PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Pet NPC vs. DMPC?



newbDM
2009-01-03, 03:39 PM
I have always heard on the WotC forums that DMPCs are usually bad for the players. I am not 100% sure why, but I figure it has to do with the DM stealing the spotlight, and knowing everything he/herself already planned.

As for Pet NPCs, I just learned that term in the recent "Killing of my DM's pet NPC" thread. I immediately realized that I had three of those + one's cohort, who were former PCs of mine. I was using them to be the main NPCs hiring the player/PCs.

Can the experienced DMs and players here please tell me exactly what is the problem with Pet NPCs, what is the problem with DMNPCs, and how the two compare?


I understand that as a DM I am supposed to let the PCs/players shine, and I see it that I get enough fun role-playing the various (and many) NPCs in my sandbox world. I guess I just had a few I was still attached to. As was said in the above mentioned thread, I hadn't even fully stated them out, but instead just had a general idea of their class(s), levels, and abilities...

Flickerdart
2009-01-03, 03:47 PM
Just remember that it's the players' game, and you'll be fine. If none of them are a skillmonkey, let them have one as an NPC, but don't give it the spotlight. Ever. It's just there for utility, like a wand or a tank. Give him character if you want: he might make a few plot hooks for your players, and maybe make him valuable enough that they'll want to rescue him if he's kidnapped.

The main difference between the two is that the DMPC will have a character sheet like the players. An NPC might not even be statted, nor will it follow the players everywhere.

The issue with both is that a DM might start essentially writing a novel, with the players incapable of affecting the world in a meaningful way. Read the DM of the Rings webcomic to see a wonderful and hilarious example of this, as well as railroading and other bad things.

AslanCross
2009-01-03, 05:16 PM
I think it's mostly with the players getting shafted by the DMPC, who is sometimes given preferential treatment (better gear, arbitrary stats, foreknowledge of the DM's plans). The players are supposed to be the heroes, and if the DMPC is a Deus ex Machina, the players can grow to resent that. I think handling a DMPC is also time-consuming and adds yet another character sheet to the piles of notes that a DM sometimes works with.

That said, I have run a DMPC before, but with a very specific purpose: she was a PC that had to be retired because the player quit. We wanted a little more continuity in the story, and since she was practically the party leader (having more personality than the 18-Cha paladin :P). I held onto her until I killed her off in a climactic boss battle. She never took from the loot and never acted like she knew the story, and the players were aware that I planned to kill her off in a meaningful fashion. It could've been done otherwise, I know, but the players and I agreed on it.

She was eventually meant to come back as a boss later on, a vampire resurrected by the BBEG, but the PCs aren't high enough a level to fight her there and we need to bring the campaign to a swift close within the next few months.

Flickerdart
2009-01-03, 05:20 PM
She was eventually meant to come back as a boss later on, a vampire resurrected by the BBEG, but the PCs aren't high enough a level to fight her there and we need to bring the campaign to a swift close within the next few months.
Bring her back anyways. Make them get creative, let them prepare ahead of time. Vampires have many weaknesses, from sunlight to Turn Undead. They can take her.

Talya
2009-01-03, 05:36 PM
I have a bunch of Piratical PCs, on a ship. Of course, the ship is full of NPCs, of various usefulness, but they're all designed not to steal the spotlight, even when they are very very good at what they do. Note I do try to make each crewmember distinctive, with memorable abilities, but they never steal the spotlight. They are the Righettis and Pintels to my PC jack sparrows and will turners.



For instance:

The players are on a 40 point buy, and are now up to level 5.
The most expendable crew are on the elite array, and are levels 2-4. But even those at the same level as the players can't steal the show.

None of them wanted to play a divine type caster, so I decided they would need a ship's surgeon/healer. She's the first NPC i statted out on the full 40 point buy at the same . How'd I do it without overshadowing them?

First of all, though she's Lesser Aasimar, i gave her the most generic point buy possible: 14 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 14 int, 14 wis, 16 cha (modified to 16 wis, 18 cha after aasimar bonuses.) She's Chaotic Neutral, so her morality won't interfere with their decisions, she'll go along with anything. She worships Sune...which gives her the favored soul proficiency whip. Yay, she can disarm/trip (a bit. Lowish BAB and medium strength means she'll never excel at it), but she can't do damage. She's got Augment Healing as a feat, and every cure/restoration spell I could put on her, as well as a few non-flashy buffs.

Other NPCs with player classes that I added:
Olga, the half-orc barbarian. Player level -1, she bashes stuff with a big axe. Effectively, but she's basicly built and non-optimized. She's flirtatious and aggressive. And she put points in charisma. Big, scary, almost pretty half-orc who wants your body.

Fisher, the Goliath cook. (And monk.) He's the ship's cook. (Well, he also cooks.) Hey, he can fight, too. But he's a monk. He's not overshadowing anyone.

Mekrosta. He's the first mate. He talks like a jamaican, mon. And he is a human ranger, dual weilding cutlasses. No optimization at all, but he's got the skills needed to run a ship knowledgeably,if the players fail.


The trick with DMNPCs that frequently are tagging along with the players is they need to be interesting and competent enough to warrant them being there, yet they always need to play second fiddle to the PCs.

Mike_G
2009-01-03, 05:46 PM
I commonly use DMPC's to fill a role that none of the PC's want to. Rather than stick somebody with the role, which used to happen back in High School (last one to show up has to play the Cleric), I'll just give them an NPC and let them all play fighters if they want.

It's also a good way to introduce plot hooks. Just don't steer too hard, or let the DMPC save the day too often. A quietly competent tank, skillmonkey or healer is easy to do. An arcane caster should be support: buffs, artillery, utility, not casting Win The Encounter every time.

TempusCCK
2009-01-03, 06:42 PM
I have had bad bad BAD experiences with DMPC's in the past. Including denying my Paladin the opportunity to rescue the damsel in distress because the DMPC inexplicably had more spells than were possible for a wizard/rogue multiclass, and managed to levitate up to where she was being held before I could disengage the enemies I was fighting and climb up.

There were also instances of DMPC's taking loot (A wand of innervation), growing magnificently in power in the blink of an eye, suddenly having all sorts of neat magic items that allow them to kill enemies, and the inclusion of a epic level Wizard that showed up at the end of a battle, wiped the field completely clean with a giant tornado, said he good-days, and took off... Denying us, int he process, tons of EXP.

BLEH!

As such, I use DMPC's very carefully. Yes, I use them, yes, they contribute, but only in a meaningful way that aids the party. If I plan to include some NPC help, I make sure that they are included off screen as part of the background. For instance, on the pirate campaign I ran, my PC's were elite fighters and boarders, and they had a few NPCs int he group as well, and the enemies were always numerous enough to challenge the players, while allowing the others to fight other enemies in the background. All in all, it was very flavorful and the PC's got their share of action.

I think that this kind of stuff makes the game world seem real, rather than contrived around the actions of the PCs.

Hida Reju
2009-01-03, 06:57 PM
Ok so what about DM's that fleshout a world to include NPC's that are very real and have control of the world around them? IE the Master mage of the city the characters are working out, the head of the local Thieves guild, kings, ect.

These NPCs have power in some ways equal to or exceeding the player characters, their opinions and decisions could move the plot forward or derail it completely if they are insulted, attacked, killed, ect.

I play with a GM that has flat out stated that if the person has a name they are a part of the story and your dealings with them will shape how things go.

So by many of the disscussions I read many if not all of them are Pet NPC or DMPC due to the amount of interaction we have with them.

Raum
2009-01-03, 07:30 PM
Can the experienced DMs and players here please tell me exactly what is the problem with Pet NPCs, what is the problem with DMNPCs, and how the two compare? Not sure how you're defining "Pet NPCs" but I'll try and help answer regarding DMPCs. For the record, I define DMPC as an NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM. A hireling is an NPC brought into the party by the PCs and is fireable by the PCs. Tactical control of hirelings is in the players' hands (hirelings take orders from PCs).

Potentially positive aspects of using a DMPC:
1. "Guide" the characters down a desired path. A subtype of this is using a DMPC to betray the party or add other plot twists.
2. Add "missing" party components, skills, or powers.
3. Allow the DM to "play". (I don't see how this is positive for anyone other than the DM but I've seen it listed as a reason in the past.)
4. Save the PCs from death.

Potentially negative aspects of using a DMPC:
1. Guidance is really just another name for railroading. Make sure you know how much your players are comfortable with.
2. Filling in a "missing" aspect necessarily takes scene time away from the player characters. The question is, why build in a requirement for something the characters can't accomplish to start with? It's only a requirement because the DM made it one.
3. "Playing" is possibly the worst possible reasons to use a DMPC. If you dislike DMing, don't. But frankly, there are a lot of reasons to enjoy DMing without having to play.
4. "Saving" the PCs is my other candidate for worst possible reason. If the PCs need saving it's because you put them in that position. If you're also stepping in to save them, you've relegated them to the role of victim.
5. Overshadowing the PCs. If a DMPC is more powerful than a PC, why are the PCs there again?
6. DMPC favoritism. If the DM didn't feel a need for an audience he'd just play with himself. Send him here (http://shiftkitty.angelfire.com/).

Personally, I don't see anything positive from DMPCs which a DM can't get with another method. But you and your friends need to decide what fits in the game you play, it may work for you.

KeresM
2009-01-03, 08:00 PM
4. "Saving" the PCs is my other candidate for worst possible reason. If the PCs need saving it's because you put them in that position. If you're also stepping in to save them, you've relegated them to the role of victim.

The only possible exception to this is when the dice are just determined to kill the PCs.


Pet NPCs are those the DM adores and wants to keep alive no matter what. Sometimes it's because they've put a lot of work into the NPC. Other times it's because the NPC is an extension of themselves. Pet NPCs are commonly those that outrank the PCs, kings, lords, captains of the guards, etc...

A good way, as a DM, to avoid having Pet NPCs is to make your necessary NPCs 'one hit wonders'. My favorite NPC is a sage. I enjoy playing him, but frankly, if you dropped him into the sort of scenarios the PCs regularly mow through, he's toast. He's got a lot of knowledge skills but couldn't spot the broad side of a barn. As a result, he's a useful tool to the PCs, but not someone who can boss them around to railroad them.

If an NPC must journey with the PCs, either give it to a player to control (via the leadership feat if possible) or keep it a power level below the PCs.

