Ah GMPCs, the ultimate tool of any party to make you question your decisions as GM.

Unless you're in my old group in which case every decision the character made was just "whatever you guys want to do". Trying to to railroad with your NPCs is fine, but give your characters some agency if they're an integral part of the team for God's sake. >_>

I am happy to use GMPCs, if anything it makes it more fun since the GM gets to play too. The trouble is the fine line that a GMPC has to walk. It can't be the strongest character in the party, it can't be the party face, it can't be the major decision maker, it can;t be rendered useless, it can't commonly contradict the party's desires...

The list goes on. GMPCs are fun but difficult to pull off without annoying your players, being accused of railroading, policing or otherwise messing with their game. Unless you are lucky enough to have that rarest of occurrences, the story driven group. Then the GMPC can slide right in and argue with the party all he wants.

The group I DM for occasionally is pretty small, so I have to use DMPCs to get a balanced party. The problem is, they aren't very experienced with 3.5 (and in one case, D&D in general), so whenever I have an NPC suggest a course of action, they automatically agree with him, assuming that it's me giving them a not-so-subtle "hint" about the ideal course of action. It got to the point that my NPCs basically became cookie-cutter one-dimensional stabbing/blasting/healing machines so the players would be willing to take initiative.

I feel like the perfect class for a DMPC would be either a potion-focused Alchemist or an Artificer. Non-combat but combat-capable, probably Int focused instead of Cha or anything like that- academics, perfect to explain to the rest of the party why no, the 10 foot pole won't allow the 300lb+armour Goliath Fighter to walk across the spike pit or pipe up with some bit of trivial-yet-crucial lore about the region, and anytime they're not 'needed' they can just be hanging out, brewing potions or working on magic items.

And you can even make it so the potions they brew aren't necessarily directly useful to the party, but can instead be creatively applied.

I know I'm late to the party, but my 12-yr. old Neko Assassin's handler that I've talked about somewhat fills the GMPC role. He's an Pathfinder Infiltrator with the Mastermind Archetype. And a Winter Wolf, but that's irrelevant. It handles the mastermind archetype well. Always forcing my character to put up with the rest of the party, not murder the other characters in their sleep[This is a discussion that's been had many times, apparently she needs to learn how to deal with people, and they make good cannon fodder (They don't really)], make me guide the party instead of him[Usually towards a target I'm after. Get them to do dirty work without realizing it]. All in all it works out rather well. The party has no idea the Winter Wolf they barely acknowledge exists when it doesn't suit some idea they have is actually the guiding force behind where the party goes and does.

Roll instead of oll. One of those easy to miss mistakes.

fixed

I'd rather deal with a GMPC than a GM's Girlfriend PC. "Obviously she should have third level spells at level 3"

You mean she took Versatile Spellcaster at Level 3, successfully argued that she can learn spells of any level even if she doesn't get spell slots to cast them, and then sacrifices two 2nd level spells in order to be able to cast a 3rd level spell?

That magnificent munchkin! She'd fit right in with this campaign.

Hell this is Standard operating procedure for Fixed list casters like Dread Necromancers, Beguilers and Warmages, the hard part is legitimately getting 4ths at the same level (thank you sanctum spell/acorn of far travel)

All of that is better than a hippie DM that declares violence to be off limits, nobody's characters are allowed to eat meat(even my freaking wolf companion) and we are expected to convince the evil king to change his ways with peaceful diplomacy.

You shoulda seen Airhead Flowerchild's reaction when I explained that my wolf companion was trained to hunt game. "No, your wolf eats a vegan diet."

She was not a fun DM. She declared that tobacco, alcohol, and brothels weren't in any city we visited, either. I have almost never met anyone so openly hostile to any idea that was 'problematic'.

I have since met one of two useless twits even worse, but thankfully, they aren't gamers.

... Candy Crush doesn't count! And yes, I'm still holding a grudge.

Fucking hell I hope she doesn't have pets. According to a vegan friend, you CAN feed a dog vegan dog food, provided you're OK with having a miserable half-starved dog who eats barely enough to keep body and soul together.

Now, I don't advocate murder, but I do advocate forcing someone to spend six months in the wild, learning to fend for herself. I think the like was crossed when she declared that we couldn't have a campfire or use our wool blankets.

Before you ask, yes, she was a member of PETA. As far as I know, she didn't pay any chinese butchers to skin dogs alive for propaganda or adopt puppies from no kill shelters to drown them, but she was a PETA member last I heard, so ya never know.

Yes, there are sources. Beware, and don't read too much if you are easily enraged. You can and will punch a hole in your monitor.

