I'm looking to run a campaign where I get to play a bit as well, and thought I might try to play as a PC as well as GM. I've been part of sessions where the GM has done that and it worked (at least in the 40K universe). Does anyone know of any premade or existing player made modules that have this developed already? Time for planning and creating from scratch is limited these days.

My motivation for this is that none of my players use the force at all, so I wanted to create a PC to give them some exposure to it and encourage them to consider a force sensitive players.

2 hours ago, Stethoscope Nunchucks said:

I'm looking to run a campaign where I get to play a bit as well, and thought I might try to play as a PC as well as GM. I've been part of sessions where the GM has done that and it worked (at least in the 40K universe). Does anyone know of any premade or existing player made modules that have this developed already? Time for planning and creating from scratch is limited these days.

My motivation for this is that none of my players use the force at all, so I wanted to create a PC to give them some exposure to it and encourage them to consider a force sensitive players.

No no no no no, just no, this is an insanely bad idea especially since only your character would be force sensitive. If you want a GMPC make a character, e.g. a droid, that is subservient to the PC's, not their leader. But that's still not a good idea (just the least bad way to have a gmpc). You get to play all the npc's, that should be enough, you have to be very careful not to steal the spotlight

5 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

No no no no no, just no, this is an insanely bad idea especially since only your character would be force sensitive. If you want a GMPC make a character, e.g. a droid, that is subservient to the PC's, not their leader. But that's still not a good idea (just the least bad way to have a gmpc). You get to play all the npc's, that should be enough, you have to be very careful not to steal the spotlight

Personally I have no experience with a gmpc in any games so I'm not against it. But I have read many votes against it on these forums. So as a compromise I'd think there is nothing wrong with a FS npc? There are lots to choose from and you could have them as a mentor or even someone they've saved from a bbeFSg. Which now puts them in the spotlight of the empire. That actually sounds kinda fun and would almost force them to discover some force emergence in their own pc's. Just a thought

I have several NPCs that hang around with the party, a few droids and their pilot (largely ground based AOR campaign). They are not PCs, though, so are player resources rather than driving the action.

Honestly, this is a topic that really needs to be taken with care. It can be done, and actually done well, but you need to be upfront with your players about the limitations you are imposing on the character so that they are not steering the party. Also engage the players on their comfort level with this. When I do this, here are some of the guidelines I follow and have found to work for me and my players:

1. The character will not engage in social interactions on behalf of the party. This is pretty key as no one wants to hear you talk to yourself for any length of time. Do not play a FACE.
2. The character fleshes out the party in some way mechanically. Ex: No one wants to play the slicer/mechanic, then your character picks up the slack.
3. The voice of your character will be a pretty powerful influence. Don't drop plot hints from this character. Gentle reminders of what the party already knows is okay. If your character is asked about what they think about a situation, try to reply in such a way that it prompts the Players to think about what they already know, without dropping direct hints.
4. Within the specialty of the character, only perform tasks related to that specialty when prompted by another player. E.g. Don't just go off and start rolling computers to hack all the things. Wait for a player to ask your PC if they CAN attempt to do a particular thing, assign the difficulty of the roll as per normal and make it in front of the PCs. (Not usually a problem on Roll20, but in RL groups, you should make a point to do the character's rolling in front of at least one other PC.
5. If you are picking up a combat role because the party forgot they needed someone to do X, be cognizant of not outshining the other party members too much. Play to the familiarity of the players with the system. That said, occasionally whipping out a combination of skills during a tense encounter can help illustrate what is possible to the players, while still being appropriate to the encounter.
6. Your character should try to never land the "final blow" in a combat, especially against a nemesis/named rival. Leave that for the group.
7. Be very careful about using your character to drive plot. Most interactions of your PC with the world around them should be in plain view of the party. Occasionally though, using your PC's presence (or lack there of) to drive plot may be appropriate. Just don't over use this.
8. GET Feedback from your Players on your use of the GMPC. This is like pulling teeth at times, but can help head off an issue where a player might be getting frustrated with your use of the GMPC.