Mike_G
2009-01-03, 10:59 PM
Potentially negative aspects of using a DMPC:
1. Guidance is really just another name for railroading. Make sure you know how much your players are comfortable with.


All railroading is not negative. I used to DM much more sandbox style, but there was a lot of the party milling around doing nothing, like a six year old saying "I'm booooooooooooooooooooored." A bit of a push or carrot can do wonders.

Even just a Bard with his Lore skill may be enough guidance. Plus, with his minor healing and nice support features, he can work well as a DMPC.

I also think that if I spend hours on an encounter or dungeon or what have you, and the party says "Nah. Let's take a ship instead and bypass those haunted mountains," Stuff will happen that they'll still find the ruined temple full of undead, maybe somewhere else, but they'll find it.

Now, I don't object if they outsmart the people I expect them to fight, or fight the people I expect them to negotiate with or what have you, but they don't get to sidestep something I put a lot of work into by taking the North road instead of the South road.



2. Filling in a "missing" aspect necessarily takes scene time away from the player characters. The question is, why build in a requirement for something the characters can't accomplish to start with? It's only a requirement because the DM made it one.


Well, sometimes it's hard to accommodate a nonstandard party. We actually have a party that is Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Swordsage. They can melee the bejeesus out of any challenge, but then they need to rest a week to regain HP, they can't deal with locks or barriers other than bashing them down, and they can't use spells for any utility purposes. Throwing a Beguiler with UMD as an NPC works well. He can use Cure wands and scrolls, skill monkey as needed, and when they need some diplomacy they shove him to the front. I don't one-shot encounters with him, ever. I tend to throw encounters at them they can stab their way out of. The NPC covers the stuff they don't want to do themselves, but feel should be part of a High Fantasy adventure.

AslanCross
2009-01-03, 11:04 PM
Bring her back anyways. Make them get creative, let them prepare ahead of time. Vampires have many weaknesses, from sunlight to Turn Undead. They can take her.

Point. My build for her had her at CR 16, but bringing her back now...kind of gives me an opportunity to reintroduce her without needing to build another level-appropriate NPC for them to kill. I now have a very good idea. :smallamused: Thanks a lot.


All railroading is not negative. I used to DM much more sandbox style, but there was a lot of the party milling around doing nothing, like a six year old saying "I'm booooooooooooooooooooored." A bit of a push or carrot can do wonders.

Agreed. If the players have foreknowledge that you actually have a story prepared for them that they could realistically affect with their actions, then some railroading ("The ogre mage is the major villain, and his actions could make life very difficult for us if we do not stop him, regardless of our current plans or intentions.") would work well.

What would happen if PCs never took any plot hooks? I'd hate to DM a group like that. It's really up to the group's playing style.

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 12:03 AM
Yes, railroading can be annoying. But my players have never complained, mainly because my stories are rarely thought up fully beforehand, other than a vague continuation and a vague finish way down the road. One campaign went exactly the way it was supposed to, although the players seem to have a habit of blowing up things that I rather liked, using the fact that they're linked with a magic-devouring evil to do so. Sometimes not on purpose, but rules are rules.
Another campaign had the players themselves unleash a horde of undead on a city where before I had intended for an NPC to do it. He betrayed them anyways. The first game still has a DMPC, but I'm planning to have him die somehow. The other game has never had one, but a few NPCs that I felt I played up too much either died or were the guy that betrayed them. One's still alive, but he hasn't actually done anything yet (the one that died had ravaged the PCs in combat once before on account of them failing at strategy. Then they got to save her ass, so it was even).

RPGuru1331
2009-01-04, 12:37 AM
I must point out a simple necessity that can make "Playing" a DMPC at least feel like a necessity;

The game in question is not something that a GM can reasonably expect to be a part of as a player. Not generally an issue in vanilla anything (For instance, don't do this in Vanilla Exalted or Regular old Dungeon Crawls in Dungeons and Dragons), but if it's on the rare side for your circle of friends (Spelljammer in a modern Dungeons and Dragons edition, En Nomine or Nobilis in a group of normal people, etc,) then there is some force in the idea of letting the GM 'play'. Every warning given thus far is still pretty relevant however. If you do not diminish the players in the process, and others have gone into that quite well, I feel, then there is no issue. It's a tricky line to walk, however. Aside from some sort of 'utility' role (A healer in dungeons and dragons, for instance), a jack of all trades role may be best, as it's not possible to take center stage without something you can master. And no, the.. what was it, Factoturn? Doesn't count. They're too good at it.

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 12:44 AM
Aside from some sort of 'utility' role (A healer in dungeons and dragons, for instance), a jack of all trades role may be best, as it's not possible to take center stage without something you can master. And no, the.. what was it, Factoturn? Doesn't count. They're too good at it.
Factotum, yes.

Oh, also, buffing will go over well. Exemplars, Marshals, and so on. The only thing players love more than not having to bother with things like deciding who gets to dump points into Open Lock or take healing spells is becoming more awesome, for free.

Frosty
2009-01-04, 12:55 AM
I actually have 2 regular DMPCs formy group. They don't necessarily go on every adventure with the PCs. One is a level higher than the group and fills a role that has been completely missing: Namely that of skillmonkey and sometimes face. The other one is 2 levels lower than the party, and is kind of like a free cohort that will ask for directions in battle, but doesn't follow orders 100% of the time. So far, my players have been ok with them.

I think as long as the DMPCs don't overshadow the party and helps the plot and along, they're alright. The higher level character is a beguiler who buffs a lot, making the others fight better, and the lower level character is a blaster sorcerer. Neither really takes the spotlight.

FMArthur
2009-01-04, 01:50 AM
One is a level higher than the group and fills a role that has been completely missing: Namely that of skillmonkey and sometimes face.

I know you've said that your players are totally fine with your NPCs, but this did remind me that the most dangerous, obvious DMPC alarm is definitely letting one be the party face. (This is addressed at the thread at large, not you) I cannot emphasize this enough: talking for the party is about as risky for an NPC as winning a battle for them. Doesn't matter how stupidly bad at roleplaying and interaction the party is. Even if every single one dumped Charisma and never put points into Diplomacy, having someone else talk for them makes the players feel like they don't have an influence on dialogue or story events.

Times to let an NPC do the talking:
Every party member has decided to leave it up to the NPC
Using one as a buffer to translate barbarian-speak to address royalty without being hanged.
A villain who has taken control of the party somehow (magically, politically, etc). They will hate him more for it.

Frosty
2009-01-04, 02:03 AM
She lets the others do the talking unless the others are clearly not up to the task and has been asked by the PCs to do the talking. She's more than happy to stay in the background collecting part of the loot (loot is adjusted upwards whenever the DMPCs are entitled to a share so the PCs will still keep up with WBL). Since she is the leader of the thieves' guild sometimes she is the only one with the right connections.

JaxGaret
2009-01-04, 02:20 AM
NPCs are fine. DMPCs are not. It's as simple as that.

All you need to do is think about what the fundamental differences between an NPC and a PC are, and you'll understand what the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is.

Raum
2009-01-04, 02:23 AM
All railroading is not negative.That's why I said to make sure you know how much the players are comfortable with.


I also think that if I spend hours on an encounter or dungeon or what have you, and the party says "Nah. Let's take a ship instead and bypass those haunted mountains," Stuff will happen that they'll still find the ruined temple full of undead, maybe somewhere else, but they'll find it.It sounds like you're saying the players' desires don't matter to you. Is that a correct interpretation? You don't let players avoid going someplace when they attempt to do so?


Well, sometimes it's hard to accommodate a nonstandard party.If the players feel a lack, let them hire an NPC. Remember, I defined hirelings separately from DMPCs.


I must point out a simple necessity that can make "Playing" a DMPC at least feel like a necessity;

The game in question is not something that a GM can reasonably expect to be a part of as a player. Is running a DMPC really 'playing'? I've seen the excuse used before but have never understood why someone would equate running a DMPC in their own game with playing in another. Besides, I have as much fun in the GM roll as in the player roll. If you don't, why GM?


I actually have 2 regular DMPCs formy group. They don't necessarily go on every adventure with the PCs. One is a level higher than the group and fills a role that has been completely missing: Namely that of skillmonkey and sometimes face. The other one is 2 levels lower than the party, and is kind of like a free cohort that will ask for directions in battle, but doesn't follow orders 100% of the time. So far, my players have been ok with them.

I think as long as the DMPCs don't overshadow the party and helps the plot and along, they're alright. The higher level character is a beguiler who buffs a lot, making the others fight better, and the lower level character is a blaster sorcerer. Neither really takes the spotlight.I'm not sure it's possilbe to run a DMPC in a face roll and not take the spotlight. Haven't you turned the players into an audience during those scenes?

-----
I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

Just a thought.

The Minx
2009-01-04, 02:31 AM
A world without powerful and important NPCs in it is like a novel with only the main protagonists and paper cut out characters. If you want role-playing interaction between the world and the players that involves real storytelling, you must include well fleshed-out NPC characters, and some of these may have to be more powerful than the PCs themselves. Mentors and patrons, for instance.

The problem is when the NPCs make the players feel redundant. They are the ones running the main characters of the story, after all, and the DM should not give the impression that he wants to co-opt that role. As long as major characters don't risk becoming protagonists, you're OK.

However, if players still complain about DMPCs even then, they might want to play a pure hack and slash game like Munchkin instead of a role-playing game. :smallsmile:


EDIT: a quick add-on. If you make sure that the players feel that the powerful NPCs you introduce are necessary to move on their characters' story, and without them there would be no storyline in which they are the heroes, you are doing yourself a favor.

FoE
2009-01-04, 02:34 AM
It sounds like you're saying the players' desires don't matter to you. Is that a correct interpretation? You don't let players avoid going someplace when they attempt to do so?

Yes and no. Railroading is bad, but if the DM has gone to the trouble of planning an adventure, it's not fair to him/her to simply toss those plans aside when the PCs "don't feel like going into that dungeon". A smart DM will find a way to re-work parts of the adventure into the new direction the PCs are going. For example, a room with an owlbear in it becomes a forest grove with an owlbear in it.

Sure, it's important for a DM to be able to improvise, but that doesn't mean he should have to make up everything on the spot as the game goes along just 'cause the PCs feel like thwarting the DM's plans.

Limos
2009-01-04, 02:38 AM
The one and only time I ran a campaign that lasted more than one encounter I had a DMPC that was a generic Dwarven Cleric. (None of my PCs wanted to do it.)

