not gain any experience. The GM character gets the same money, experience and share of the salvage that all of the other characters. If they did not get all of this, when the GM becomes a player again he will be much weaker than the rest of the players and it is not fair to him to have to put his character on hold just to run the game. What is not fair is the GM giving the his character unearned experience, weapons and gear, money or character changes to statistics/skills/abilities. When he runs as the GM, he should not have his character know everything about the adventure either. The character should be more reserved than normal or even provide bad advice on purpose to add to the drama/stress of whatever is going on. He should play down his abilities or wait until the other players ask him to do things that he has always done in other adventures.

So in short, I do not think it unfair of GM's to play characters. They are taking the time to run a game for you and you should respect the fact that they are willing to run for you. I run almost all of the games for my group and have not played more than a dozen sessions in the last three years. If I want to have a character in the game (and realistically, I play everyone who is not the players) then I will put one there.

Volomyre wrote:There are no outside chr.'s in my games.
GM or otherwise.
You roll up your chr. and thats the one you get. That chr. never leaves my game.
A GM that is running "his" chr. is cheating.
I don't care how you look at it.
A GM that runs a personal chr. kinda sounds pathetic and sad to me.
I can't be a player so I am gonna GM myself.....booo hooo.
Nope, wouldn't allow it when I run a game.

Volo.

First, if your running the game, that means I don't have to. Second, there is nothing cheating about a GM that runs a character, EVER. The GM runs the entire world full of characters that is not YOU. Third, I am the GM, so what I want is what I do. If you don't like it, don't play. Fourth, I don't always run a character in the games I run. I do it for the games that have NEW players so that there is someone in the party they can ask questions without breaking character. If you think that is sad then you must be a petty tyrant of a GM.

My style is my own and if you don't like it, tough. I don't run for you. I have run successful games that have lasted more than four years. The SAME game. If I am doing something wrong, it is definitely not running GM characters.

paxmiles wrote:

camk4evr wrote:I also found that a GM PC was a great way to give out information, disinformation, and ideas when the other players can't think of anything (not that they were always good ideas and they didn't always work even when they were).

Why didn't I think of this one? I could have a NPC that appears to be in a support role, but always makes the party come to false conclusions and otherwise get's them into trouble...

Some sort of healer, so the players are disinclined to just kill him for almost getting them killed...

(chuckling to self....)
-Pax

You add in a piece of true information every now and again to confuse the players. They start to ignore the NPC if all they get is bad information or get led into trouble at every suggestion. You could also have the character throw in his support of bad ideas that the players come up with to encourage them to do it.

I think that depends on whether you have players who have made PC's who have life goals, or whether as GM you are herding cats/PC's with no life goals and players who are inclined to be herded into the GM's pre written plot.

Maybe its more valid in the latter case. Heck, depending on how railroaded it is (I'm talking how actually railroaded it is, even if to the players it seems they have freedom of movement), it couldn't put it any more on rails, could it?

Icefalcon wrote:

paxmiles wrote:

camk4evr wrote:I also found that a GM PC was a great way to give out information, disinformation, and ideas when the other players can't think of anything (not that they were always good ideas and they didn't always work even when they were).

Why didn't I think of this one? I could have a NPC that appears to be in a support role, but always makes the party come to false conclusions and otherwise get's them into trouble...

Some sort of healer, so the players are disinclined to just kill him for almost getting them killed...

(chuckling to self....)
-Pax

You add in a piece of true information every now and again to confuse the players. They start to ignore the NPC if all they get is bad information or get led into trouble at every suggestion. You could also have the character throw in his support of bad ideas that the players come up with to encourage them to do it.

I'd recommend true information about 40%-75% of time depending on the raceof the GMPC, the class of the GMPC, and his familiarity with the area and ideas/plans that work should never exceed 50% so that the players don't become too reliant on the character (again modified by class, race, and familiarity).

camk4evr wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

paxmiles wrote:

camk4evr wrote:I also found that a GM PC was a great way to give out information, disinformation, and ideas when the other players can't think of anything (not that they were always good ideas and they didn't always work even when they were).

Why didn't I think of this one? I could have a NPC that appears to be in a support role, but always makes the party come to false conclusions and otherwise get's them into trouble...

Some sort of healer, so the players are disinclined to just kill him for almost getting them killed...

(chuckling to self....)
-Pax

You add in a piece of true information every now and again to confuse the players. They start to ignore the NPC if all they get is bad information or get led into trouble at every suggestion. You could also have the character throw in his support of bad ideas that the players come up with to encourage them to do it.

I'd recommend true information about 40%-75% of time depending on the raceof the GMPC, the class of the GMPC, and his familiarity with the area and ideas/plans that work should never exceed 50% so that the players don't become too reliant on the character (again modified by class, race, and familiarity).

Or you could just roll their skill checks, since they're characters, and decide that way. I hear that actually using the dice helps a lot.

Oh, I roll skill checks all the time. Even for the villian. It is great to see the look of horror on the players face when the medic says "Ooops" but then laughs at them because the medic was just kidding.

Yeah but sometines the skill can be too high and the players can start to rely overmuch on it or the GMPC.

I've never had a problem with the GM running a GM PC, even if he does it badly. Everyone makes mistakes. that being said, he won't be GMing for long if he does a bad job, with or without a GM PC.

We have been rotating GMs for years and the GM's character is usually included as a GM PC. Sometimes there have been problems, but they are always associated with the GM/Player, not the mechanism itself.

Also, we do reward XP to the GM PC as a way to reward the GM for GMing! After all, the XP is reward to the player, not the character. that being said, the GM's PC DOES NOT get individual experience. It is rewarded an amount equal to the LOWEST rewarded to any of the PCs. So, if the players are not doing well, the GMs PC doesn't do well either. So far, no one has abused this rule and been like "Well, my GM PC needs 5000xp, so everyone gets 5000xp!" If anyone did this they would not be allowed to GM anymore!

Also, we hold each other to a fairly high standard and don't allow the GM PC to steal the show, ever. Even if the GM PC is THE ONLY ONE with a particular skill/spell/equipment that will save the day, one of the players needs to ask the GM PC to use that asset, the GM can't.

In my games (yes i have used some of my PC's in the past as NPCs) but they usually play the role of the go to guy or the one who delivers the bad news and has to run errands for the actual players.

Most of the time its my PC's who need help from the players to Fix said injury or Curse. (had one of my PC's lose his marbles and the players were tasked to find them so he can find out why what ever that was in his head was so important to begin with). Usually ends up being something i create to be a burden on my PC so he has to pay the actual players to get him fixed up right.

Alot of times though my PC's tend to be NPCs who give the news of impending doom, or the mission to find an object (s) that will save the megaverse.

My Temporal wizard for instance was the prime subject of delivering information the group needed or getting them hard to get stuff. Finding other NPC's and pretty much little support help like that. (something any NPC can do, making it an actual player gives the players some personal attachment to the character and makes them freak out when or if he dies or is severly injured)

Edit: Wow i just realized how bad i abuse my own characters when i use them as NPC's