Basically your character should be in the spot light as little as possible while providing a service to the party that enables them to pursue their agendas in the game world.

It can be done, but it takes self-discipline. @TrystramK 's suggestions are right on the money.

I run two campaigns. In the first, the initial plan was to have a few of us rotating GM duties. So, I made a character. I kicked off the GM cycle, and used my character basically as an NPC. After the first couple of sessions, it was mutually decided that I was the full-time GM. But, given the initial plan to rotate GMs, my character's function was, while not essential to the group, important to the group (owner/captain of the ship), and there was a reveal about his past baked into one of the subplots percolating in the campaign. He became a glorified NPC, normally staying behind to take care of administrative duties and lining up jobs now that he had a fairly sizable crew in the PCs. On a couple of occasions, I took him along if we had a small player turnout to boost their numbers, and specifically crafted one session to work in that reveal that I mentioned. Meanwhile, I'm now working towards a point in the story that will allow me to write him out for an extended period (and, depending on how the players deal with it, potentially permanently). If he went along, there were two major mechanical elements that I made sure the players knew: 1) no matter what else was going on, he took the last PC initiative slot, and 2) he got 50% of the average XP given to the group and only if he was active in the session.

I think you'll find that all of FFG's materials (and most, if not all, player-created content) assumes that the GM will not be running a PC. From the sound of what you want to use this character to do, maybe consider making the character a prominent NPC...one the party hangs around but does not accompany them on jobs/missions. Maybe someone who spins stories to them about a crazy-sounding supernatural energy field...nothing too heavy-handed, but s/he will gradually start demonstrating that it's true...all of it. That introduces the characters to the concept and can allow for a dramatic moment (should it arise) when one of the characters demonstrates a previously-unknown affinity for this power at just the right time.

I would recommend against it, if the character needs to be there then just make them an NPC. There is very little difference between and NPC, versus a PC run by the GM. They function the same, just less paper work for you to be an NPC.

4 hours ago, damnkid3 said:

I would recommend against it, if the character needs to be there then just make them an NPC. There is very little difference between and NPC, versus a PC run by the GM. They function the same, just less paper work for you to be an NPC.

I'd say the key difference is by making it a "PC" instead of an "NPC" you are going to be a part of the party, and advance the character according ot the same rules that the players are using. With an NPC, you can just have them pull the "You haven't even seen my final form..." trope and just secretly be an ancient sith lord with 20 force rating, and every force power maxed out and 6 in every skill :P. This limitation is part of the compact you have to make with your players if you are going to do this. Along with this, by making a PC to play with, you are also agreeing that this character won't be a surprise plot twist at some point, but is there to help them overcome challenges.

I used to do this a lot when I first started GMing. It wasn't as bad as others are making it out to be. However, after a point, the other PCs were asking my character what they were thinking or what they feel the group should do next. Whether the players realized it or not, they were depending on me and my behind-the-scenes knowledge to advance the story. So once I came to that realization, I stopped running GMPCs.

Thanks for the great feedback, I appreciate all the time you guys put into your responses. Certainly gave me some things to think about. TrystramK's rule certainly make sense, and I think I would try to follow those if i go that route.

Do whatever you want to do. If it fails in practice, then abandon it, but try it first if you think it might make for a fun experience.

I very much dislike GMPCs. It’s not so much that it can’t be done, but more that even when done well it’s jarring. If the GMPC needs to contribute meaningfully you get back and forths between the GM-as-GM and the GM-as-player, which is silly. If the GMPC doesn’t need to contribute meaningfully, it’s just a hanger-on that has no reason to be there.