It worked out okay. He just sat in the background and threw heals where needed. I didn't min/max him at all. Which frustrated my RulesLawyer/MinMaxer to no end. He kept trying to make me turn it into a Clericzilla but I just had him be mediocre. (The MinMaxer got annoying enough with his stupid two weapon fighting cheese that I had a minotaur rip off his arm. That'll teach him to abuse the system.)

ZeroNumerous
2009-01-04, 02:42 AM
I ran several "DMPCs" in a Bleach d20 game recently.

One in particular I used rather frequently, though he mostly tagged along with the party to provide them martial assistance as they were composed of two (3.5 equivalent) Psions and a Barbarian. He had abit of Sneak Attack and mostly dealt damage but only fought one-handed and didn't Power Attack. So he never overshadowed the Barbarian-equivalent except when he "nova'd" and started taking CON damage to deal more d6s(something like 36d6?). Obviously that made him extremely vulnerable as generally he'd have 1 CON left over afterwards.

Story-wise, he was a subordinate to both players who were 'new' to being in charge. He gave abit of advice, but otherwise let them operate on their own unless they asked for assistance. Ultimately, I planned to kill him off in a semi-complicated plot involving betrayal and murder on everyone's part. In the end, I don't think I had any complaints about that particular DMPC.

Others were various individuals ranging from a skill-monkey to another beatstick. They were tasked with taking care of the DMPCs because they were immediate superiors over said DMPCs. Instead of forcing it on them, I just gave them several DMPCs and told them that those people were members of their squad. They naturally took a leadership-role and did their best to keep those DMPCs alive without any nudging on my part.

In short: I think DMPCs are valid story-line tools if you don't force them onto the party. Let the party assume "ownership" of the DMPCs on their own and they'll come to like the DMPC rather than hate it.

Frosty
2009-01-04, 02:55 AM
I'm not sure it's possilbe to run a DMPC in a face roll and not take the spotlight. Haven't you turned the players into an audience during those scenes?

-----
I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

Just a thought.

The players *are* an audience for certain (small) parts of the game. DnD is story-telling at its core. Now, it is a very interactive storyline that requires audience participation 95% of the time, but there are little bits where story exposition takes place, and it happens to occur within a conversation between NPCs. And it just so happens sometimes NPCs adventure with the party. Is it a *tad* railroading at time? Yes. My group is very much fine with that. I letmy group roam free most of the time, but sometimes there are just things that must happen in order to advance the plot.

My players interact a lot with the NPCs, but sometimes, in-character, their characters just don't *want* to be the ones talking, so they send the Beguiler forward. The lower level sorcerer is a potential love interest for the wizard and sometimes extra fire power, and sometimes plot device.

The point is, they've come to like the two NPCs that adventure with them sometimes, tending to think of them as actually part of the adventuring group instead of inferior beings.

Rinzy
2009-01-04, 03:55 AM
I have an NPC that has grown tremendously popular with my players, enough so that I’m going to play him as my next PC in the campaign that is starting up after mine finishes. He was one of many NPCs that I designed for the urban story arc, any or all of which the players might have chosen to interact with. They all started with a couple traits and quirks each and I developed them more fully as needed. This particular one is a Hexblade/Dragon Disciple with some homebrew tweaks, so it’s not overly powerful anyhow. The players just kept coming back to his guy, to the point that I decided to use him as a DMPC in one fight (though his actions were largely spent protecting a second unconscious NPC that the party had just rescued) and a duex ex machine in a situation where one player’s silly actions were going to get the entire party killed.

Now it’s about three months later. The party still loves him, in fact one of the PCs has fallen in love WITH him. So I’ve decided that I’m going to let him ‘join’ the party as a pet NPC, but not before I knock him down a few notches. One of the other PCs is in the middle of a personal side plot that will, though circumstances that would take a rude amount of time to explain, result in said Hexblade/Dragon Disciple becoming what amounts to an Aristocrat with inexplicable draconic heritage feats for fluff reasons. Then the character can follow the group around and be minimally useful, but be great for fluff (since that’s why everyone loves him so much anyhow).

The entire point of this anecdote being, DMPCs/Pet NPCs can be great flavor for the group, especially for role play purposes. But as everyone else has already said, don’t let them steal the spotlight. There are plenty of reasons to include one if it’s wanted and it’s all right for them to do cool stuff once in a while, just so long as they don’t totally hog the attention.

I agree that DMPCs taking loot and causing loss of XP is really uncool though >>

Superglucose
2009-01-04, 05:34 AM
DMPCs really work if you don't have a solid notion of who's going to be at a given meet.

For instance, I was playing a Greyhawk setting out of a local club at a nearby college which was running during the spring quarter. Some weeks there would be a project due for some classes but not others, and others a different project would be due, etc. We were a large group, with seven or eight players, but on some of these weeks we'd end up with, say, both fighters and the wizard showing up. So the DM ran a DMPC Bard, because often we woudln't know who'd show up until, well, the meet itself, and this way he could plan his adventures around the whole group, and if, say, the skill monkey missed the game? Well the Bard could pick up somewhat. If the face missed a game? If the healer missed a game? And since it was a Bard, and not an optimized at all bard, the net result was we'd get through a dungeon and at the next meet be saying, "Man, we wish you were there... we really needed you." It helped us appreciate our other party members.

So filling a hole in a party is actually a good reason to have a DMPC, because sometimes you have a huge adventure planned where everyone plays a vital, key role in winning the day and fifteen minutes before gametime your skillmonkey calls in saying that he's sorry but he just got food poisoning. Or you left off in the middle of a dungeon and one of the players found out he had to work that day and you couldn't reschedule. DMPCs: because Real Life happens.

Also, Guidance != Railroading. Railroading is when you don't have any options but to plow straight ahead. Guidance is when you say "You might want to consider this..." Frankly, most GMs will at one point or another say something akin to "You might want to check behind the third door on the right" when the players are really stumped. This isn't railroading at all... your players are still perfectly welcome to try other methods (assuming you have other methods of accomplishing the goal), it's just a hint to keep things from stalling out.

Raum
2009-01-04, 11:47 AM
Yes and no. Railroading is bad, but if the DM has gone to the trouble of planning an adventure, it's not fair to him/her to simply toss those plans aside when the PCs "don't feel like going into that dungeon". So you're saying it's ok for the DM to railroad in spite of railroading being 'bad'?


Also, Guidance != Railroading. Railroading is when you don't have any options but to plow straight ahead. Guidance is when you say "You might want to consider this..." Frankly, most GMs will at one point or another say something akin to "You might want to check behind the third door on the right" when the players are really stumped. This isn't railroading at all... your players are still perfectly welcome to try other methods (assuming you have other methods of accomplishing the goal), it's just a hint to keep things from stalling out.The railroading in your scenario appears to have occurred when the DM created a single point of plot advancement. In other words, having to find whatever is behind 'the third door on the right' is the railroad.

Getting a bit off subject though, the OP asked why people didn't like DMPCs and pet NPCs.

I find the number of DMs claiming universal love for their DMPC sadly amusing. Oddly, I don't see nearly as many players claiming the same love and harmony. Yet there are more players than DMs, aren't there?

It may well work for a given group. But talk to the players. Find out what they want to do in the game. When you talk to them, remember most will be careful about giving criticism for fear of offending a friend. You'll usually get more responses to 'what do you want' than to 'what do you dislike'. I've never had a player tell me they wanted a DMPC in the game.

ZeroNumerous
2009-01-04, 12:24 PM
It may well work for a given group. But talk to the players. Find out what they want to do in the game.

I just did. Two out of three didn't have a problem with my DMPC(the only one I've run, no less) at all. The third isn't around to ask.

So I'm finding your response a little condescending as it's a very wide-ranging statement with no actual basis but lumps every DMPC together entirely.

Kroy
2009-01-04, 12:32 PM
In my many years of playing RPGs, the best DM I ever had played an DMPC in every single one of his games. He only stole the spotlight away from everyone else once in the five years he DMed.

On the other hand, I've had several other DMs who played DMPCs and would hide treasure that they would be the ones to find and use, make subplots about their DMPCs, and solve all the puzzles for us.

Raum
2009-01-04, 12:39 PM
I just did. Two out of three didn't have a problem with my DMPC(the only one I've run, no less) at all. The third isn't around to ask.If you asked whether or not they had a problem, you asked the wrong question.


So I'm finding your response a little condescending as it's a very wide-ranging statement with no actual basis but lumps every DMPC together entirely.How so? Seriously. I've defined hirelings separately from DMPCs and maintained that things work differently for different groups from the beginning.

woodenbandman
2009-01-04, 01:11 PM
The one and only time I ran a campaign that lasted more than one encounter I had a DMPC that was a generic Dwarven Cleric. (None of my PCs wanted to do it.)

It worked out okay. He just sat in the background and threw heals where needed. I didn't min/max him at all. Which frustrated my RulesLawyer/MinMaxer to no end. He kept trying to make me turn it into a Clericzilla but I just had him be mediocre. (The MinMaxer got annoying enough with his stupid two weapon fighting cheese that I had a minotaur rip off his arm. That'll teach him to abuse the system.)

That is an awful, horrible thing to do. Why would you even consider doing that? You just basically told that player "Screw you, you can't play your character the way you want to." If he's making everyone else feel redundant, you have a problem. I know, because I was in this situation, making everyone else feel redundant with my Druid of Doom. And in that case, I saw that I needed to change my build so that the challenge of the game would be more or less consistent for all involved.

But if nobody else has a problem with this player, it is just YOU who has the problem, and you're discouraged because this player is stronger than you can challenge. You're expressing your own disappointment because you cannot challenge this player, which proves that you don't know your player very well. This is Bad GMing in the first degree. The number one rule is to give your players the kind of game they want. If this guy wants to fight powerful things, give him powerful things. Don't just rip his arm off.

I hope that that player left your game.

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 01:24 PM
I hope that player bought a scroll of Regenerate. Lost limbs aren't that hindering.

Also, TWF is crap most of the time, and can't really be cheesed. Not like Multiattack.

Matthew
2009-01-04, 01:35 PM
There are only really two types of character, the "Player Character" and the "Non Player Character" (though sometimes players have partial control over NPCs). The "Dungeon Master Player Character" is a term that usually describes a "Non Player Character" that the Dungeon Master is glorifying in some way and hogging the limelight from the player characters. Often, the dungeon master may have run this character whilst a player in somebody else's campaign and is engaging in a "wish fulfilment" scenario. A "pet Non Player Character" is similar, but usually less prominent in play. A hireling torch bearer who always seems to miraculously escape certain death scenarios is a good example.

