Hello everyone!

So I am new to the FFG RPG system (and fairly new to tabletop RPGs in general) and really excited to start playing Force and Destiny but I wanted some input/advice/guidance.

I am going to be the GM for my sister and her friend and I was planning on creating a character myself that would be part of their team that I would play. I would play the character as a guide type, to help the girls when needed, and the during encounters, I plan on letting them decide on my character's actions and moves- but out of combat I will play the character myself without making any of the big decisions for gameplay.

Just want to know people's thoughts and whether this is common to do, or if it will just end up becoming an issue.

I listen to (and love!) the One Shot podcast, Campaign and their GM does something similar. If you are not familiar with this podcast btw, i of course highly recommend it!

Thanks everyone!

Welcome, Nemophilist!

It's common enough.

You just have to make sure you don't overshadow the PCs (they should be useful, but less exciting than the Player Characters).

Let him have an agenda, but make sure he's primarily trying to help them further their goals.

A good use for them is to teach them what characters can do in RPGs. Some examples:

• If the PCs aren't using their manoeuvre every round have him Aim (can be done in close combat, something not obvious to a lot of people).
• Narrate his actions and the results of the dice results to teach them how to spend Advantages and the like.
• Get him to do stuff the rules do not cover so they know they can do stuff like that, too.

Then, when you all know what you're doing, waste him.

My advice: don't.

You are playing every other character in the game, there's no need for you to have a GM PC.

It's easy to have the best intentions, but the likely outcome is your PC will begin to outshine the others and, if yours is there to act as a guide like you mentioned, you will begin to railroad them to tell the story you want told rather than have it be the collaborative process that makes this game great.

If they get stuck, have an NPC offer advice, or better yet have multiple NPCs offer them numerous options from which to choose.

No matter what you decide, have fun!

I have been in games where the GM had a character (including one in which I was the GM in question) and it never seems to work that well.

In general, it's not ideal.

Instead, consider giving them one or more support personnel that remain on their ship - this will free them up to use their agency to the fullest by not having to worry about that when they want to go out and do stuff, the NPCs can serve as heal-bot, astogater, mechanic, gunner, or whatever skill gap they may have mechanically - but do not participate in the plot or RP in any meaningful way (other than "we'll take care of the ship while you're gone", or to deliver plot exposition via an in-character channel) and most importantly are not generally around when important decisions are being made.

As good as your intentions may be, the GMPC just has too many ways it can create problems. So just given them mildly interactive, flavorful, functional scenery.

I rotate the GM duties every so often in my game, so by necessity, there will be a part time PC hanging about (otherwise I wouldn't have anything to do during my time not in the hot seat), so I've had experience with this. I would say to tread carefully. Don't upstage the players, dont try and guide the game with that character. Have them interact where appropriate, but have them hang out in the background mostly.

Also - combat is a pain in the ass because there's another character you have to keep track of. In fights I will often hand wave it with "She's off doing something over in the corner with those minions, keeping them away from the main fight"

Often, I'll just come up with an excuse why that character isn't coming along. They're back at base, they have something else to do, they have a cold. Whatever.

And don't kidnap that character too often. It's a good way to get them out of play and add a story hook, but too often and they'll get tired of it. It's turned into a trope at our table, where the GM's PC goes off somewhere and next thing we know we've got to go chase them down. I haven't done that trope in quite some time.

But yeah, in short it can be done, but let the proper PCs run the show.

Thank you for the input!!!

I think I like the idea of just having the character stay on the ship during encounters and just be available during the RP heavy and traveling times. I guess my intention is to just have an NPC that is part of the crew. I have 2 groups that want to play and that I will GM for- hopefully I can find a group to join where I can actually be a PC! :-)

Thanks again everyone!!!

As some have mentioned playing a PC can be a complication but if you do it right it can work out fine. My suggestion is that you play an Astromech Droid that has a skill set that the PCs lack and can be used as a conduit for you to give advice if they get stuck but otherwise doesn't do much. Think R2 D2 or BB8.

If I had more players, I (as GM) would not play a character, though lately I've just been playing with my wife. So, she and I each made a character, and I run the adventures but let her make the decisions, and I just roll for my character's skills (as well as subtly nudge us in the right direction when she's confused on what to do).

