This question mostly pertains to games where there is more than one GM telling stories, especially when the stories being told by each are independent of each other.

If you're a player in one such game, would you want to know if one of the PCs was actually a GM, yes or no?

GMs, do you consider concealing the identity of your PC in your co-GM's part of the game a good thing, a bad thing, or a necessary evil to maintain the appearance of equality?

I would say a necessary thing.  People might treat the character differently for all sorts of reasons.

And I wouldn't want to know as a player.  Where's the fun in that?

I have done this, as a GM a time or two, but it is so much harder to pull off here because of the Cast function.
 Still there have been times where having a 'secret gm controlled pc' was needed to help move the story along or add in something that was missing from the over all dynamics.
The trick is to make sure this character does not end up in a leader position or screw up the plot with to much 'player knowledge'.

I have also used this function in a way in a fantasy game, instead of saying NPC or PC I just input that person/NPCs race. Always thought it was a neat function, a like pfarland says I notice those players treat everyone differently. Though I'm weird and maybe psychotic in the fact I post as those people in OCC once in a while just keep up the disguise.

In reply to ShadoPrism (msg # 3):

It's easy enough to tweak the tag on the character to say "player" like the rest and have it appear with the other players' characters.

I really think this is one of the biggest aspects.  I run GMPC's in both games I GM/help GM and I try to keep that info under wraps for the same reasons.  It also adds a bit of mystery - the PC's don't know it's a GMPC and then don't follow that with "Oh, that's a GM cluebomb" - which it may or may not be.

And I always tweak the tag.

Not having really been in games with co-gms often, I would say as a player I'd prefer to know when the GM of one game is a player in another game. Kind of like it was an entirely different RPOL "game" rather than a different thread -- that's what EE seems to be talking about, right?

Since the game/storyline is run by a different GM, and presumably there's no information sharing going on, then the person that's a GM in one game can be a player in another. That's how we did it face to face.

I think it would also give me a better sense of the human behind the character/GM avatar to see them in other contexts.


In a game where one person is both the GM and a player, a GMPC though ... I've never really felt like that was a viable long term option. When I GM, I can run the game, and I can run NPCs, but I can't really run a PC that is also an NPC.

When I'm a player, unless it is essentially a mascot or mute healbot, I can never really accept the GM's PC as a legitimate member. Note I can accept an accompanying NPC -- but not really a GM's PC that tags along for the ride.

As a GM, I dislike having to run a former PC as an NPC, particularly if the former PC has some measure of authority or outstanding skill.  I'll usually look for some way to remove that NPC from the group.  A PC who has played more of a support role can be fun to play for a while, though.

I've played in games where the GM openly played a PC, and it worked out fine, and I know of at least one game where the GM secretly controlled a PC the entire game, revealing it at the end as a surprise twist, which was executed well.

That said, it's easy for GMPCs to outshine the other PCs or become the focus of the game, and that kind of play is a turn-off for me.

So, the opinion varies. I have seen one gm run several pcs, tagging them as plot bunnies. Another gm... I never knew one of em was her pc till I was asked to clean up the inactive pcs for her lol.

As for my opinion? I don't care. Any decent player would not treat the pc any different. Metagaming is bad m'kay.

I'm in a game where four GMs will be running five separate groups and I wouldn't mind at all if one of those GMs secretly participated as a PC in one of them because they really just wanted to play. It can be hard to find a good group after all and they'd be in the enviable position of already knowing they'd be playing with solid roleplayers.

Using a concealed NPC makes it less likely the players will treat the character as a mouthpiece for the GM, or instinctively be on the alert for some sort of trick....sadly a lot of times Players I have known are automatically suspicious of NPCs, or ignore information the Character provides to avoid being "railroaded" by the GM.

9It Also  allows him to have some fun with the rest of the group. Lets face it if all you ever get to play as GM is random Bar wenches, town guards, and the handy Heal-o-matic at the temple it can get boring fast.

