To raise a monster...

[Drachasor]

Been there, done that, lost a friendship.  That game in particular was the origin of my rabid dislike of GMPCs.

I had a GMPC once..kinda, though not be design.  World of my own design and the players were dealing with a small group of dragonkin that had invaded.  They easily dispatched most of them, but a kobold (dragonkin in this game) ran and hid in the "bathroom" of the small cave complex.  He had been treated very badly by his superiors all his life and the players managed to befriend him and he followed them around everywhere.  He was a lot less effective than the PCs though.

[bibliophile20]

He was a lot less effective than the PCs though.

My PC was a glorified spear-carrier, and god forbid I took the spotlight away for three nanoseconds...    *deep breath*  Sorry.  The GM in question was the guy who introduced me to RPGs in the first place, but I never should have accepted a spot in his gaming group.  Anyway, long time ago, water under bridge, all of that.

However, that experience is why I'm so leery of anything that smacks of GM favoritism.  If I got a girlfriend, for example, I wouldn't let her play at my table because it's very easy to start making mistakes in that direction.  And any favoritism or preferential treatment is poison to a friendly atmosphere at the gaming table.  And GMPCs are the worst, because then it becomes something of a... self-stimulation exercise with witnesses.  Good luck salvaging that game, and those friendships, if it goes too far.

[Bruce Coulson]

I think you'd be missing out, if you didn't let an SO play at your table.  If gaming is a part of your life, it should be a part you're willing to share. 

My wife plays, and I've chased her hapless burglar character with construct rats fueled by Outsider magic up walls and across rooftops.  She's consulted a voodoun priest about how to hold off a WCV who is very intent on putting her skills to use (for mutual benefit, of course...).  She's had parts of buildings dissolved around her by an Outsider salesman trying to summon more of its kind through.  (Epic Athletics dodge.)  None of the other players seem to feel that there's any special treatment involved.

[Oriande]

I agree with Bruce. My husband and I have gamed together for many years, both before and since our marriage. It is something we share. Admittedly, back in high school or even college my gaming groups were predominately male, but now we frequently game with other couples. 
It has led to some amusing dialogue. For example, when Rianna was playing a male cleric who was married to my female paladin the following resulted from a confussion of pronouns:
"I know they're a couple, but I keep getting them mixed-up."
"Dude, my wife is the guy, and your wife is the chick." 

[sinker]

I'm just now introducing my fiancée to gaming and it's been good fun. Although hilariously DFRPG is the kind of thing that I like (with heavy story and character focus) and she just wants to stab goblins in the face, so I'm starting her on D&D 4th ed. Take that socially established gender norms!

[Drachasor]

I'm just now introducing my fiancée to gaming and it's been good fun. Although hilariously DFRPG is the kind of thing that I like (with heavy story and character focus) and she just wants to stab goblins in the face, so I'm starting her on D&D 4th ed. Take that socially established gender norms!

Ahh, 4th is a bit annoying.  When I ran a 4th game my players were completely unwilling to be creative with their actions.  The PHB is pretty horribly written in this regard, imho, and my players took it as a straight-jacket.  I ended up letting everyone have a free thematic power they could make up on the spot once per encounter (with power similar to a daily using the rules on page 42 of the DMG)...even that only helped a little.

Hmm, in related news, most of the girls I have played with have also been big on stabbing things in the face.

[bibliophile20]

Ahh, 4th is a bit annoying.  When I ran a 4th game my players were completely unwilling to be creative with their actions.  The PHB is pretty horribly written in this regard, imho, and my players took it as a straight-jacket.  I ended up letting everyone have a free thematic power they could make up on the spot once per encounter (with power similar to a daily using the rules on page 42 of the DMG)...even that only helped a little.

1782. I will remember we're playing 4th edition and stop using my imagination..  There's a reason I refer to 4th Ed as "World Of Dungeoncraft"... 

[sinker]

Oh I won't argue the "world of dungeoncraft" moniker, but if you are only interested in stabbing things in the face, it's pretty good for that.

[bibliophile20]

Oh I won't argue the "world of dungeoncraft" moniker, but if you are only interested in stabbing things in the face, it's pretty good for that.

Yeah.  But only if you're only interested in stabbing things in the face.  *shrug*  It's not a bad system, I just think it's a step in the wrong direction.  I will say this, though: it's a good intro to the tactical simulation aspects of RPGs for newbies.  Once they master that, they can move onto something else, like, say, Pathfinder. 

