So as I am new to GM'ing im curious cuz id like my character to be in the party so when im not gming I can still be up to par with everyone. Now I was told as long as im not intrusive or stepping on toes I can play and gm. But I was also told there is so much going on I may want to avoid that all together lol.

So I figured id make him just kinda there. But adding an npc how do I play him? Do I roll for him or do the pcs. Just kinda confused about it.

Personal, subjective advice:

Do not be a player in your game. Do not add "GM NPC's" in your game. Don't.

In all my years of table top gaming, I have NEVER seen this implemented right. Either your character looks stupid because you can't help in any situations ever due to giving the answers of the "puzzle" away, or the PC's begin to lean on your NPC too much because he knows everything.

There is no middle ground. There just . . . isn't.

It's a huge mistake I've seen many times of new GM's wanting to play, wanting to be part of the action; but trust me, it doesn't turn out well. Your job is to be a story teller. Your job is to entertain your players. A good GM derives his fun and entertainment from telling a great story.

Its mainly how do I keep my personal character up to par with everyone else when im gm. Cuz so far no one else wants to gm.

Personal, subjective advice:

Do not be a player in your game. Do not add "GM NPC's" in your game. Don't.

In all my years of table top gaming, I have NEVER seen this implemented right. Either your character looks stupid because you can't help in any situations ever due to giving the answers of the "puzzle" away, or the PC's begin to lean on your NPC too much because he knows everything.

There is no middle ground. There just . . . isn't.

It's a huge mistake I've seen many times of new GM's wanting to play, wanting to be part of the action; but trust me, it doesn't turn out well. Your job is to be a story teller. Your job is to entertain your players. A good GM derives his fun and entertainment from telling a great story.

This is the best advice. I've tried it a bunch of times, it's a disaster. I've sworn off GMPCs

But to answer your question. Just give your character the same amount XP you give everyone else.

Even if you go more or less, it shouldn't overbalance things too bad. I've seen examples of characters with varying degrees of experience in one game and the players couldn't tell the difference.

EDIT: Realized I rambled. For those who suffer from TLDR Syndrome:

If you're going to share GM duties: Give characters that weren't involved some XP so they keep up.

If you're going to GM alone: Don't have a GMPC for the reasons others have stated. Simply treat the top 3-5 NPCs of the campaign as PCs who happen to be working against the players. This makes the NPCs' motivations more believable .

If you absolutely must have a GMPC: Play a support role. Never upstage your characters.

I'd say the first step is to figure out whether or not you will be GMing all the time.

- If you are not going to GM all the time, (the group agrees to rotate, or you trade off with someone else regularly), than the easiest thing to do would be to award all PCs XP after every session, even if they weren't involved. This keeps everyone at a similar level of capability. If you think your group wouldn't go for this, you can also suggest using "catch-up" XP, a method I use with a group of 10 friends since only 5 or 6 of us can get together at a time.

Essentially, every time a major story arc is completed, any player behind on XP gets bonus XP equal to half of the difference between them and the player with the most. This lets me reward the players who form the core of the group, but keeps everyone relevant and capable of influencing the game.

- If you are going to end up GMing most of the time, a GMPC is impractical, for the reasons Endrek stated above. I have run GMPCs in the past, but only during introductory adventures, and even then they either come across as dimwits or cheat codes to the rest of the pary. My advice is; don't even try it beyond the intro adventure.

As the GM, you are in control of so many NPCs already, use those to satisfy your desire for direct interaction with the party and the plot. Yes, many NPCs are nameless mooks or random shopkeepers, but the more recurring characters you introduce into the campaign the more personally involved you become in the story, as your creations get their chance to shine alongside (or against) the PCs. Don't upstage your players, though.

If you are dead-set on running a GMPC, I'd recommend playing a secondary support role; such as the "healer" (Colonist Doctor), "craftsman" (Technician Mechanic), or maybe a defensive "fighter" (Hired Gun Bodyguard), but pick this only if you've already got an offensive combat PC. These archetypes are an integral part of many adventuring parties so you will always be useful, but because of their supporting roles they rarely drive the plot, something you need to let your players do.