If you’d like to have a character ready to sub in when someone else takes a stint in the GM seat, just use it as an NPC during your campaign. Come up with a reason why this character can’t join the group for the adventure itself this time, just allow for interaction at the start and end - not the meat and potatoes part in the middle. For the playing part, try to make playing the NPCs fun and interesting. Give them quirks, make them expressive. Especially the major antagonists: Star Wars is a space opera, the bad guys are larger than life, flamboyant, characterful. Fett, Jabba, Vader, Kylo - they’re just as memorable as the heroes. The NPCs are where the GM gets to shine, and the adventure will be all the better for it.

37 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

I very much dislike GMPCs. It’s not so much that it can’t be done, but more that even when done well it’s jarring. If the GMPC needs to contribute meaningfully you get back and forths between the GM-as-GM and the GM-as-player, which is silly. If the GMPC doesn’t need to contribute meaningfully, it’s just a hanger-on that has no reason to be there.

If you’d like to have a character ready to sub in when someone else takes a stint in the GM seat, just use it as an NPC during your campaign. Come up with a reason why this character can’t join the group for the adventure itself this time, just allow for interaction at the start and end - not the meat and potatoes part in the middle. For the playing part, try to make playing the NPCs fun and interesting. Give them quirks, make them expressive. Especially the major antagonists: Star Wars is a space opera, the bad guys are larger than life, flamboyant, characterful. Fett, Jabba, Vader, Kylo - they’re just as memorable as the heroes. The NPCs are where the GM gets to shine, and the adventure will be all the better for it.

Could you expand on what you mean by "back and forths" and your definition of "contribute meaningfully" for the benefit of the thread please?

56 minutes ago, TrystramK said:

Could you expand on what you mean by "back and forths" and your definition of "contribute meaningfully" for the benefit of the thread please?

If the GMPC has to do something to allow the adventure to progress, like question an actual NPC or slice a computer to get some info or pretty much anything else that requires one or more rolls to figure out whether it succeeds or fails, you get the GM describing the situation and setting the difficulty (as the GM), then making the roll, deciding what to do with the result and possibly narrating the GMPC’s action (as a player), then describing the outcome (as the GM again), then possibly going for another check (back to being a player), at which point he does this whole sequence over again. Anything where the outcome matters enough to warrant a roll should be left for an actual PC to handle. If not, you can get games like @kaosoe described where the players look towards the GM to steer them in a particular direction. Even if that doesn’t happen, the GM narrating two sides of a conversation or going through an entire spiel of challenge-action-reaction-new challenge-and so on is a bit ridiculous.

If you roll dice for NPC actions, whether allied or opposition, then rolling for a GMPC's actions is no different.

50 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

If you roll dice for NPC actions, whether allied or opposition, then rolling for a GMPC's actions is no different.

Unless they’re in direct opposition of the PCs, I do not roll dice for NPC actions. What would be the point of that? If an NPC does something, it’s because he’s meant to.

52 minutes ago, nameless ronin said:

Unless they’re in direct opposition of the PCs, I do not roll dice for NPC actions. What would be the point of that? If an NPC does something, it’s because he’s meant to.

The point is that there can be random elements rather than GM fiat. If an allied NPC fires on an opponent, I let the dice roll. If the opponent fires on the allied NPC, I also let the dice roll. If two hostile parties fire on each other while the PCs are fighting off both of them, the dice roll again.

8 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

The point is that there can be random elements rather than GM fiat. If an allied NPC fires on an opponent, I let the dice roll. If the opponent fires on the allied NPC, I also let the dice roll. If two hostile parties fire on each other while the PCs are fighting off both of them, the dice roll again.

I’d say the point is that that’s more of a GMPC than an NPC then. If it’s really an NPC, I’ll likely not roll in most such scenarios. The fight shouldn’t be decided by an NPC’s actions, they should remain in the background.

If my players ask my Pilot NPC to pull off a flying action, you can bet I will be rolling for him, as they are affected by the action, being within the ship. He will even use their destiny pool to upgrade, if they ask him to.

