How to design a GMPC that will not push the story ahead?

Question

I'm going to play a campaign of D&D using the Starter Set. I will be the DM, and it is going to be a 1 on 1 campaign¹.

The 3rd approach of this answer appeals to me as a way to do this without too much effort, while it still leaves the chance for 2 first timers (as we both are) to concentrate on roleplaying one single character each. I want to present the roleplaying aspect to my companion. I chose this approach since I feel that it will be a less intense experience if there is no PC to interact with

• I'm planning to play a character so that my friend can play one character as well.

• I'm planning to decrease the monster count so that the XP threshold comes closest to the equal dificulty-class for just two players.

• For bosses I bought the Monster Manual, so I can look for a boss-like monster that still fits in the lore with equally fitting difficulty.

The hard part, and my problem:

I know myself well enough to know that when I will be DM'ing a "story" that I already know, while I'm playing a character that is part of it, that as long the character itself has a motivation to get ahead, I would play it in an impatient, pushing way. I am not good enough at "winging" the behavior of the character for every situation, so I need a design with limits and restrictions on the GMPC. It's all well and good to have a plan that will respond in a certain way to a situation, but this won't help when things come up unexpectedly.

Where I am now in GMPC development:

The PC is going to be the pre-created rogue of the Starter Set story and the GMPC is going to be the Mage with his book of life story as named bond.

I need to characterize a trait, behavior or background for the GMPC that it has no ambition to push the story ahead. (The GMPC must leave the unfolding of the story in my companion's hands -- my companion will be making decisions and choices.)

As I tried out ideas for this character concept, I discovered a flaw:

When I asked myself "What is his motivation to even participate in this adventure?" there was no feasible answer to it.

TL&DR

How do I design a GMPC so that his trait, behavior or background -- when role played correctly -- prevents him from initiating decisions, or otherwise participation in decision-making,² while still having a valid motivation for the success of this two person party?

---

Footnotes:

¹ Among the cons of a starter pack, as I assume most know, is its difficult to play in this given set up.

² Should the character be forced by another PC into making a decision, it is acceptable, since it is an exceptional case not caused by the GMPC's player himself.

Answer 1

Make a GMPC that cannot help

Good examples of this are for example golems, zombies, or animal companions. You can ask them for help all you want; they cannot make decisions for themselves and only follow orders. They might instinctively fight on their own accord, protect their charge with their lives and follow him anywhere but no matter how often you try, they won't be able to pick whether you should go rescue the princess immediately or find the magic sword first.

Make a GMPC that is not allowed to help

Perhaps the companion is tasked by a Holy Order to escort the PC, because according to a prophecy the PC will recover an ancient artifact. But the prophecy also says that the PC will travel there on their own accord and their minds cannot be influenced by those who know the contents of the prophecy. So the companion will guard and help the PC with anything they ask, but they cannot influence their decisions directly for fear of ruining the prophecy.

Alternatively, the companion could just have a very strong belief that the PC should be solving this problem on their own. They could be a mentor from a monastic order teaching them about decisions and responsibilities, for example. Or a military leader training an officer to deal with complex situations.

Make a GMPC diametrically opposed to going forward

For example, a bodyguard who is under strict orders to follow the PC wherever they go and never go against their command, but who really just wants the PC to go back home and give up this foolishness. They will never say so, but if you ask, their only advice is "turn around and march home", which is not exactly helpful.

Make a GMPC that cannot communicate with the PC

A mute, for example. It would take quite some adventuring before the PC can learn sign language to the point where the companion can do much more then point at things and do some gestures. This one can give some help, but as long as you as the DM don't talk it's very easy to stay in character and you probably won't be able to give away much. (It's also funny to have to do charades)

Answer 2

One good way to handle this is to make your GMPC a "follower" of the other PC -- that is, they're less experienced, less familiar with the world, generally less capable (you can do some of this with feats and skills, by having your GMPC less skilled in things like local knowledge, politics, tactics, etc., but competent in things like actual combat, survival, and class capability). That will help you play as what amounts to an "equal, but less equal" and let the other PC make all the decisions and figure stuff out. It probably won't work to make the GMPC lower level; the exponential experience milestones for level advancement in D&D (at least versions I've played) mean a lower level character (who survives) will tend to catch up quickly if adventuring with a higher level character or party.

Beyond that, it's mainly a matter of constantly reminding yourself to let the other player make the decisions -- think of your GMPC as a henchman. Best is if the player can buy into the concept that they're the leader, to the point of overriding your GMPC (most of the time) if you start to lead. Even though henchmen are usually weaker than the PCs, there's nothing that prevents an (initially) equal character from being the follower, and that's the better role for a GMPC.