Do not play the "face" of the group (Colonist Politico, Explorer Trader), an offensive "fighter" (Bounty Hunter Assassin or Hired Gun Marauder), a "rogue" (Smuggler Scoundrel, Technician Slicer), or especially a "caster" (Force Sensitive Exile). These characters are most likely to drive the direction of the plot, or to perform certain spectacular actions, like inflicting the final blow on the Big Bad. Again, don't upstage your players .

Personally, I haven't played a standard PC in four or five years, because I end up GMing. I do miss it a little, but I've found that by taking 3-5 of the most important NPCs in my storyline, and treating them like a separate group of PCs working at odds (or at least not alongside) the players, I can not only indulge in creative roleplay but also make a more believable campaign for the players, as the NPCs' motivations seem more real.

Do not play the "face" of the group (Colonist Politico, Explorer Trader)

This is the worst. I hate talking to myself. I try to avoid having more than one NPC in the same room together because my players mostly sitback and don't get into the conversation.

If you can play an R2 type character without all the awesome slicing then do it. Just "beep" and "boop" and do whatever the players want you to do. Even if none of your players are computer savvy, you may want to use that party weakness as a plot device so filling that hole could be a detriment.

There is no middle ground. There just . . . isn't.

I'll counter that by saying that I've seen the middle ground. It's not easy to walk it, but it exists.

easiest to have the other PCs decide what the NPC should do. Sometimes when the PCs are being STOOOPID the NPC will speak up (via the GM) and tell them something they missed. But otherwise, the GM should stay away from running an NPC.

I had a bad experience with this in a Star Trek game, when the GM used his character (the captain), his characters wife (The Helmsman) and the first officer (an antagonist NPC). There was a point when the PCs were doing nothing while the GM had a three way in game conversation with himself.

Ok ok so its a no pretty in unison lol but. Lets say I make npc units that are recurring or big plot npcs like a nemesis or mentor or of that nature. Do I make a character sheet? Or just kinda make a little stat sheet?

For most NPCs, a statblock similar to those used in the "Adversaries" chapter in the core rule book is sufficient, the writers even use the same model for nemesis. However, if you want the BBEG to be a very complicated adversary you could use a character sheet, but keep in mind, Adversaries aren't created the same way PCs are. You don't need to use an XP pool or anything like that. The NPC's stats and abilities should be exactly what they need to be.

So lets say I make a strong nemesis on a character sheet. I can just give him good stats. Skills and talents that I think are fitting and I dont have to change it or modify them even when the pcs get stronger?

So lets say I make a strong nemesis on a character sheet. I can just give him good stats. Skills and talents that I think are fitting and I dont have to change it or modify them even when the pcs get stronger?

You should always update and improve an important NPC as PCs advance. The rate at which you do determines how much of a continuing threat they are.

Unless of course, you already know how dangerous you want them to be at the final showdown and are willing to let the PCs either run or get their butts handed to them in a few fights before then. I am thinking of Darth Vader in this instance.

Since I know where the OP is coming from, I would suggest you and your other GM create similarly "One-trick-pony" characters. Make them really good at something, so that when that something comes up, the other players know exactly whom to call on. And it should probably be like Medicine, or Slicing, or Negotiating prices, or being Streetwise and knowing where to get the really good stuff. Basically, it should be a skill that fills a hole in the group and that everyone knows is your character's shtick. Having played a few GM PCs over the course of my career, I can empathize greatly with Endrek's statements (in that, usually, the GM PC will come off as stupid and worthless or will simply outshine all the other characters).*

But I have seen it done properly, and having a one-trick-pony will help greatly in allowing your current GM's PC to kind of meld into the background of the scene until his services are required.

*one of my favorite GM PCs was Dek, a Yuzzem scoundrel/soldier/Medic in an old Saga campaign. He was not the smartest of characters, and he always seemed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, much to the chagrin of the other PCs. But he was the brawn of the party, so he did all the heavy lifting. He was also a strong believer in the sanctity of all life, having been raised by Ithorians, so he was the team's botanist and medic. He was also godlike in his ability to grapple someone down the Condition Track, but most of our encounters were at range so he usually settled for using his stun pistol with an awful Dexterity modifier But those rare moment that Dek closed in with someone, the whole group was like, "Yeah go Dek!" So. It works, but IMO you've gotta have a strong niche.