I guess depending on where you, personally, draw the line, that might making him GMPC or NPC.

Personally - if 80% of the time the character with the party acts on their own volition, GMPC, if they act 80% on the party's volition, NPC. If they aren't with the party, NPC.

3 hours ago, Darzil said:

If my players ask my Pilot NPC to pull off a flying action, you can bet I will be rolling for him, as they are affected by the action, being within the ship. He will even use their destiny pool to upgrade, if they ask him to.

I guess depending on where you, personally, draw the line, that might making him GMPC or NPC.

Personally - if 80% of the time the character with the party acts on their own volition, GMPC, if they act 80% on the party's volition, NPC. If they aren't with the party, NPC.

I draw the line according to what they’re doing. If it’s something you’d otherwise expect a PC to take care of, they’re being a GMPC. If not, they’re being an NPC. The same character can be both, the hat they wear changes with the circumstances.

We do this often in our setting of 4 rotating GMs. The inactive PC may either take an NPC role during the session which is easiest. The PC may also be active based on the GMs direction, like in critical combat scenes. An aspect that I want to try is having an active PC spend a maneuver to direct the inactive PC.

Start with getting your players opinions. If they say no, then don't. If they say yes, then do it (if you want to). The published adventures are generally geared towards 4 PC's. You have to scale them up in some way to make them challenging for more PC's. If you would be the 4th PC, I say go for it. If you are the 7th, weigh the pros and cons of it. In my 3 campaigns, only 1 of my GMPC's is a Force User, and he is a Racer. Personally, I would strongly suggest your character not be a Force User at all if it is in the Empire Era, if you do decide to play one, I would suggest he not be a Jedi. A Scholar or something with Force Adherent Universal Specialization might be a better option. Someone with knowledge of the Force, but no access to it.

Back in WEG I had a Major NPC Jedi that "employed" the group for a time. In WEG every NPC was pretty much created just like a PC. My mistake with him was that I made him too powerful. The backstory I created for him, gave him access to a lot of skills and Force abilities. When there were confrontations when he was around (which wasn't often), he overshadowed the group. Later, I made their direct contact for their jobs and such a less powerful (closer to, or lower than, PC level) underling of his.

When we played in a post KOTOR II era Mass Effect-esque campaign in a secluded sector of space (supposed to be unaffiliated sector with no ties to the Republic or the Jedi, but the previous GM allowed Jedi to fulfill one player's desire to always be a Jedi) using the Saga system from WotC, I got to be a player with my own character. Yay! Then, sadly, that game ceased when the GM moved. I picked it up briefly as the GM, running my character as an GMPC, and it worked out fine. I also started Firefly-esque campaign tied to that timeline with another GMPC that was started from scratch with Level 1 characters.

I have 3 campaigns currently running in the FFG System. In the two campaigns carried over from Saga, my characters in are a Human Mandalorian Soldier (for the Spectre Campaign), and a Human Racer (for the Firefly campaign).

The third campaign started just after the battle of Yavin using the EotE and AoR books and expanded once FaD became available. I discussed it with my players beforehand as to whether or not I should play a character of my own at all in the campaign and they unanimously said that I should (granted all but 1 of my players are related to me by blood or marriage). I created him to fill the niche of the group's Medic. Career Soldier, Specialization Medic, later adding Doctor. Now he is Medic/Doctor/Recruit/Quartermaster/Entrepreneur.