[Bruce Coulson]

Game systems seem to be going in two directions.  Elaborately designed and detailed character creation and combat systems, and 'story-telling', plot and character-driven systems (FATE being the latter).

Whatever is to your taste.  I prefer the story-telling systems because I'm not that fascinated with figuring out the intricacies of combat, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the miniatures-inspired systems.

[bibliophile20]

Whatever is to your taste.  I prefer the story-telling systems because I'm not that fascinated with figuring out the intricacies of combat, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the miniatures-inspired systems.

[soapbox]
There isn't anything wrong with 4th Ed in-and-of-itself.  It is a decent tactical combat system that is nice, simple and doesn't bog down in tremendous amounts of detail compared to it's predecessor, making it a good intro system for new players.  However, compared to its predecessor, it is a step in the wrong direction.  I used the "World Of Dungeoncraft" moniker for a reason; with the emphasis on the combat round and the explicitly stated "all characters are equally effective in combat" principle and the lack of customization options for characters compared to its predecessor--even in just the skills department, to give one of many examples--it distinctly feels like they tried to port the feel of a CRPG or MMO over to tabletop, probably because WOW has been such an absurd success. 

And I don't want to play WOW.  I don't want to play WOW on a tabletop either.  I want to play a game where if I have a sneaky or non-violent solution, I'm not violating the game's precepts in one or more ways.  And 4th Ed is designed for primarily one thing: Combat.  Everything else is a distant second.

And the real problem is, the fluff they designed for their base setting was nicely done, and I'll probably end up using some of it myself at one point; I like what they did with the tiefling and halfling races, to give one example.  It's just the mechanics are a step away from an integrated Roleplaying-and-Combat-Game and have shifted the emphasis firmly onto Combat.
[/soapbox]

[devonapple]

Aaaaaaaand... back to the topic of raising monsters. How is that working out, wyvern?

[bibliophile20]

*is sheepish*  Sorry for the thread-jack...

[wyvern]

Well, my game only meets every other week, so there's very little news since I first posted.  (And even if I'd had a game session since then, it's likely to take a fair chunk of time in-game before any of the eggs hatch...)

The one new notion that's come up is: trying to place most of the eggs into some form of stasis or suspended animation - which means they'll probably only try to raise one of the things at a time.


And speaking of thread-jacks (which, fyi, I totally don't mind), I'd have to agree that trying to ban one's SO from playing in games one runs is not a good idea.  Sure, be aware that there can be issues with impartiality, but you should be fine as long as you're watching for such issues, and - more importantly - have made sure that your players know they can just tell you if they think there's anything wrong.  (As a side note here: it is important both to actually be reasonably impartial, and to appear to be impartial.  If someone thinks you're showing favoritism when, say, it's actually just the result of really lucky die rolls, things can go downhill just as easily as if there's actually some systemic bias.)

Same goes for GMPCs, really; they're something that can easily go wrong, sure, but as long as you're aware of the pitfalls, and your players know they can say "Hey, this NPC is hogging the spotlight, please don't do that", they can also add a lot to a game.  One of my favorite GMPCs was actually from a 4e game I ran for a few sessions - the party didn't have a defender, so I built a minotaur fighter.  She had an intelligence penalty, and a wisdom bonus - so she knew she wasn't that smart, and was perfectly happy to accept tactical advice from the PCs.  Still, my general rule of thumb for GMPCs is that they should do their best to fade into the background.
(Incidentally, I do know one GM for whom 4e really is the perfect system - because what he actually does is run a freeform game, but likes to have a framework for combat; and as that's really all 4e provides, it works perfectly; gives him mechanics for the stuff he wants mechanics for, and doesn't give him mechanics for the stuff he'd rather run without mechanics.)

[Bruce Coulson]

As far as the original thread...I'd read some books/biographers of large animal trainers (Clyde Beatty is especially readable).  Large predators can be very intelligent, and very charming.  And yes, they will do their best to kill you at times.  But they're not evil.

They also can't truly be 'tamed' or domesticated (the terms are different).

If the creatures ultimately gain sentience, then you have an entirely different set of problems.

Important NPCs should be colourful enough to remember without taking screen time away from PCs.  A greedy (but good at heart) bookseller made an impression on the PCs by letting them buy a book that had been ordered by a local coven, but hadn't ben picked up.  For five years.  And the owner hadn't tried to track down the coven in all that time to collect his money...  Yeah, it was that kind of book...