I personally don't have any experience with GMPCs (the advice of veterans has always deterred me), but I lean toward what awayputurwpn is saying. You can pull it off if you show some restraint in building and using your character.

To use a film analogy, your GMPC should fill the role of a "bit" player: no more than five speaking parts or success rolls per session. Any more than that and he graduates to "supporting actor" which comes dangerously close to upstaging your stars.

I've found that one thing that helps keep a GM-controlled character from becoming a problem is to have more than one such character. I run three recurring NPCs in my game, and each is played differently. It also helps to keep me from thinking of them as "my character" despite the fact that all three have full character sheets and track XP/advancement. None of them are stars of the show, but the group doesn't think of them as bit players either. Supporting characters is probably the best description.

I was going for a pilot you know someone who just stays and hangs with his ship making sure nothing happens. But as a gm I do have certain advantages of know whats going to happen but can use that as a "guys im picking something up on the scanners watch yourself" like small little talking parts nothing big that way I can still kinda be talking to the players and not me.

I was going for a pilot you know someone who just stays and hangs with his ship making sure nothing happens. But as a gm I do have certain advantages of know whats going to happen but can use that as a "guys im picking something up on the scanners watch yourself" like small little talking parts nothing big that way I can still kinda be talking to the players and not me.

That sounds brilliant. I would love a GM-controlled character like that. He's on your side, he's got your back, he does his job well, and other than that he stays out of the way

I was going for a pilot you know someone who just stays and hangs with his ship making sure nothing happens. But as a gm I do have certain advantages of know whats going to happen but can use that as a "guys im picking something up on the scanners watch yourself" like small little talking parts nothing big that way I can still kinda be talking to the players and not me.

Was the only suggestion that might work is the guy who stays with the ship like you suggested.

I was going for a pilot you know someone who just stays and hangs with his ship making sure nothing happens. But as a gm I do have certain advantages of know whats going to happen but can use that as a "guys im picking something up on the scanners watch yourself" like small little talking parts nothing big that way I can still kinda be talking to the players and not me.

That sounds brilliant. I would love a GM-controlled character like that. He's on your side, he's got your back, he does his job well, and other than that he stays out of the way

I was going for a pilot you know someone who just stays and hangs with his ship making sure nothing happens. But as a gm I do have certain advantages of know whats going to happen but can use that as a "guys im picking something up on the scanners watch yourself" like small little talking parts nothing big that way I can still kinda be talking to the players and not me.

That sounds brilliant. I would love a GM-controlled character like that. He's on your side, he's got your back, he does his job well, and other than that he stays out of the way

I actually find allied NPCs that don't always have your back and don't necessarily stay out of the way to be much more interesting, both when I play and when I GM. The other way makes them feel too much like "companion" characters from computer games like Skyrim and Fallout.

If I can just point out. Idk about you but in my skyrim lydia was like invincible unless I did something stupid and killed her..... usually a stealth shot to the back...... but either way as a companion character she was bad ass lol

I was going for a pilot you know someone who just stays and hangs with his ship making sure nothing happens. But as a gm I do have certain advantages of know whats going to happen but can use that as a "guys im picking something up on the scanners watch yourself" like small little talking parts nothing big that way I can still kinda be talking to the players and not me.

That sounds brilliant. I would love a GM-controlled character like that. He's on your side, he's got your back, he does his job well, and other than that he stays out of the way

I actually find allied NPCs that don't always have your back and don't necessarily stay out of the way to be much more interesting, both when I play and when I GM. The other way makes them feel too much like "companion" characters from computer games like Skyrim and Fallout.

If I can just point out. Idk about you but in my skyrim lydia was like invincible unless I did something stupid and killed her..... usually a stealth shot to the back...... but either way as a companion character she was bad ass lol

Invincible and unquestionably loyal isn't interesting. Having individual motivations and personality makes an NPC interesting.

And I agree with you but sometimes its just nice to have a tank you can rely on who can just demolish their way through anything

"I am sworn to carry your burdens..."

Yeah, she got left at home a LOT. Stupid, complain-y...