Bottom line, though, these two terms are used to describe bad practices on the part of a game master with regard to how he runs certain non player characters. An NPC who accompanies a party is neither necessarily an DMPC nor a PNPC.

ZeroNumerous
2009-01-04, 02:16 PM
If you asked whether or not they had a problem, you asked the wrong question.

Now you're just being intentionally antagonistic. No, I asked if they ever felt overshadowed or ever felt unnecessary during the game. I also asked if they felt the DMPC was unnecessary to the game's fun.

Gralamin
2009-01-04, 02:41 PM
I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

See, but if this was done to me, I'd assume its because the DM Doesn't want us to have someone to fill that slot, and therefore getting a hireling is going to be a waste of money for my character (Either because the DM will kill it, have it steal from me, or make it antagonistic towards us). Why else remove a character that is probably working perfectly fine with the group? Essentially, your challenge proves nothing, because it doesn't properly take the reactions of the players into account, and in fact generalizes that all players will react in only two ways: Wanting a replacement character due to arguments for DMPCs, or not wanting one because the player doesn't really care.


If you asked whether or not they had a problem, you asked the wrong question.

Being one of the players, I can safely say he asked the right question.

Raum
2009-01-04, 02:43 PM
Now you're just being intentionally antagonistic. No, I certainly didn't intend to antagonize anyone. I was simply comparing the way you phrased your statement back to comments on questions I'd made in post 28 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5590159&postcount=28).

Frankly, I don't want to offend you or anyone else. Offended people often get defensive and worry more about justifying actions than about thinking critically about the action's consequences.

DMPCs may work well with some groups just as varying degrees of plot scripting work with others. Even when it works it's worth looking at critically. If nothing else it may help DMs avoid some of the pitfalls. Besides, all of us can improve our skills.

RavKal
2009-01-04, 02:49 PM
I occasionally put an NPC in with the group as a plot device, but from time to time said NPC does end up doing something other than stand around and create plot.

So long as the players don't expect the NPC to do anything helpful outside of the plot, it's a pretty good NPC.

Mike_G
2009-01-04, 03:13 PM
That's why I said to make sure you know how much the players are comfortable with.

It sounds like you're saying the players' desires don't matter to you. Is that a correct interpretation? You don't let players avoid going someplace when they attempt to do so?


Yes. Curse you! You have seen through my cunning plan to ignore my players' desires. Why should I care for them, when it's my world? Ah-hahahahahah!!!!!!

Uh, not so much. It's not a question of the PC's saying "Screw going to the Temple of Orcus! We could get hurt," and forcing them at gunpoint, but a question of an important en counter or side quest located en route somewhere.



If the players feel a lack, let them hire an NPC. Remember, I defined hirelings separately from DMPCs.


I have a problem with the verisimilitude of a "hireling" to go into a very dangerous situation with a bunch of total strangers. A long term, close knit party that lacks a Healer will probably always lack a healer, and so adding a permanent NPC makes sense. Otherwise it comes across like "Wanted: Sharpshhooter. Elite Special Forces Team missing Sniper. Interest in Jazz and Knowledge of Afghanistan a plus. Apply at Ft Brag." I'd rather make up Kormun the medic, who grew up across the street from Roland, our Thompson Gunner, who is trustworthy, quiet and efficient.

This isn't a wish fulfillment, glory seeking attempt to beat my own dungeon. That's so insanely masturbatory as to make strip solitaire look well adjusted.
Filling the gaps in the basic party roles helps the game run more smoothly. The alternative is writing a campaign that doesn't need a given role, and that's a lot harder.




Is running a DMPC really 'playing'?


I don't think it is.



I'm not sure it's possilbe to run a DMPC in a face roll and not take the spotlight. Haven't you turned the players into an audience during those scenes?


Depends on the party. If none of them like playing the face, let them delegate. Just don't get carried away. A quick description and "Clooney the Bard gives the priestess a charming smile and offers to write a song about her beauty. She blushes and decides to cast Restoration on Burzak, even though he did smash the sacred idol and burn down the temple as a distraction so he could flank the Necromancer. Now you guys can get back to smashing stuff."


-----



I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

Just a thought.

Think I'll decline. In twenty years with most of the same players, I think I know what roles they do and don't want to be bothered with. The alternative, which did used to happen, was the low man on the totem pole had to play the cleric. Since we statted up Kormun, Mehdic, and Dawk, everyone has been happy.

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 03:19 PM
Clooney the Bard gives the priestess a charming smile and offers to write a song about her beauty. She blushes and decides to cast Restoration on Burzak, even though he did smash the sacred idol and burn down the temple as a distraction so he could flank the Necromancer. Now you guys can get back to smashing stuff.
Destroying an entire temple in order to get a +2 bonus in combat seems a bit over the top, and I want to do this sometime now.

Mike_G
2009-01-04, 03:21 PM
Destroying an entire temple in order to get a +2 bonus in combat seems a bit over the top, and I want to do this sometime now.


And yet people question why Burzak isn't the party face.

RPGuru1331
2009-01-04, 03:51 PM
Is running a DMPC really 'playing'? I've seen the excuse used before but have never understood why someone would equate running a DMPC in their own game with playing in another. Besides, I have as much fun in the GM roll as in the player roll. If you don't, why GM?
I am unsure. I haven't seen fit to do it. But I've seen it done well (Didn't diminish us, and the group *liked* the character), so why hate? I got nothing against the GM amusing everyone at the table. Everyone.


I'm not sure it's possilbe to run a DMPC in a face roll and not take the spotlight. Haven't you turned the players into an audience during those scenes?
Pull the DMPC aside with some diplomat or noble or something, players have something else to do. On-camera face, however, could be a problem, definitely


I have a challenge for those arguing in favor of DMPCs. Take them out of the party and let the party know they can look for a different hireling to fill the roll. If you leave it up to the players I'd bet at least 50% won't bother. Even when they do you'll see a different dynamic in the group. Put the players in control of their own destiny and they're far less likely to rely on the DM to save them. Or to blame the DM when things go south.

....???
I am absolutely certain we would have actually gone back for our grumbley Doctor Sage, offhand, if she were removed from the party somehow. As players, we found her hilarious, second only to our bruiser for sheer humor value. And it's a Doctor Sage in a group of Xia Warriors; Outshadowing isn't going to happen. We would have had compelling plot reasons to grab her back (I'm pretty sure she's going to marry our Mao Shan, and she's been a useful-ish way for the WS to occasionally poke our characters on the Destinies we as Players already chose). Are you asking me whether I'd rather have had some vanilla everyman doctor to go to instead of an interesting, fleshed out character hanging out with us? :smallconfused:

Raum
2009-01-04, 05:01 PM
Uh, not so much. It's not a question of the PC's saying "Screw going to the Temple of Orcus! We could get hurt," and forcing them at gunpoint, but a question of an important en counter or side quest located en route somewhere. I'm still not sure I'm clear on what you're saying, are you reusing something which fits elsewhere or making it impossible to avoid an encounter? To me, there's a big difference between turning a smuggler's hideout in London into a thieves' den in Paris and deciding to attack the characters' ship with the dragon they'd heard was in the Dark Forest and decided to avoid by taking a ship. The second makes player choice meaningless.


I have a problem with the verisimilitude of a "hireling" to go into a very dangerous situation with a bunch of total strangers. A long term, close knit party that lacks a Healer will probably always lack a healer, and so adding a permanent NPC makes sense. Otherwise it comes across like "Wanted: Sharpshhooter. Elite Special Forces Team missing Sniper. Interest in Jazz and Knowledge of Afghanistan a plus. Apply at Ft Brag." I'd rather make up Kormun the medic, who grew up across the street from Roland, our Thompson Gunner, who is trustworthy, quiet and efficient.Kormun the medic could still be the 'hireling'. Going back to definitions, the only thing making him a DMPC instead of a hireling is control. If Roland had asked his neighbor to help and can tell him his help is no longer needed, he's becoming more hireling than DMPC.


This isn't a wish fulfillment, glory seeking attempt to beat my own dungeon. That's so insanely masturbatory as to make strip solitaire look well adjusted.Agreed.


Filling the gaps in the basic party roles helps the game run more smoothly. The alternative is writing a campaign that doesn't need a given role, and that's a lot harder.I can see why it might be harder if you're comparing it to using a published adventure. I'm not sure why it's harder than writing any other campaign...can you fill me in?


Depends on the party. If none of them like playing the face, let them delegate. Just don't get carried away. A quick description and "Clooney the Bard gives the priestess a charming smile and offers to write a song about her beauty. She blushes and decides to cast Restoration on Burzak, even though he did smash the sacred idol and burn down the temple as a distraction so he could flank the Necromancer. Now you guys can get back to smashing stuff."This goes back to the 'filling in the gaps' scenario - if all they want is to smash stuff, why build in a requirement for a face?


...so why hate?I don't think 'hate' means what you appear to think it means. If it's being used as hyperbole, my reasons are back in post 9. The negative aspects simply outweigh the positive in my opinion.


Pull the DMPC aside with some diplomat or noble or something, players have something else to do. On-camera face, however, could be a problem, definitelyI agree for the most part. Though an off camera face seems contradictory. :)


Are you asking me whether I'd rather have had some vanilla everyman doctor to go to instead of an interesting, fleshed out character hanging out with us? :smallconfused:Not at all. How detailed or fleshed out a character is has nothing to do with whether it's a DMPC or not. I was simply suggesting leaving control of the party members in the players' hands. Just something different to try and see if it works for the group.

Frosty
2009-01-04, 05:17 PM
If my PCs tell my DMPCs to go away, they probably would fairly quickly. It's not like I'll *make* the party accept the DMPCs. The way I ensure that they stick around (it's kinda good that they do given how half the time one player is missing) is that I make the players want (OOC and IC) the DMPCs to stick around so they never want to ask the DMPCs to leave.

Mike_G
2009-01-04, 06:31 PM
I'm still not sure I'm clear on what you're saying, are you reusing something which fits elsewhere or making it impossible to avoid an encounter? To me, there's a big difference between turning a smuggler's hideout in London into a thieves' den in Paris and deciding to attack the characters' ship with the dragon they'd heard was in the Dark Forest and decided to avoid by taking a ship. The second makes player choice meaningless.