My chars have stolen the parties treasure and left them to die at the hands of demons, listened to the legions of voices in his head, set up death camps and commanded legions of Chaos Spawn to use a card cataloging system to sort a chaotic plane, but I have yet to make even one char as clearly insane as PETA...

Speaking of terrible GMs, I recently dodged a bullet with a potential new gaming group. There aren't many in my new home town, and I was really happy to hear of a group that was open to trying different RPG systems.

That is, until I learned that the GM was a racist, homophobic and misogynistic blockhead whose politics shone through not only in his everyday attitude, but also in the Gor-esque homebrew world he was very proud of. The short description he gave was enough to convince me that he was probably the most unoriginal, cliched writer out there, and the frankly disgusting attitudes he held towards women and minorities was a huge red flag from the get-go. Let's just say I wasn't surprised to hear that no woman had ever agreed to join that group.

Sadly, the rest of the group either agreed with his awful ideas, or didn't care enough to make him knock it off. I left after the introduction and didn't look back. Subverting silly, minor problematic issues is one thing, and can at least train your creativity mucles. Playing harmful stereotypes and major problematic stuff completely straight is not only appalling, but boring and uninspiring as well.

Actually misogynist, or tumblr misogynist?

I have heard and seen enough to actually make this a legit question. Misogynist as in "shut up woman! Not your place to speak" or tumblr misogynist, as in "hey, that chick's hot."

Not sure if that's a legitimate distinction, actually. Yes, tumblr is full of silly people making the most absurd claims. But misogynists also have a tendency to downplay their actual comments to resemble innocent remarks when called out on them, or worse, try to spin it into 'all in good fun, can't you take a joke' type narratives. Like racists, very few misogynists say as blatant stuff as 'know your place', but they show their nature in other ways. Anyway, to answer your question, someone who thinks sexual assault is hi-larious and that female characters who aren't sexualized need to be put into sexual circumstances that male characters are not subjected to shows a mindset that women are sexual objects first, human beings second (if at all). To me, that's a pretty huge warning sign.

I asked because I've seen plenty of people who actively look for things to be offended by. After a bit of experience with them, I prefer to just disengage.

That said, I don't consider sexual assault to be funny. I am also rather vocal of my dislike for any character who lacks a personality, and exists to be eye candy. I will not attempt to speak for anyone else, but I hate it when a show or a game says, "hey, we need ratings! Have some fanservice!" Then again, I like a bit of fanservice, but quite frankly, I see it as a mostly unnecessary thing. /rant

I see where you're coming from, though. If I'm in a game, and the DM says, "okay, the slime dissolved your robes. Your drow chick is totally naked!" I'm going to be annoyed. On the other hand, unless my character cares about their clothes, I generally don't, either.

If there is a female character, and she's just a sexual fantasy character, she had better be able to keep up with everyone else. You would b surprised how many times I've seen someone expect everyone else to pick up the slack because their character received no thought past "sexy babe". Telling us how sexy your character is isn't going to convince us to carry you up that mountain, Mike.

As for nonsexualized characters put in sexual positions, I actually do something like that, when sexual situations are requested. Mostly along the lines of "The umber hulk princess presses her chitinous cleavage against your arm as she giggles and gazes at you with her big blue segmented eyes." Or trolls. Or bugbears. Or earth elementals. Or rust monsters. I don't push character into sexual situations, but if you ask for a sexual encounter in my group, be warned that the DM may have a different opinion of what is sexy than you.

And that I openly admit to having deviant interests. Most of my players stop asking when the rust monster says, "Do you have any piercings, baby? I just love piercings." Also, I miiiiight be a little bit evil.

But yeah, I don't stick PCs or NPCs in sexual situations unless they set it up themselves, with my ability to veto.

I already played F.A.T.A.L. before, I don't wanna play it again.

Sir I think I'd fit in just fine with your games, that bit with the piercings sounds 500% hilarious and exactly like what I'd want to go along with.

Well, they did say their characters were looking for a girl to have a little fun with, in the middle of a dungeon.

Well yeah, people sometimes get offended over trivial things, but there are also legitimate things to get offended about, so I tend to try to take it as a learning exercise. If the thing pointed out to me indeed is trivial or, frankly, very borderline ("A bear ate my dog! How dare you post pictures of bears!"), I'll shrug and move on. If the issue is legitimate and affects many people who have a different life experience from me (as double standards and the sexual objectification of women in the media very often does), I think about why I might be holding such ideas without even realizing it, apologize and try to not be a jerk about this particular issue in the future. After all, being called sexist is nowhere near as bad as perpetuating sexist crap without realizing it. But that's just my two cents.