Most of the time I have seen an issue come from a Covert NPC is players who go..."If I knew she/he was an NC I wouldn't have trusted them....Or "Id never have risked my character for an NPC"...

Now on the two occasions a GMs character ran rough shod over the group and pretty much got their way on everything....once on RPOL, once in a Real Time game, it was more of a problem the GM forgot the Character wasnt supposed ot be the star of the show...which is a problem with some GMS NPCs in general covert, or in the open...

I wouldn't care. To me, it whether I'm learning from and enjoying the game.

I can't answer this as a co-GM...the one game in which I was co-GM, the GM disappeared (it wasn't totally unexpected...he'd been having health issues, which was the reason for a co-GM in the first place), and I took over.  Since nobody had been informed it was me taking over, and to avoid the perception that the game was in danger of dying, I kept my GM persona and my character presented as separate entities.

As a player, however, I really don't care.  The face-to-face games I've played in for most of my life had GMPCs in them, and they were a regular part of the group...they didn't dominate the game, but likewise, the GM gave them their moments in the spotlight, just like everyone else's characters.  Truth be told, when I'm in a game on here, I don't pay much attention to whether or not the characters I'm in the scene with belong to the GM, or they're NPCs, or they belong to other players.  It's pretty much all the same, to me.

In the scenario OP describes, I would not want to know. I would try not to treat that PC any differently from any others, but it works better if the other PCs don't know. It's not a problem for me either if the GM hides an NPC as a PC for cunning reasons - especially if they're running a horror or thriller game. I don't think a GM playing a GMPC in their own campaign works very well because ultimately it still feels like playing an NPC to the GM (or at least me as a GM).

I tend to play at least 1 open PC in games I GM, but I have found times where a hidden GMPC is very useful, and it gives me an opportunity to try new and different writing styles as well. Adding to my skills as a writer in this the gaming community.

I like using them for some games but usually try and avoid it. I enjoy the story of a group that fails what they were meant to do and died for their mistakes too - it's almost as good as them finding what they need at the last second and coming through to be heroes.

It's a subtle form of railroading and a vital GM tool in a plot-specific game. However over the years I learned how and when to listen to the story the players were telling (for good or ill) and not try and make them play out my story. So for me, it's very situational.

I tend to want to know so I don't feel redundant when I figure out that it happens. Though it tends to be more of anyone that has more than one character, not just the GM with their own PC in the group.

Depends how it's handled.  If the GM(s) in question are fair, np, if they use it to their personal advantage, no way.  I've seen both, and suspected others.

I've snuck in my GMPC's as PC's in the past, and had no problems. I can only see it as a problem if you make them dominate the story. I tend to use mine as in-game mouthpieces and plot dispensers who never manage to do much that could outshine the PC's or excel in an area that they are not interested in at all.

I try not to now, but in the past it was a necessity in my Facebook games, It was alot of work too because of the asynchronous chat and having to have 2 accounts open at once.

But close group has gotten really good and I dont need the filler so much.

In reply to eternaldarkness (msg # 19):

I've been in very few games that didn't have a GMPC of some sort...mostly used as a dispenser of exposition and a gentle nudge in the right direction when the PCs were stumped, occasionally used as a lifeline when the PCs had done everything they could think of (and even then, it wasn't like the GMPC came in and made everything good again...they just managed to drag everyone's butts out of the fire before their bacon was cooked...)

Never been much of a big deal, to me...I would guess that as many or more GMs I've played with (both on here and in tabletop gaming) have used GMPCs as have not.  But, yes...as long as it's not a case of the PCs being reduced to the supporting cast for the GMPC to be the star, it works.  When it becomes a case of the PCs being sacrificed in some way for the good of the GMPC (without the players' consent, that is...I've been in groups where the GM was shocked at the lengths to which players would go to save GMPC characters), then it's crossed the line and it's not a good thing anymore.

See DM of the Rings for a good (albeit spoofed) example of a GMPC gone horribly wrong ;).