You are talking this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. We meet for three hours a week to play elves and dwarves and shank orcs. In between, the DM writes up the next few encounters, between multiple jobs, spouse and baby issues. There is no sandbox and no great idealistic player self determination and so on. The party wants an interesting world, and they want a guy to go to the tavern and hire them to rescue the princess or recover the artifact or whatever.

A little steering, because, seriously, they will mill around and wreck the town without that, and somebody to carry the can on the jobs they don't want to do is a good thing.



Kormun the medic could still be the 'hireling'. Going back to definitions, the only thing making him a DMPC instead of a hireling is control. If Roland had asked his neighbor to help and can tell him his help is no longer needed, he's becoming more hireling than DMPC.


Like they're not gonna need a healer for the next mission? This way he progresses at the same rate, they get familiar with him, and he gets written into the story. He can have a personality, so long as it's not a dominant one, and we had a PC actually fall in love with him.

The only pitfall of any NPC, is making sure they don't steal the spotlight. Support characters are great for that, and any class really can be played as support. If Kormun was a Clericzilla, that'd be an issue.




I can see why it might be harder if you're comparing it to using a published adventure. I'm not sure why it's harder than writing any other campaign...can you fill me in?

This goes back to the 'filling in the gaps' scenario - if all they want is to smash stuff, why build in a requirement for a face?


Because the world at large has people in it. Some of them are people you want to talk to, not stab. Some are your potential employers, movers and shakers in the world. Just because you don't want to play the guy who talks, doesn't mean you don't think somebody should talk to people. Just like you probably think there should be some healing available, and buffs, and what kind of craphole dungeon doesn't have traps?

In the aforementioned party of four melee types, I could just throw combat at them, and make it into Zulu, but that's boring. They want somebody to check the door for traps before they kick it open, and somebody to cast buffs on them before combat and heal them afterwards.

RPGuru1331
2009-01-04, 07:02 PM
]I don't think 'hate' means what you appear to think it means. If it's being used as hyperbole, my reasons are back in post 9. The negative aspects simply outweigh the positive in my opinion.
None of those negative aspects seem to be there by necessity though. Actually strike that, I looked at it again. None of those strike me as something that needs to be there.


I agree for the most part. Though an off camera face seems contradictory. :)
Hm, a little.


Not at all. How detailed or fleshed out a character is has nothing to do with whether it's a DMPC or not. I was simply suggesting leaving control of the party members in the players' hands. Just something different to try and see if it works for the group.

How is this related to the presence or absence of a DMPC? I mean, it's related to say, Elminster or Bull Of The North walking around with the PCs, but the DMPC I just elaborated slightly on is the satellite, not the center of gravity. I guess what I'm saying is, "How is a DMPC removing control"?

Raum
2009-01-04, 07:39 PM
You are talking this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. I've asked questions to try and understand what you were saying. That's taking something too seriously?


A little steering, because, seriously, they will mill around and wreck the town without that, and somebody to carry the can on the jobs they don't want to do is a good thing.There is almost always a line drawn between player control and GM control. It's looking at where the line is drawn that becomes interesting. I'll leave any in depth discussions of railroading, choice, and player agency for a different thread and simply say the same I've said regarding DMPCs. Make sure you know what the players want from the game.


Like they're not gonna need a healer for the next mission? This way he progresses at the same rate, they get familiar with him, and he gets written into the story. He can have a personality, so long as it's not a dominant one, and we had a PC actually fall in love with him. You may think I'm taking it too seriously again but I have a question. (Go figure, huh! :smallsmile:) How is need, advancement, personality, or even being written into the story related to whether or not the NPC is a DMPC, hireling, or even BBEG? Or did I miss a subject change?


The only pitfall of any NPC, is making sure they don't steal the spotlight. Support characters are great for that, and any class really can be played as support. If Kormun was a Clericzilla, that'd be an issue.Well there are other potential pitfalls. I pointed out a few in post 9.


Because the world at large has people in it. Some of them are people you want to talk to, not stab. Some are your potential employers, movers and shakers in the world. Just because you don't want to play the guy who talks, doesn't mean you don't think somebody should talk to people. Just like you probably think there should be some healing available, and buffs, and what kind of craphole dungeon doesn't have traps?Well that depends on the dungeon! :smallamused: I remember building a 'dungeon' for Shadowrun with no functional traps. It was abandoned and without power. The only hazards were the denizens who'd moved in and environmental / terrain challenges. Traps simply didn't make sense in the scenario. Similarly, scenarios can be built to incorporate or ignore almost anything. They only thing I can't imagine a scenario doing without is interaction with the player characters. And that's simply because I'd call it a cut scene instead of a scenario if there's no interaction.


In the aforementioned party of four melee types, I could just throw combat at them, and make it into Zulu, but that's boring. They want somebody to check the door for traps before they kick it open, and somebody to cast buffs on them before combat and heal them afterwards.Err, you do realize the game is the same in the two scenarios you describe? The difference is one or more NPCs who's function is getting them ready for the next combat. Nothing wrong with that, I've certainly enjoyed my share of combat games. I'm simply in favor of transparency over obfuscation - calling it what it is.

Raum
2009-01-04, 07:52 PM
How is this related to the presence or absence of a DMPC? I mean, it's related to say, Elminster or Bull Of The North walking around with the PCs, but the DMPC I just elaborated slightly on is the satellite, not the center of gravity. I guess what I'm saying is, "How is a DMPC removing control"?I was discussing who controlled the NPC not who controlled plot or players.

From my initial post in this thread:
For the record, I define DMPC as an NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM. A hireling is an NPC brought into the party by the PCs and is fireable by the PCs. Tactical control of hirelings is in the players' hands (hirelings take orders from PCs).Party membership, social dominance, and player vs GM control are what I used to define a DMPC as something different from some other NPC with the party. If the players have control of the NPC it doesn't meet my definition of DMPC.

Flickerdart
2009-01-04, 08:10 PM
I removed my DMPC from the game once, had him dragged off in a fight that nearly killed the PCs. Do you know what they did? They went and busted him out before even tending to their own wounds. So, I somehow don't think there was a problem there...

RPGuru1331
2009-01-04, 08:39 PM
From my initial post in this thread:Party membership, social dominance, and player vs GM control are what I used to define a DMPC as something different from some other NPC with the party. If the players have control of the NPC it doesn't meet my definition of DMPC.

In that case, I am definitely confused. I don't believe anything you believe sucks about DMPCs is a necessity. I'll trust my GM til he gives me a reason not to. Why should I rail for control?

Mike_G
2009-01-04, 09:02 PM
Err, you do realize the game is the same in the two scenarios you describe? The difference is one or more NPCs who's function is getting them ready for the next combat. Nothing wrong with that, I've certainly enjoyed my share of combat games. I'm simply in favor of transparency over obfuscation - calling it what it is.


No, they're not even remotely the same.

The Players happen to want to play warrior types. They could do nothing but hack and slash, but that gets boring. The difference between a wargame and an RPG is the scenery, the window dressing. Talking to people, casting healing and buffs and scouting make the world around the grunt seem more real, even though his role is primarily combat.


Would Princess Bride have been the same if the writer just removed the need for Miracle Max, since the party is a giant, a swordsman and a..well..thinky type, I s'pose? No.


I think you just have very different expectations form your games, and Views on other people's. I have been playing with (mostly) the same guys since High School, (literally 20-odd years) and we have used a DMPC consistently since starting 3.0. It helps, it makes us happy. It's a good thing.

I really don't give a rat's for player or DM control of the NPC, or "player agency" whether I play or DM. I'm fine going on the prepared quest, meeting the prepared encounter, so long as I can react to it in my own way. I want to adventure in a world with people, monsters, magic and traps, and my PC will probably specialize in one of those things. If nobody at the table covers the bases, I'd rather a DMPC that have one of those factors written out, or force someone to play what they don't want.

Not since I was fourteen have I seen a DMPC hog the spotlight. It's easy not to. Maybe it's just a maturity thing.

elliott20
2009-01-04, 10:18 PM
I generally approach this sort of question with some caution as it all depends upon how you define a DMPC or Pet NPC.

If by DMPC you mean a PC that is controlled by the DM and just happens to follow the players around, that's one thing. If you mean a character who is really just there so that the DM can play the role of player AND DM at the same time, that's another.

Matthew
2009-01-04, 10:22 PM
Not since I was fourteen have I seen a DMPC hog the spotlight. It's easy not to. Maybe it's just a maturity thing.

If the character is not being used inappropriately, it is not really a "Dungeon Master's Player Character" (a contradiction in terms if ever there could be), it is a "Non Player Character Adventurer". I do not know why people seem to be confusing these things, but "DMPC" and "PNPC" are perjoratives; they are what happens with an immature handling of NPCs.

Raum
2009-01-04, 10:31 PM
The Players happen to want to play warrior types. They could do nothing but hack and slash, but that gets boring. The difference between a wargame and an RPG is the scenery, the window dressing. Talking to people, casting healing and buffs and scouting make the world around the grunt seem more real, even though his role is primarily combat.Agreed, that's one difference. But, in your example, it's not the players doing any of that - it's the NPCs. I'm sure you've left a lot out, but what you described was a series of combats set up by NPCs.


Princess Bride[/i] have been the same if...Game != story.


I think you just have very different expectations form your games, and Views on other people's. Don't mistake game analysis for opinion. I've stated several times that games differ.

Have you ever asked yourself what constitutes a game? What scope does the game portion of an RPG cover vs the scope of the story or setting? They're seldom the same thing. In relation to this thread, have you analyzed how use of a DMPC affects the game differently from use of some other NPC?


Not since I was fourteen have I seen a DMPC hog the spotlight. It's easy not to. Maybe it's just a maturity thing.Perhaps.

Raum
2009-01-04, 10:42 PM
If the character is not being used inappropriately, it is not really a "Dungeon Master's Player Character" (a contradiction in terms if ever there could be), it is a "Non Player Character Adventurer". In order for this to be a useful definition, you also need to define what constitutes inappropriate use. How are you defining that?


I do not know why people seem to be confusing these things, but "DMPC" and "PNPC" are perjoratives; they are what happens with an immature handling of NPCs.Yet many have stated they use "DMPCs" in appropriate and useful manners.

It may be worth pointing out that all DMPCs are NPCs. Just as BBEGs, mooks, and hirelings are NPCs. They're simply subtypes. Imagine how confusing a discussion could get if you replaced all of the terms with "NPC". :smallsmile:

Matthew
2009-01-04, 11:06 PM
In order for this to be a useful definition, you also need to define what constitutes inappropriate use. How are you defining that?