On the subject of sexual stuff in games, the point is of course that it is, and should be, equal opportunity. If women are put into sexual situations, then so should men be, with no difference in how that situation is handled. Being confronted by a sexually submissive Illithid with a cerebrum-focused vore fetish should not be any more or less humorously handled depending on the character's gender. On the other hand, if the group insists on exploring a very mature and deliberately unsettling storyline dealing with the darker side of human (or ogre, or indeed Illithid) sexuality, they should not shy away from bad and traumatizing things potentially happening to male characters as well. After all, sexual violence is about power and dominance, not preference.

And it goes without saying that the players and GM should all have a veto right regarding these things. If someone doesn't want to go there, they shouldn't have to. Games should strive to be fun for everyone involved even when dealing with terrible things. And if obnoxious Mike wants something terrible to happen to his sexualized carboard cutout female character while not even thinking about role-playing the trauma that is sure to follow because he's a sexist jerk and women are just walking boob dispensers hurr hurr amirite fellas, then I, as GM, would rule that he is not allowed to play a woman until he stops being a misogynistic douche because seriously, man, just stop it. Not cool.

Did I mention that this particular GM loved Gor, darn nigh idealized harmful myths about ruthless white men ruling over women and people of color, and just generally seemed to handle the all too common double standard horsecrap (that is probably a big reason why many women don't feel safe playing with certain groups) with all the grace of a hippo operating a nuclear bomb? Like I said, guy was not only boring as well as offensive, but also creepy as all heck. And I'm a dude, wouldn't want to be anywhere near this kind of guy if I were a woman.

So yeah. My bad GM story. Sorry for the teal deer.

I agree. That does sound like a bad DM. I am an equal opportunity evil DM. It's just that I rarely get a female player or a male player with a female character who tries to get their mack on in the middle of a battlefield or a dungeon.

You get what is available. What's available in a dungeon? Monsters and traps.

Only time i ever put in a rape story in my chars background was when i wanted a berserker with enough mental trauma to justify him shying of in the face of confrontation.

Poor Dwarf was broken to the point of developing multiple personalities, and when he eventually was pushed into a fight, he didn't stop punching and cutting the bodies of his enemies until there was nothing left to punch...

Rape in your background history are ok, but you better not make your char shrug it of like it was nothing

(Later looked up what all the flaws that char ought to have given me, and thank god that we didn't open the flaws rules until after char creation, or he would have become a char that would have overshadowed even Raxons abominations.)

I don't know, I think a lot of fun could be had with a GM like that.

I wouldn't have to feel regret.

Prefacing this with "I work for the forest service majored in Forestry and Natural resources and could have minored in Wilflife ecology but was a class shy. (probably could have done a minor in art design but that's that)


Anyway my counterargument to your hippyGM, granted I've probably already made it once before: Ok you've reduced a carnivore, a creature designed by nature to eat meat and mostly meat to eat a purely vegan diet. Do you realize what you've done? You've given it a death sentence. A wolf isn't like a dog, or a coyote which are both omnivores, it can't just survive on bread and beans, it'll waste away and die. Good going, you've killed off one of the members of the party before the game's even begun.

Best part is, she referred to my wolf companion from then on as "uplifted" and "enlightened".

Yeah, heaven does that.

Flashback comic incoming!

I once created the ultimate DMPC in fourth, and I say this because all he did was buff, heal, and let others attack when it was his turn. (He was a warlord/wizard hybrid)
I think I just had him sleep outside of combat.

My (½)Dwarf Archivist in 3.5 was similar, but also used terrain-altering magic. With a party of a fighter/rogue, a sorcerer/bard, and a fighter/psion, he was pretty necessary. A cleric might have made a better healer, but this guy was also the first questgiver, and my plot worked best if he was an Archivist.
He was purposely underpowered, though - I was experimenting with a sort of demi-gestalt game: players picked a class and secondary class just like gestalt, but could only pick one aspect of their secondary class per level - saves, BAB, class features, or spellcasting. (Skills were a freebie.) He was just an Archivist, without the pseudogestalt bells and whistles the PCs got.

wait Luke actually likes Mary Sue DMPC's? guess i'm going to have to rethink the sequel to the guest comic i already sent in.

Well, he, Cory, and GM ARE nicknamed "The Munchkin Trio." I don't think something that's entirely rules-legal counts as a Mary Sue in a campaign that includes characters as powergamed as Zoro, Luffy, and Mihawk.

I think he just think it's more fun if everyone can be part of the adventure. And probably trust the GM to not try to make the GMPC the "hero".

How did I miss that? I completely should have seen DMPC coming if I had remembered that page!