It helps if you're able to rotate GM duties. My group uses a "Hero Card" system if any particular GMPC is involved beyond fleshing things out narratively. The cards give the party certain bonuses that are a nod to the character's usual abilities when they're a full PC, but keeps the emphasis on the active party members. No separate tokens or actions, but rather bonuses that are initiated by the main PCs.

Here are the two Hero cards that were in play in our most recent session (2 teams and 2 GMs on different portions of the same map):

Gristle

Rogesh Vai

I take from your question that you are not familiar with this, but the subject of a GMPC is a highly controversial one in many gaming groups and forums. I've been involved in many of these threads, and it always boils down to two sides. One side has had terrible experiences with GMs who, intentionally or otherwise, create GMPCs who overpower and outshine the party, who make use of out of character knowledge, who limit the player's agency and generally allow the GM to have fun at the player's expense. Obviously, those people strongly warn against having a GMPC, and caution that it will never be done well enough to be worth it. These experiences seem to be pretty common.

The other side are people who have participated in a game with a GMPC done right, supporting but not outshining the party, there to contribute to the action and the plot but not to drive it, and without making any of the players feel that their experience is diminished. People who have played in these games usually suggest that a GMPC can be done right, you just have to be careful to avoid the aforementioned pitfalls and support your players, not compete with them.

I have been running games for years where my players keep recruiting my NPCs and demanding that they become GMPCs because they like my characters and my play style, so I certainly disagree with those who say it can never be done right. You just have to be careful and respect your players. If you're using your character as a guide to show off the rules and the world, go for it, but make sure that your character doesn't drive all of the action; newer players may default to following you, and while you may want someone who can nudge them in a direction if they're lost and confused, don't inadvertently remove their agency by allowing them to simply follow your GMPC and not make decisions of their own. It can be easier to fall into this trap than you may think, especially if you are new.

Most every game I run I also play a GMPC and my players have said I manage to do it well enough that they can't imagine games where I don't have a GMPC. The trand has even carried over to games they run, so yes, it can be done. You just need to be careful not to overshadow the normal PCs, and don't become the central force always driving the story.

I'm generally not a fan of GMs playing a character in a campaign but I have seen it done a fair amount of time. Sometimes it is done well, sometimes it is done very badly. I myself try to only do so when I'm part of a "platoon GM" situation where I may play sometimes and run the game sometimes. My advice is to keep the GM character to a background role doing support work while the PCs characters are allowed to shine. Resist the urge to use your GM character to point the way or save the day, the PCs need to do that for themselves. If things go totally sideways you can be the cavalry that swoops into a hot LZ to pick them up, but don't ride to the rescue too often or too soon. Try to groom at least one other player to take over as GM at some point, at least on a temporary basis, so that you can have a chance to play just that character instead of the rest of the galaxy. Add a little XP here and there (usually 1/2 to 2/3 what the PCs get) so that when somebody else takes over you are close enough to the rest of the group to hold your own without creating hostility for being perceived as hitting the same level without earning it (even if that isn't true some players may feel it).

One reason why it might not be a good idea to run a GMPC: Talking to yourself, that is, having to roleplay two characters in a scene carrying on a conversation, is difficult to pull off well, and running a GMPC is likely to force you to do a lot more than you otherwise would. Aside from the awkwardness at the table, it also runs the risk of shutting the players out of a social scene as your two sock puppets talk back and forth.

It's a sort of small example of the larger problems you can run into: You're doing more work, and the players are less engaged. This is why you want your GMPC to be someone who fades into the background easily, so you can stay out of the players' way.

It is easely doable. Just two thing to remember.

1- Dont make a character that have every answer to every problem. You will outshine the others.

2- Dont build a Face/Social character. If your character is the best to handle social encounter, you will end up talking to yourself and the other players will be bored.

I'm old school, so I'm going to say no. A GMPC is a bad idea and is not really a PC, but an NPC. Work with your group to provide an excellent experience for them and you should be enjoying the fact that you play every NPC in the game. If you want to play a PC character then find a game where someone else is the GM.