Well, that's the crux of things. If you can satisfactorily define that in absolute terms then much of the nomenclature issues here would be resolved. However, such things are subjective precisely because they are labels applied without authorative definition. That is to say they are slang terms created by gamers that have no official role within the game (unless some D20/3.5 supplement did define them, I might easily have overlooked such a text)



Yet many have stated they use "DMPCs" in appropriate and useful manners.

It may be worth pointing out that all DMPCs are NPCs. Just as BBEGs, mooks, and hirelings are NPCs. They're simply subtypes. Imagine how confusing a discussion could get if you replaced all of the terms with "NPC". :smallsmile:

In which case they are not DMPCs at all, at least with regards to the origination of the term. There are only two types of character in the game, those controlled by players and those not [e.g. those ultimately controlled by the game master]. Designating subtypes such as "DMPC" and "PNPC" without an authorative definition only confuses the matter.

The only way to effectively talk about this subject (given that "DMPC" and "PNPC" have no easily accessible and mutually agreeable definitions) is to dispense with the unhelpful shorthand and describe the ways in which use of NPCs is acceptable and unacceptable [i.e. to start with first principles and possibly work towards finding useful and unambiguous definitions].

Raum
2009-01-05, 12:02 AM
Well, that's the crux of things. If you can satisfactorily define that in absolute terms then much of the nomenclature issues here would be resolved. However, such things are subjective precisely because they are labels applied without authorative definition. That's why I defined the term as I use it at the beginning of this discussion.


In which case they are not DMPCs at all, at least with regards to the origination of the term. From what I remember, the term is simply a concatenation of DM's PC. The negative connotations weren't necessarily there from day one.


There are only two types of character in the game, those controlled by players and those not [e.g. those ultimately controlled by the game master]. Designating subtypes such as "DMPC" and "PNPC" without an authorative definition only confuses the matter.Language stems from use far more than from authority. New words are added every year (http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/newwords/?view=uk) and, with the possible exception of technical terms, they're decide by use not by authority.


The only way to effectively talk about this subject (given that "DMPC" and "PNPC" have no easily accessible and mutually agreeable definitions) is to dispense with the unhelpful shorthand and describe the ways in which use of NPCs is acceptable and unacceptable [i.e. to start with first principles and possibly work towards finding useful and unambiguous definitions].Or you simply provide a definition as I have. You could replace each instance of DMPC I've used with "NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM" and not change my meaning. But it's awkward. Much better to simply define the term and use it as defined.

Mind, I'm not trying to force my definition on you. I'd be interested in seeing your definition of DMPC in terms of use and conduct. But lumping it in with all NPCs and not even trying to define it in objective terms is less than useful. Words are simply symbols. They're not laws from some authority.

shaddy_24
2009-01-05, 12:50 AM
Quite honestly, I've got a "DMPC", according to many people's definition of the word. He was a halfling rogue, thrown in as a minor character. He wasn't supposed to do anything but introduce the characters to someone. They liked him, and invited him to follow them. He's still around, 4 levels later. I've tried to get him to leave, but they want him to stay. They don't want control of him. They're fine with me controling him. He doesn't overshadow in combat, role-playing, out of combat... They just like him because he's funny and helpful. He also helps the wizard/rogue with trapfinding and such as necessary, since the player doesn't have many ranks in that.

Raum, if I took your challange, they wouldn't look for a replacement. They don't want a hireling, he's not filling any roles. They would look for him again, or drag him out of retirement, or brutally murder the person who killed him and pool their treasure to bring him back (ok, maybe not that last point, but I really wouldn't be surprised). They don't want to control another character (hirling or leadership), and they don't care if he takes some treasure (usually extra stuff they don't want, and a half share of gold). They just want Caleb Goodshot, sarcastic halfling rogue.

Matthew
2009-01-05, 09:01 AM
That's why I defined the term as I use it at the beginning of this discussion.

But clearly people are not using your definition or at the very least contesting it, which is causing problems.



From what I remember, the term is simply a concatenation of DM's PC. The negative connotations weren't necessarily there from day one.

DM's PC is evidently a perjorative, a subversion of the division between game master and player. It is only in very recent years I have ever seen the term used in a positive manner, much like power gamer.



Language stems from use far more than from authority. New words are added every year (http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/newwords/?view=uk) and, with the possible exception of technical terms, they're decide by use not by authority.

The definition of a word is authorised in one manner or another, but that doesn't really matter in this case. The abbreviation "DMPC" is slang without meaning in the game in question. Definitions are provided for PC and NPC as game artifacts, not so with DMPC or PNPC.



Or you simply provide a definition as I have. You could replace each instance of DMPC I've used with "NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM" and not change my meaning. But it's awkward. Much better to simply define the term and use it as defined.

Mind, I'm not trying to force my definition on you. I'd be interested in seeing your definition of DMPC in terms of use and conduct. But lumping it in with all NPCs and not even trying to define it in objective terms is less than useful. Words are simply symbols. They're not laws from some authority.
Honestly, I find your definition odd:

"I define DMPC as an NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM. A hireling is an NPC brought into the party by the PCs and is fireable by the PCs. Tactical control of hirelings is in the players' hands (hirelings take orders from PCs)."

The dichotomy you have suggested here (DMPC versus Hireling) as one of subordinates versus equals is too broad a use of the term, and in particular the idea of "insertion" needs to be more clearly defined. It sounds like you are using it in the sense of "forced upon", but if players freely choose to bring NPC Adventurers into their association on equal terms there would need to be yet a third category of NPC.

Consequently, at this point, I can only assume that you are chiefly discerning in terms of subordinate and equal (or really non subordinate, since a DMPC could conceivably be the leader of a party). I think that defining "DMPC" in such a broad manner is unhelpful and confusing, especially when the prevailing commonly used definition implies that DMPCs are inherently negative constructs. Indeed, I would suggest that you are redefining DMPC in a way that sidesteps the question postulated by the original poster (which seems obviously a result of contradictory definitions).

Which brings us to a "Well how do you define DMPC, then?" question. As I tried to indicate above, I do not think it is a term that has a clear definition, meaning different things to different people because there is no authority that has provided one for D20/3.5 (whether in a game book or dictionary). I think there are multiple possible definitions, and whilst I might favour a particular one, the question "What are the problems with DMPCs/PNPCs" cannot satisfactorily be answered by unilaterally creating a definition.

Mike_G
2009-01-05, 10:50 AM
If we are going to nail down definitions, I can see that if DMPC is pejorative, then a "appropriately used DMPC" is an oxymoron. I was not working with in in a pejorative sense, but as a full party member controlled by the DM.

Using Raum's definition, I prefer the DMPC to a hireling, since, as Matthew says, "hireling" implies a subordinate, a dispensible contract employee, and DMPC connotes a full member of the party. I, for example, wouldn't risk my life for my employer. I would risk it for my comrades in arms, or my friends. I'd die for the members of my old Marine platoon, or risk myself to protect my partner on the ambulance, but I sure wouldn't risk a hangnail for the glory of the company that writes my check. That's why I dislike both Raum's "hireling" definition and the connotation of the word.

No NPC should make party decisions, or "run" the group, but I think one can provide advice as a trusted friend that a hireling couldn't.

By Raum's definition, an NPC under the DM's control, inserted by the DM is what we use. Such an NPC can be very useful, and allow a game where Burzak the Impulsive can set fire to the temple of Pelor as a distraction and survive, even though nobody at the table wanted to buy ranks in Diplomacy, allow the trusted, quiet, competent healer to ask Sir Oliver if he really thinks burning the orphans to save their souls is the best course of action, allow a trapped dungeon, which I think is essential for atmosphere and so on.

I am trying to work within Raum's definition. We like a party that covers all the bases, that can talk and sneak and cast and fight. So we have a character to do each of those things. Those that the players don't want to run, the DM does. Far superior, in my opinion, than just running Helm's Deep every week for the melee types.

RPGuru1331
2009-01-05, 02:34 PM
I am still a mite curious. If not only do we choose to bring her along (As she is a doctor sage without even significant Lightfoot, we could fairly easily ditch her or whack her if we wanted), and she simply doesn't exert a controlling influence on the group (Even lightly; As I said, the GM only pokes us on the Destinies we already chose, so it's an easy In Character poke), what's the problem? We're all enjoying her presence.

Jayabalard
2009-01-05, 03:17 PM
All you need to do is think about what the fundamental differences between an NPC and a PC are, and you'll understand what the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is.Obviously not; if that was the case then this wouldn't be such a common question.


I am still a mite curious. If <stuff> what's the problem? We're all enjoying her presence.The problem is that whether a given NPC is a DMPC is not a black and white issue, but most people often talk them as if they are. People use the same term to mean different things and they wind up arguing over terminology (ie, exactly what is a dmpc) instead of just talking about what makes a given NPC bad or good.

Just in your example: you'll likely find someone for each of the following statements:

"Yes that's a DMPC and it's a bad thing"
"Yes it's a DMPC and it's not a problem"
"No, it's not a DMPC, so it's not a problem"

RPGuru1331
2009-01-05, 03:34 PM
Well, yes, there will be arguments over definition. However, beyond those, he has basically also stated "Even in your example, an NPC under DM control is always bad, and you should ditch her and get some faceless hireling under your control". So I'm trying to get him to explain why, when I already stated that none of his theoretical problems actually happened.

Raum
2009-01-05, 06:41 PM
DM's PC is evidently a perjorative, a subversion of the division between game master and player. It is only in very recent years I have ever seen the term used in a positive manner, much like power gamer.Hmm, it wasn't considered automatically negative in the groups I played with in either the 70s or the 90s. Didn't play much during the 80s, not sure what usage may have been then.


The definition of a word is authorised in one manner or another, but that doesn't really matter in this case. The abbreviation "DMPC" is slang without meaning in the game in question. Definitions are provided for PC and NPC as game artifacts, not so with DMPC or PNPC. From a lesson plan on teaching English (http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/files/teacheng/new_words_plan.pdf):
There are no wrong or right new words – if they are used by speakers, they can enter the language (this may be an unfamiliar concept for some speakers of other languages where new words are more controlled than in English)



Honestly, I find your definition odd:

"I define DMPC as an NPC under the DM's control inserted into the party by the DM. A hireling is an NPC brought into the party by the PCs and is fireable by the PCs. Tactical control of hirelings is in the players' hands (hirelings take orders from PCs)."