In the Empire campaign, I quickly ran into an issue where motivations were concerned. I made note of any PC working toward one of the their motivations and also made sure to specify if my character was doing something towards one of his. I was awarding that 5 XP motivation bonus on a PC by PC basis and if you had 2 motivations and actively worked towards both of them you could get it twice. There was a growing gap in the experience between players. I had to quash that real quick. One player felt he was always working towards his motivations and started awarding his own 5 XP bonus when he felt I was leaving him out. When I realized this, I ended up equalizing the XP between all the players and I now give the 5 XP motivation bonus as an award to everyone in the group if at least one character work towards their motivation and the other players support them (or in some cases do not interfere) in doing so. If the majority or all of the characters find a way to work towards their own motivations in a gaming session, I will grant the group a 10 XP bonus instead. But, regardless of what happens during the gaming session all players get the same amount of XP. I makes it a lot easier to make sure no one is artificially boosting their XP because they feel that I missed something they did that they felt they should have gotten a bonus for.

As for how I handle combats, after all initiatives are rolled, I call "1st PC slot?" and someone will call it, then I call "2nd PC Slot?"... so on. I will usually take the last PC slot unless someone asks me to take an earlier one or if someone just got hit and I need to rush over to patch them up, or to engage an enemy to stop them from delivering a finishing blow.

When the bad guys attack during the NPC slots, you can't always target you, and you can't always not target you. You have to find a way to make it fair. In the first round, I assign each PC a number (usually 1-6, starting with me as 1 and going clockwise around the table) and roll a die to determine who each enemy is targeting. The enemy usually continues to attack that PC, having decided that that PC is their target to remove from the battlefield. Now, if someone gets dropped by enemy fire, their number either gets reassigned or becomes a reroll. If someone gets dropped by an enemy in melee, that might not happen unless there is another immediate threat. On the other hand, if someone does something to seriously draw the aggro, like if the Jedi draws his lightsaber, or the gunslinger does a trick shot to shoot the inquisitor's lightsaber out of his hand, or my character opens up with his auto-fire weapon, I might have to roll a bigger die with those characters getting some extra numbers, or the slicer, the mechanic or the pilot might be ignored entirely because we are pissing off more of the enemies.

If my character is struck and there are options to spend advantages and/or triumphs on (for example: auto-fire for a second hit or cause a critical on my character), to be fair about it, I'll call for a high or low (usually from my wife) and roll percentile dice to determine what happens to my character.

On 4/14/2018 at 6:57 PM, kaosoe said:

I used to do this a lot when I first started GMing. It wasn't as bad as others are making it out to be. However, after a point, the other PCs were asking my character what they were thinking or what they feel the group should do next. Whether the players realized it or not, they were depending on me and my behind-the-scenes knowledge to advance the story. So once I came to that realization, I stopped running GMPCs.

For story purposes, my players have never tried to get my GMPC to drive their story. If they ask how I feel, I always tend to list our options and what he would feel are the pros and cons of each choice. He may cast his vote, but it is never the first vote and never the deciding vote. At most, if I feel the group needs a little steering, he might agree with another character that has cast a vote that takes the group back to where I would the like the group to go.

Hopefully some of this advice will be of help to you.

For the group I run, which is my brothers and I, they do want me to participate as a GMPC, too. But I make mine so that he or she just helps their characters drive the story along.

It all depends on how your group feels about it.

On 4/13/2018 at 6:42 PM, Stethoscope Nunchucks said:

thought I might try to play as a PC as well as GM. I've been part of sessions where the GM has done that and it worked (at least in the 40K universe).

It is almost universally a horrible idea. the few exceptions do not make it a justifiable risk.

The only way it works even remotely well is when there are multiple GM's and whomever is GMing either leaves there character out of play or hands them off to another player to play.

On 4/14/2018 at 3:57 PM, kaosoe said:

I used to do this a lot when I first started GMing. It wasn't as bad as others are making it out to be.

I'm in the same boat as K here. We rotate out the GMing duties all the time so I've got an on-again, off-again character that's part of the team. We've gotten pretty good at handwaving it, that she's off in the background doing background things during a fight or not using her for social stuff. Occasionally she lends a hand for support, but only when someone says "Hey, go do this thing" or whatever - but most of the time it's not an issue.

So yeah, I say go for it. Just be mindful of the group and get them onboard with the idea first.