Even with an NPC, the DM needs to be a bit careful.  I recall one adventure where the mission was to get a diplomat, who happened to be a high level wizard, to a city through hostile territory.  Hostile as in literal armies of orcs roaming the countryside.  The NPC fought alongside the PCs and was by no means the center of attention.  However he did upstage the party's lead magic-user with his artillery spells, and I could tell the player wasn't happy about it.  Live and learn, I suppose.

There is nothing wrong with NPC party members. As long as they are supportive characters. That no not take away from the PC's role as protagonists.

The problem with GMPCs is that they inevitably get put in the protagonist role and outshine the player's characters. That's when it goes from a roleplaying game, to the GM masturbating, while the PCs are reduced to tagalongs.

In my AD&D 2nd Edition days. I had NPCS that supported the group but never outshined them. Because they were not the stars of the show. The PCs are. And I like to think I was a pretty good DM.

Also, it was a houserule of mine that the XP was only shared between the PCs. As I could adjust the NPC's levels however I wanted. There was no need to short-change the PCs of their XP.

GM protagonists are where I draw the line. I never use them. I don't think it is ever appropriate. The DM's role is supposed to be: Make a fun game for the players. Make entertaining NPCs that keep the players engaged. But do not outshine them.

If the Middle Earth stories were RPG adventures, I think Gandalf would be a GMPC--both the good and the bad versions of it. He's wildly powerful compared to most of the other characters, but he does largely hold back (with some notable exceptions) and allow the protagonists to shine. Still, for the most part, I wouldn't want to have a Gandalf in my games.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 10, 2024, 07:14:35 PMIt's not an inherently bad practice, it's just something that bad DMs can really shit the bed with.

almost made a DMPC for my first ever game.

I believe in a breathing fictive world with PCs being the focus of my GM attention. That said I don't limit my players' freedom of association with their PCs beyond the fiction's context and their efforts to act within it. So if players' PCs befriend (or bemuse/amuse) a king or Gold Dragon, then yes there will be times they get to travel with said ally -- and no, the players will not be controlling such an NPC.

But the caveat is to keep it to walk-ons, to cameos, because (as above): the PCs are the focus of my attention. They create their own adventures which becomes their own stories in the re-telling. I am their fans even as I must also play their foes. My promise in trust to the PCs' players is I will be as fair as possible arbiter.

So yeah, there will be times when PCs will swear allegiance or tag along with big allies, and or vice versa. And yes, for such efforts they will get a benefit for a time. But eventually the king and kingdom or gold dragon will have other things to attend to and walk away from the PCs' spotlight. It is up to the players to fill their PCs' time with adventure.

The political power level the PCs play in is a function of the players' meaningful choices. I may sprinkle hooks and opportunities about, and I may assail the world around them with threats and loss. But it in their choice what we fictively see in 1st person, and as GM I facilitate.

Some cannot believe in such an attempt of remove and fairness. But that's their issue in leap of faith. Mechanics cannot reassure such a fundamental lack of trust. And such nitpicking, distrusting attitudes (as per OP received reddit knowledge) -- without corresponding discussion how-to best practices -- will neither get there.

At some point analysis must end and synthesis begin. At some point break down must end and build up begin. At some point distrust must end and trust begin. What you allow yourself to believe helps you stand again, rebuild, and fly.

Quote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 06:28:40 PMGreetings!

Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.

I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.

Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.

But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.

In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?

What do you all think, my friends?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You know how the second or third time you GM'd, you know, when you were 12, and you had that NPC that was better than the party and your adventure was kind of about that NPC and the players didn't have fun so you NEVER DID IT AGAIN?

Yeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago.  He's in his 30s.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AM

Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago.  He's in his 30s.

Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."

One tried to rope me into one literally last week.

There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.

Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.

Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AM

Quote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 06:28:40 PMGreetings!

Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.

I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.

Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.

But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.

In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?