The dichotomy you have suggested here (DMPC versus Hireling) as one of subordinates versus equals is too broad a use of the term,How is it too broad a term? Particularly when you appear to advocate using the broader term 'NPC'.


and in particular the idea of "insertion" needs to be more clearly defined. It sounds like you are using it in the sense of "forced upon", but if players freely choose to bring NPC Adventurers into their association on equal terms there would need to be yet a third category of NPC.If so, it's the term 'hireling' which should be redefined isn't it? Perhaps the 'NPC Adventurer' term you use has fewer subordinate connotations and is more correct than 'hireling'. One question though, if an NPC's party membership can be revoked by the PC's, isn't the NPC subordinate no matter what role it's taking? If so, is there a third category?


Consequently, at this point, I can only assume that you are chiefly discerning in terms of subordinate and equal (or really non subordinate, since a DMPC could conceivably be the leader of a party). I think that defining "DMPC" in such a broad manner is unhelpful and confusing, especially when the prevailing commonly used definition implies that DMPCs are inherently negative constructs. Indeed, I would suggest that you are redefining DMPC in a way that sidesteps the question postulated by the original poster (which seems obviously a result of contradictory definitions).Not sure how I sidestepped the OP's question, I listed positive and negative aspects.


Which brings us to a "Well how do you define DMPC, then?" question. As I tried to indicate above, I do not think it is a term that has a clear definition, meaning different things to different people because there is no authority that has provided one for D20/3.5 (whether in a game book or dictionary). I think there are multiple possible definitions, and whilst I might favour a particular one, the question "What are the problems with DMPCs/PNPCs" cannot satisfactorily be answered by unilaterally creating a definition.Agreed. There also can't be a meaningful discussion at all without a working definition. No one else had provided one so I did. That doesn't prevent you, or anyone else, from proposing a different definition. I'd like to hear yours, perhaps we can discuss the issue based on it. To allow discussion it doesn't even really matter what the definition is - so long as it's objective. As you've pointed out though, subjective definitions aren't very useful.


I am trying to work within Raum's definition. We like a party that covers all the bases, that can talk and sneak and cast and fight. So we have a character to do each of those things. Those that the players don't want to run, the DM does. Far superior, in my opinion, than just running Helm's Deep every week for the melee types.Matthew's post got me to look back at my initial post with positive and negative aspects and I have a question for you. It appears to me that the positive aspects occur while the DMPC remains subordinate to the party in terms of plot and game. The negative aspects occur when the PCs become subordinate to the DMPC in those terms. (With the exception of 'allowing the DM to play'. Though I'm not entirely convinced that can be positive at all.) When the DMPC takes over the plot you get railroading and taking over the game takes 'screen time' from the players. Is that your experience?


However, beyond those, he has basically also stated "Even in your example, an NPC under DM control is always bad, and you should ditch her and get some faceless hireling under your control". When did I say that?

Mike_G
2009-01-05, 07:08 PM
Matthew's post got me to look back at my initial post with positive and negative aspects and I have a question for you. It appears to me that the positive aspects occur while the DMPC remains subordinate to the party in terms of plot and game. The negative aspects occur when the PCs become subordinate to the DMPC in those terms. (With the exception of 'allowing the DM to play'. Though I'm not entirely convinced that can be positive at all.) When the DMPC takes over the plot you get railroading and taking over the game takes 'screen time' from the players. Is that your experience?


I have not seen a DMPC, or any NPC for that matter, take over the plot in years and years. My experience is that they pay a useful support role, allowing the PCs to ignore roles they don't want to play. We all realize that the players need to determine the party's actions.

We did have a DM, long long ago who had "writer's syndrome" and wanted the campaign to end the way he wrote it, regardless of how hard he had to steer us. That sucked, but it wasn't an NPC thing, just a control freak thing.

Plus, we take turns DMing, so everyone gets to play. Maybe a permanent DM gets the need to make up a DMPC to feel he's "playing."

Matthew
2009-01-05, 07:38 PM
Hmm, it wasn't considered automatically negative in the groups I played with in either the 70s or the 90s. Didn't play much during the 80s, not sure what usage may have been then.

Precisely the problem, though. The use of the term will be different by locality and by period in question.



From a lesson plan on teaching English (http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/files/teacheng/new_words_plan.pdf):

Yeah, that's talking about how English speakers use the language, but there are official bodies convened to standardise the spelling, pronounciation, and definition of words. There is no authorative definition for DMPC, unlike say the word "cabbage" (of course, we could contest the authority of the DMG/PHB/MM or the OED, but to what end? They are generally accepted authorities in their own spheres of interest).



How is it too broad a term? Particularly when you appear to advocate using the broader term 'NPC'.

No, I don't. I advocate using NPC Adventurer or something that actually describes the character without being nonsensical. It is too broad a definition for the term because "Dungeon Master's Player Character" has an obvious and impossible meaning. The "Player Character" of the "Dungeon Master" cannot be a "Non Player Character" as you suggest, because the latter is defined by not being former.



If so, it's the term 'hireling' which should be redefined isn't it? Perhaps the 'NPC Adventurer' term you use has fewer subordinate connotations and is more correct than 'hireling'. One question though, if an NPC's party membership can be revoked by the PC's, isn't the NPC subordinate no matter what role it's taking? If so, is there a third category?

A Player Character's membership in the party can be revoked, presumably. The dichotomy istelf is insufficient because it ranges too widely, I think.



Not sure how I sidestepped the OP's question, I listed positive and negative aspects.

Because in defining DMPC you somewhat missed the problem (I suspect), which is that the original poster has a different definition of DMPC than that expressed in the posts he was reading. The list itself is reasonably agreeable, but the problem the poster seems to have encountered is one of definitions, rather than positive and negative measurements.



Agreed. There also can't be a meaningful discussion at all without a working definition. No one else had provided one so I did. That doesn't prevent you, or anyone else, from proposing a different definition. I'd like to hear yours, perhaps we can discuss the issue based on it. To allow discussion it doesn't even really matter what the definition is - so long as it's objective. As you've pointed out though, subjective definitions aren't very useful.

As I say, I don't know that "DMPC" can be defined, as it seems rather an ambiguous and subjective term. I could hazard a few salliant points derived from my pre internet encounters with it (I imagine derived chiefly from local game clubs and Dragon magazine, but I would be hard pressed to be sure).

1) A DMPC is a classed and levelled character on a similar model to a PC
2) A DMPC adventures with the party and is controlled by the DM.
3) A DMPC is a character of similar or greater status than the PCs.
4) A DMPC cannot be "got rid of". By hook or crook he will be forced upon the party somehow (friendly NPC clerics will ressurect him, deities will order the party to accompany him, etcetera...)
5) A DMPC is often unusually lucky or correct, else he is powerful, but only displays his power when the players are getting a beat down, usually saving the day in some way (such as going for the Achilles' heel of a monster). Alternatively, he will handle every situation, prominently displaying his awesomeness at every turn.
6) The DM is not impartial in his portrayal of the character, often abusing his position to aggrandise the character or show up the players, who he may seek to reduce to sidekicks in his story.
7) A DMPC is often a tricked out munchkin of a character (which is to say illegal, but the DM has handwaved away the problems, though he will not allow the actual PCs the same benefits... they cannot be trusted to not abuse such powers).

Essentially a DMPC is a vehicle towards wish fulfillment, often actually being a character the DM has played in somebody else's campaign who then becomes the hero of the DM's current campaign.

Raum
2009-01-05, 08:19 PM
1) A DMPC is a classed and levelled character on a similar model to a PCIn my experience DMPCs are found in games other than just D&D. The worst of them often have powers or attributes not available to the PCs. Can #1 be expanded to cover these additional circumstances?


2) A DMPC adventures with the party and is controlled by the DM.
3) A DMPC is a character of similar or greater status than the PCs.
4) A DMPC cannot be "got rid of". By hook or crook he will be forced upon the party somehow (friendly NPC clerics will ressurect him, deities will order the party to accompany him, etcetera...)No argument here, these three seem very similar to the definition I used. You've just phrased it differently.


5) A DMPC is often unusually lucky or correct, else he is powerful, but only displays his power when the players are getting a beat down, usually saving the day in some way (such as going for the Achilles' heel of a monster). Alternatively, he will handle every situation, prominently displaying his awesomeness at every turn.
6) The DM is not impartial in his portrayal of the character, often abusing his position to aggrandise the character or show up the players, who he may seek to reduce to sidekicks in his story.
7) A DMPC is often a tricked out munchkin of a character (which is to say illegal, but the DM has handwaved away the problems, though he will not allow the actual PCs the same benefits... they cannot be trusted to not abuse such powers).

Essentially a DMPC is a vehicle towards wish fulfillment, often actually being a character the DM has played in somebody else's campaign who then becomes the hero of the DM's current campaign.Here's where our definitions appear to differ. What I called negative uses or aspects, you've made part of the definition.

A question regarding the negative portions of your definition - can some of them be used in a limited form as a positive addition to the game? Some consider #5 a benefit, saving the PCs in some fashion has been mentioned a couple of times. Guidance instead of railroading seems to be the lighter side of #6. I can even imagine less negative versions of #7 - a guiding spirit for example.

The problem with including negative uses in the definition is that 'negative' is subjective.

Matthew
2009-01-05, 08:59 PM
In my experience DMPCs are found in games other than just D&D. The worst of them often have powers or attributes not available to the PCs. Can #1 be expanded to cover these additional circumstances?

Absolutely, but this thread is about D20/3e in particular. Yes, I purposefully went with "similar" to allow for just such a possibility.



No argument here, these three seem very similar to the definition I used. You've just phrased it differently.

Right, but I am just throwing out ideas here. As I said, I don't find your list disagreeable, only its use as a definition of DMPC.



Here's where our definitions appear to differ. What I called negative uses or aspects, you've made part of the definition.

Right, because a DMPC cannot by definition be a subset of an NPC, so I believe the coining of the term to be a joke about the unsuitability (and impossibility) of a DMPC.



A question regarding the negative portions of your definition - can some of them be used in a limited form as a positive addition to the game? Some consider #5 a benefit, saving the PCs in some fashion has been mentioned a couple of times. Guidance instead of railroading seems to be the lighter side of #6. I can even imagine less negative versions of #7 - a guiding spirit for example.

No, they are never positive, though they may occasionally appear to be. The motivation is always wrong, they are just typical results.