See, I'm currently running a GMPC, and while admittedly we haven't had many sessions with this campaign, it seems to be going well. Basically, pick a support role (I chose mechanic), and when not needed, find an excuse for him to be away from the action. Honestly, picking a silent-type character is a good idea as well, so you can justify not participating in social encounters. I think it's going okay; honestly, if anything, instead of having my character outshine the others, he more often gets his ass kicked. My guy has no combat skills to speak of. Basically, it can be done, but it's better to think of him as an NPC who helps out than a straight-up party member.

Yeah, just make NPC that can help them now and then or something.

I do that in two of the groups I run. But one just wanders in occasionally and is usually back at base, and appears in 'cutscenes' more than actual adventures. The other is a 'plucky sidekick' in a series of adventures with only one PC.

In general, it's not a great idea unless you really know what you're doing.

As others have said, make absolutely sure it's a support character who won't steal the limelight.

But having a GMPC along can work well if it's done right - if they have a cool personality that enhances the game and supports the PCs rather than overshadows them. I find it's nice to have someone who can offer them hints and a sounding-board, and fill in with the skills and talents that the group doesn't otherwise have. From the movies, R2 or Chewbacca would make good GMPCs for example.

It's certainly a tough tightrope to walk, having a GMPC, and it's incredibly easy to fall into the many traps that others have mentioned. And at lot of that is that you very often will get protective of that GMPC and want to see them succeed, much as the players get protective of their characters and want to see their characters succeed.

I've been able to pull it off a couple of times, but in general I try to avoid it as it's far less stressful to simply focus on running the game than trying to both run the game and run a GMPC while avoiding the various traps that come with such a character.

If you are going to have a GMPC in the group, the best advice is probably to follow Maelora's suggestion and make sure it's a support character, one that doesn't get actively involved in the adventure if at all possible.

I think Ahsoka and Rex in Star Wars Rebels are also two examples of a GMPC, and generally done right. Ahsoka really only grabbed the limelight in one episode where she beat down the two Inquisitors, but that only happened after the rest of the PCs had spent the adventure struggling to deal with that threat. And Rex has been more of a support character than a front-line fighter, again with one notable exception where he actively participated in the adventure, but also didn't overshadow Kanan during their mission to free Ezra and the captured Rebels from the Interdictor cruiser. In the latest Rebels episode, Ahsoka really doesn't have much of an impact on the plot other than dropping a hint to Kanan and Ezra about what to do next and providing a bit of backstory on a couple NPCs.

This can work quite well.......in theory. If it's your first time GM'ing though you may want to avoid it. If you're going to go with this though keep in mind what others have said. Make him or her a support character, the driver, the pilot, the guy your two players don't want to run but could come in handy. Many GMs will end up with an uber character that does everything better than the PCs which leads to boredom, bored players lead to no game. Keep your character very very lowkey and you may make it out alive.

I have run a GM PC. I'd generally say stay away from it if you have a party of at least 2 players. The GM has enough to do without taking up a PC slot.

I've played games with just my son as a player, and that's when it can become valuable, mostly because it's really hard to scale encounters with one PC, there's nothing to buffer the wildness of the potential results, and reacting to a story twist on every roll just gets exhausting.

I feel a good way to make a GM PC work is to only control them narratively, then have the party decide what they will do in structured encounters.

I always have at least one NPC that is considered the GM's character. After all the GM has a different role to play but is still a player in the game.

As someone said before just make sure you don't overshadow the other players or take over the game. I would have the GM PC on an equal amount of XP's to the players and have that character level up as they do.

Alternatively you can have a character which exceeds the players in power level and experience which you can use as the GMPC, this character should not actively participate in combat but be readily available for the players to contact for advice or to adjudicate on disputes.

Generally speaking, I think GMPCs can be done right, so I would say it would be fine. In this particular instance, as the OP says he is relatively new to RPGs, I would say it's a bad idea. New GMs generally make a lot of mistakes their first campaign (I sure did!) and have a lot to learn about how to GM. Throwing in a GMPC only aggravates the problem.

In general, a GMPC should fill a role not covered by the party, but not a primary combat or face role. For instance, I'm playing a wizard GMPC in a pathfinder game right now, who focuses on buffs, summoning, and the occasional blast spell. Good support roles in Edge/Age/F&D would be medics, mechanics, scholars, and traders.