As noted in comments, possibly the best example of this is Kirk and Spock from Star Trek:TOS -- Spock was superior in almost every way (smarter, more knowledgeable, stronger, faster, a limited telepath, older and more experienced), but had no desire to lead; he preferred to follow Kirk, even years before they both realized that their relationship was that of the deepest kind of friends, as opposed to Captain and Number One.

Answer 3

First, don't call your character a PC. What you want to do in this case is to give a long-term NPC. Don't worry, NPCs are people too, your player can enjoy roleplaying without you making a GMPC (which is usually not a good idea).

Now onto the actual question:

The NPC could be subservient to the player. A loyal servant, somebody under their command, a hired mercenary. Make it clear, that the PC has authority, not absolute authority, but a pretty strong one.

Also, it might be a good idea to give the NPC a strong motivation which needs him/her to stay close, but makes him not want to participate in "solving" the adventure. Make a bodyguard or servant, who mostly cares about the life of his employer. Make a mercenary, who is only here because he needs the money. Make a guy, who doesn't care about anything, but the PC saved his life, so now he will follow. Make a down on his luck soldier, who just wants to survive this whole thing. So basically make his interest in the adventure very different, then the interest of the PC and make that very clear from the start.

Answer 4

Let the player play two characters

I know this might not be exactly what you're looking for, but maybe you just let the other person play two characters instead of having one of your own involved. This can be a bit tricky with him trying to play two characters, but in a recent campaign I played in (1 on 1). I played a barbarian and a wizard.

The only thing is that I had to describe how the characters interact and speak with one another. In my case, the female barbarian was kindof a practical slob and the male wizard was prissy and clean. I might suggest the player making two characters who are very different so the interactions are more interesting.

As the DM, you then just have to throw the encounters at them and worry about your NPCs that you're using to interact with them. The problem with a GMPC is that even if you're trying really hard, you know exactly what will happen. So the solution is to let the player make all the decisions anyway...why not just let them play two characters?

In combat control and sounding board only

You may also decide that your GMPC is only under your control in combat and as a sounding board for the PC. The goal of the GMPC would tend to er on the side of caution in almost every circumstance (you NEED to be consistent in how he behaves otherwise you risk hinting things to the PC).

Your GMPC is a slave/servant

In 3.5 there was a character called a Red Wizard of Thay, and they had sword guardians called Thayan Knights. The Knight was completely subservient to the Red Wizard and absolutely devoted to his protection. You might also imagine Chewbacca from Star Wars, where he owes a Wookie life debt to Han. They have individuality, but ultimately, they follow the lead. A martial character would probably be appropriate for this sort of thing.

Tonto or Mute

I was thinking of characters that could emulate what you're looking for, and you're really looking for a sidekick. Tonto, the Lone Ranger's sidekick generally just had words of wisdom and had specialized environmental knowledge (the desert). You could execute a similar character where he has just a few generally wise things to say, but is really there as some comic relief. It might be an interesting opportunity to create some cryptic words of wisdom that the other player will have to decipher.

I also thought of a character who might be mute for some reason (imagine perhaps a witch cursed him because he kept running his mouth). That way he won't be able to give specific advice in any given situation, but rather would indicate 'yes', 'no', or 'I don't know' to questions from the player.

Answer 5

Is it needed?

Before I suggest, let me ask up front, why is a second character needed? If it is to make up for a lack of certain skills (healing, thief skills, etc.), you could just as easily write them out of the adventure. Give some extra potions to make up for not having a healer. Eliminate locks and traps when feasible. Other than the PC being a wizard, and needing a tank to protect her, any shortfall can reasonably be adjusted for.

How to write it into the story?

My suggestion would be thus:
Start the adventure with the two characters being caught by a powerful wizard. The wizard attempts to use powerful magic to make both of them into his thralls. They break free as the wizard is casting the spell on the GMPC, and the PC interrupts it. They defeat the wizard, and the GMPC is thankful for being saved. The PC thinks it is just a standard life-debt kind of scenario. But in reality, when the spell was interrupted, it was not stopped, but instead the ownership endpoint was transferred to the PC, instead of the wizard. So while the GMPC appears normal and free-willed, just slightly indebted/subservient, (s)he will always put the PC first and is forced to obey anything phrased as an order.

Then at some point the PC may find out the truth, and that can lead to other story possibilities.

Answer 6

Give your NPC a motivation other than "advancing the story." After all, your NPC has no idea "the story" exists; Just like the PCs, they've got a goal (defeat the cultists, recover the Bauble of Glory, earn enough money to buy medicine for Mother), and they should take actions to that end.

In other words, it sounds like your problem is keeping in-character and out-of-character motivations and knowledge separate, so follow the strategy for dealing with that: Whenever you're about to take an in-character action, stop and ask yourself "Can I justify doing this in purely in-character terms." If the only justifications you can think of depend on your character acting on knowledge he shouldn't have, don't take that course of action. Leave it up to your player to decide what to do, instead.