The problem with including negative uses in the definition is that 'negative' is subjective.

Of course, but that is not a special property of attaching negative values. The only thing that can be absolutely said about a DMPC is that it is a character roleplayed by the DM (and even then it may be the case that a player is occasionally asked to control him in some way; not likely, but possible).

RPGuru1331
2009-01-05, 10:03 PM
No, they are never positive, though they may occasionally appear to be. The motivation is always wrong, they are just typical results.
...Okay, so what happens when an NPC is used like a DMPC, but without.. you know, the negatives you listed?


When did I say that?
Well, you've been saying they're all bad without exception.

Raum
2009-01-05, 10:30 PM
Right, because a DMPC cannot by definition be a subset of an NPC, so I believe the coining of the term to be a joke about the unsuitability (and impossibility) of a DMPC.Ok....your definitions are confusing me. How you're defining 'NPC'? I've usually seen it defined as 'characters run by the DM' or something similar. If so, how is a DMPC, however you define it, not also an NPC?

Matthew
2009-01-05, 10:52 PM
...Okay, so what happens when an NPC is used like a DMPC, but without.. you know, the negatives you listed?

Sounds impossible. If there are no negatives, it's not a DMPC, just an NPC.



Ok....your definitions are confusing me. How you're defining 'NPC'? I've usually seen it defined as 'characters run by the DM' or something similar. If so, how is a DMPC, however you define it, not also an NPC?

Well, I don't have to define it, the D20/3e PHB does that...

nonplayer character (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_nonplayercharacter&alpha=): A character controlled by the Dungeon Master rather than by one of the other players in a game session, as opposed to a player character.

player character (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_playercharacter&alpha=): A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character.

A "player character" controlled by the "dungeon master" or DMPC is impossible. The characters the dungeon master controls are "non player characters" (NPCs) [i.e. not player characters]. The characters players control are player characters (PCs). The idea of a "DMPC" is a joke, a derogatory perjorative to describe a negative experience (somewhat like "pet NPC"). It is impossible, except insofar as a DM might have PCs in somebody else's campaign.

RPGuru1331
2009-01-06, 02:48 AM
Sounds impossible. If there are no negatives, it's not a DMPC, just an NPC.

So.. you've been spending all this time railing against the idea that someone can set an absolute definition on what is effectively slang.. then set an absolute definition? Okay.

Matthew
2009-01-06, 07:21 AM
So.. you've been spending all this time railing against the idea that someone can set an absolute definition on what is effectively slang.. then set an absolute definition? Okay.

No, I don't think we can absolutely define DMPC because we lack the authority to do so. Raum asked me what definition I would use, and I suggested some possibilities (based on my own understanding and use of the term). That doesn't mean I think it is the only possible or valid definition. Quite the opposite, in fact.

On the other hand, I do think that DMPC as a phrase only makes etymological sense as a perjorative description of a negative phenomonen.

Raum
2009-01-06, 08:01 PM
No, I don't think we can absolutely define DMPC because we lack the authority to do so. On lexicography, I recommend Erin McKean's talk on Redefining the Dictionary (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html). It's about 16 minutes long. One thing she mentions at the beginning - lexicography is defined as compiling a dictionary. Lexicographers don't create new words to add, they gather words in use to add. English is a posteriori rather than a priori.


Raum asked me what definition I would use, and I suggested some possibilities (based on my own understanding and use of the term). That doesn't mean I think it is the only possible or valid definition. Quite the opposite, in fact.

On the other hand, I do think that DMPC as a phrase only makes etymological sense as a perjorative description of a negative phenomonen.Your stated positions appear inconsistent. Have I missed something? In this quote right here you say there are other possible valid definitions and also say the only definition making sense is pejorative. Previously, you've defined DMPCs as 'DM controlled' yet stated they cannot be NPCs even though the definition of NPC is 'character controlled by the DM'. You've also said DMPC is a meaningless or unusable term because it's not defined by an authority yet you use the term 'NPC Adventurer' which, as far as I know, has not been defined by an authority. How do you reconcile these?

Matthew
2009-01-06, 08:41 PM
On lexicography, I recommend Erin McKean's talk on Redefining the Dictionary (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html). It's about 16 minutes long. One thing she mentions at the beginning - lexicography is defined as compiling a dictionary. Lexicographers don't create new words to add, they gather words in use to add. English is a posteriori rather than a priori.

Sure, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of authority. We have no authoritive definition for DMPC, unlike NPC or PC. Dictionaries and rulebooks claim to provide authoritive definitions for terms. Whether we choose to accept their authority or not is a different issue. To be clear, I recognise the D20/PHB Glossary and the Oxford English Dictionary as authoritive sources; I do not recognise your definition and would not ask you to accept mine as an authoritive source, though we could certainly agree between ourselves how we might use the term in our own discussions.



Your stated positions appear inconsistent. Have I missed something? In this quote right here you say there are other possible valid definitions and also say the only definition making sense is pejorative. Previously, you've defined DMPCs as 'DM controlled' yet stated they cannot be NPCs even though the definition of NPC is 'character controlled by the DM'. You've also said DMPC is a meaningless or unusable term because it's not defined by an authority yet you use the term 'NPC Adventurer' which, as far as I know, has not been defined by an authority. How do you reconcile these?

Yes, you are confusing my thoughts on DMPC with a "true" or "authoritive" definition, along with my contention that "DMPC" taken as a literal etymological construct is a contradiction in terms. I will try and lay it out for you more clearly:

1) There is no authoritive definition of "DMPC".
2) I have an opinion as to what a "DMPC" should be defined as, and have provided some of my thoughts at your request.
3) My opinion rests on the fact that a DM controlled PC is a contradiction in terms (and therefore cannot be taken to have a literal meaning).
4) An NPC Adventurer is not a contradiction, but an assemblage of non contradictory fully defined terms is a contradictory assemblage of two fully defined terms - any character that comes under the control of the DM is a "non player character", which is by definition not a player character].
5) If we accept that a DMPC is possible (and has a non literal meaning), then it must be an NPC if it is under the control of a DM.
6) The term "DMPC" could be read to imply an NPC that has the qualities of a PC. Since it cannot have the defining quality of a PC [i.e. be controlled by a player] then perhaps it has other qualities that PCs possess that NPCs cannot? This, I believe, is the manner of logic that has led you to assign the term "DMPC" to characters that act like PCs and are "inserted" into a party.
7) Alternatively, it could be read as a perjorative description of a non player character used by a DM to enjoy a wish fulfilment scenario as though the NPC were his player character in somebody else's game.

I believe my definition is more reasonable, since "NPC Adventurer" does appear in the D&D corpus (unlike DMPC), and fulfils the definition you provide for "DMPC" [i.e. an NPC with the qualities of a PC that are unrelated to it being controlled by a player]. Of course, it could be argued that not all PCs are adventurers in 3.5, but we do have a definition of an adventuring party (if not adventurer):



Adventuring Party (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_adventuringparty&alpha=): A group of characters who adventure together. An adventuring party is composed of player characters plus any followers, familiars, animal companions, associates, cohorts, or hirelings they might have.

So, then the question becomes (given that we accept the terms used in the rulebooks) is it useful to use "DMPC" to mean the same thing as "NPCA" (or associate, which I think appears to be the official D20/3e term) or is there something particular about a "DMPC" that offsets such a redundency?

Raum
2009-01-06, 09:33 PM
Sure, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of authority. It does though. Living languages are a posteriori - they stem from experience not from authority. Etymology recognizes this when discussing types of word formation including derivation, compounding, onomatopoeia, and sound symbolism. All a glossary or dictionary does is annotate what already exists.

Hmm, we've gotten rather far away from a discussion of DMPCs. :smallredface:

Matthew
2009-01-06, 09:42 PM
It does though. Living languages are a posteriori - they stem from experience not from authority. Etymology recognizes this when discussing types of word formation including derivation, compounding, onomatopoeia, and sound symbolism. All a glossary or dictionary does is annotate what already exists.

Hmm, we've gotten rather far away from a discussion of DMPCs. :smallredface:

Right, but dictionaries do claim to be authorities and we do recognise them as such (or at least the Oxford English Dictionary claims authority, and I recognise it). Neither you nor I claim to have an authoritive definition of DMPC (or at least I claim no such authority, perhaps you do?).

Yeah, we are wandering, but all threads do, and this is semi relevant to the discussion at hand... :smallbiggrin:

Raum
2009-01-06, 09:59 PM
Right, but dictionaries do claim to be authorities and we do recognise them as such (or at least the Oxford English Dictionary claims authority, and I recognise it). Neither you nor I claim to have an authoritive definition of DMPC (or at least I claim no such authority, perhaps you do?).Do I claim authority? No. I simply disagree on the need for an authority. A working definition is enough for discussion, it doesn't have to be an authoritative definition.

Maybe I'm an anarchist at heart, but authorities are often overrated. :smallbiggrin:


Yeah, we are wandering, but all threads do, and this is semi relevant to the discussion at hand... :smallbiggrin:True, have to define the terms. I just hadn't expected to be discussing whether or not the term existed. :smallwink: I did expect more discussion on definition than occurred, but perhaps the definition I used contained the core of a common definition. It does appear to be a subset of the definition you proposed.

Matthew
2009-01-06, 10:12 PM
Do I claim authority? No. I simply disagree on the need for an authority. A working definition is enough for discussion, it doesn't have to be an authoritative definition.

Maybe I'm an anarchist at heart, but authorities are often overrated. :smallbiggrin:

Heh, I think my point was that we need to recognise more than one definition here, and their realtionship to one another and the subject at hand.



True, have to define the terms. I just hadn't expected to be discussing whether or not the term existed. :smallwink: I did expect more discussion on definition than occurred, but perhaps the definition I used contained the core of a common definition. It does appear to be a subset of the definition you proposed.

I would have thought it was the other way around [i.e. that the definition I suggested was a subset of yours]. Anyway, to go back to the original question:



Can the experienced DMs and players here please tell me exactly what is the problem with Pet NPCs, what is the problem with DMNPCs, and how the two compare?


(I assume DMNPC was a typing error)

Answer 1) DMPCs can be positive or negative.
Answer 2) DMPCs are by definition negative.

So, did we come up with a definition of "Pet NPC"?

Raum
2009-01-06, 10:21 PM
'Pet NPC' is a new term to me, the only definition I could propose would be speculation based on the combination of 'pet' and 'NPC'.