What do you all think, my friends?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You know how the second or third time you GM'd, you know, when you were 12, and you had that NPC that was better than the party and your adventure was kind of about that NPC and the players didn't have fun so you NEVER DID IT AGAIN?

Yeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Oh, Geesus! So hilarious, CrKrueger! Damn, so true, huh? Damn right I remember that kind of thing! It's been a long time, as you mentioned.

People crying about it *now* like it happened to them last week, YEAH! I suppose it has been so long, you know, anyone DMing for any stretch of time--especially if they made that same mistake when they were a kid--well, I just didn't think that was a thing now, you know? So these people crying about it everywhere kind of boggled me.

As this thread shows, evidently I'm not alone in noticing this crybaby attitude. Everyone seems to be familiar with these people.

One of the fun things about when I run my NPC's in the party, they usually start out or are introduced as being somewhat sub-optimal. They have character flaws, emotional problems, some are disciplinary Martinets and can be a real pain to be around, and so on. Low and behold, after some experience, if they survive, many of these NPC's of mine become pretty solid characters, and well-respected by the rest of the party.

Oftentimes, the other party members respect and enjoy their NPC friends, but as noted, not without some challenges and social difficulties involved. It is often very funny watching their interactions with each other. You know, some characters can be vexxing that way. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 10:16:31 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AM

Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago.  He's in his 30s.

Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."

One tried to rope me into one literally last week.

There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.

Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Those players of your acquaintance sound like a barrel of monkeys!

"Mary Sue" characters and frustrated, wanna-be novelists! *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on December 12, 2024, 11:55:53 AMI've only experienced a GMPC twice, both in the 1990s - once in a GURPS game and once in an Amber Diceless game. The GMPCs were technically made according to the same PC creation rules, so they weren't uber in power level at least by raw numbers. What made them insufferable is that they were mouthpieces for the GM to tell us when we were wrong.

Ireena from I6 Ravenloft is definitely not a GMPC. She is lower level than the PCs, with no magic items and no unique information.

This is where I really disagree with Chris24601. He might be handling his GMPCs better than the ones I saw, but I still think it is a bad idea.

Jesus Christ this is another Reddit idiocy where they think ANY classed NPC is a DMPC. In or out of the party.

r/dnd is full of "modern" players who believe things like this for no sane reason.

Quote from: SHARK on December 22, 2024, 03:39:30 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 10:16:31 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AM

Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago.  He's in his 30s.

Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."

One tried to rope me into one literally last week.

There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.

Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Those players of your acquaintance sound like a barrel of monkeys!

"Mary Sue" characters and frustrated, wanna-be novelists! *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

My friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.

Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 05:06:45 PM

Quote from: SHARK on December 22, 2024, 03:39:30 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 22, 2024, 10:16:31 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2024, 09:44:13 AM

Quote from: crkrueger on December 22, 2024, 12:53:45 AMYeah, these people are still crying about it, pretending online that it happened to them last week.

I had a DM do this a few of weeks ago.  He's in his 30s.

Yeah, there are people to this day in my circle who are not allowed to GM because their idea of a campaign is "watch as my Mary Sue/Self-Insert has an epic adventure and you occasionally get to roll a few things."

One tried to rope me into one literally last week.

There's a few more who we don't even play with anymore because even as a player they get butthurt that the story is 100% about them all the time and also whenever they face the slightest setback or complication to whatever they want to do.

Some people think they're gamers/GMs when actually they're frustrated authors seeking an audience.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Those players of your acquaintance sound like a barrel of monkeys!

"Mary Sue" characters and frustrated, wanna-be novelists! *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

My friend, the number of truly awful GMs I've experienced in my life has me convinced that, for the world to remain in balance, their must be someone out there somewhere who has had nothing but the most talented and magnificent GMs running campaigns for them their whole lives.

Someday I would very much like to meet this person. In an alley. With a rock.

Why I'd love for you to play marbles in an alley with my past players, Chris!