PDA

View Full Version : Non-Terrible DMPCs?



Rhiannon87
2009-09-15, 12:58 PM
I know that the vast majority of DMPCs suck. I have been in campaigns with said terrible DMPCs. But now I'm running my own game (first one ever), and I am toying around with the idea of putting one into the party, primarily for story reasons.

The situation is this. The campaign is centered around evil outsiders attacking the Material Plane, and the NPC-who-could-be-a-DMPC is a Malconvoker cleric. The party already has a cleric, so the Malconvoker would be mostly just summoning. (Which is admittedly a strike against it in my mind... summoning can frequently step on people's toes.) She'd be there to provide some information on extra-planar happenings and some combat support, but basically I want her there for story reasons. The idea is that she'll hang out with the party for a few (3 - 5 at most) sessions, and then be a friendly NPC that they run into from time to time... until she gets killed off during the big dramatic twist. Yes, I am making her a girl in a fridge, killing her off solely for emotional impact on the party, but I'm struggling to get the party motivated by something other than money/OOC reasons, so the death of a friend should help. (Assuming they end up liking her.)

Should I bother with this? I'm seeing a lot of potential problems (redundancy within the party for both clerical and fighting roles, being used as a plot device, normal DMPC annoyances), but also some potential payoff (the party gets more invested in the campaign, able to pass on some info about the Planes since no one else in the party has that knowledge skill). If I don't put her in as a DMPC, she'll just be a friendly NPC, but I'm worried that won't pack the same emotional punch.

Your thoughts? Is there a lot of potential for awfulness here? Have you ever experienced a non-sucky DMPC, and if so, how'd it work out?

Temet Nosce
2009-09-15, 01:02 PM
No, just... no. The closest I've seen to a non offensive DMPC was a healer, who did absolutely nothing in combat. It still annoyed me and several other players though.

If you want to scare up some emotional impact, have situations occur to the NPC in which the PCs encounter her instead. Look into the PCs backstories and see what kind of thing would engage their characters then arrange for it to happen to your NPC.

Of course, it's possible your players are beer and pretzel style in which case that may not work, and you should probably just give them what they want.

daggaz
2009-09-15, 01:08 PM
Seems like you answered your own question. In the main body of the post, in the conclusion, in the very first sentence, even. If it feels bad, probably shouldn't be doing it...

Melamoto
2009-09-15, 01:10 PM
No, just... no.
I'd like to say no to that. DMPCs aren't that bad, but it all depends on your party. They either hate it or don't mind it. Try to find out if they mind somehow.

BRC
2009-09-15, 01:11 PM
One of my rules with DMing is: if awesome things are planned to happen, let the players do them. If you want that elite team of high-level adventurers show up to bail out the PC's, hand out character sheets and say "Alright, now in addition to playing your normal characters, you get these guys for the rest of the fight". If you DO control a DMPC, it's purpose should be to make the rest of the party more awesome. Watching the DM roll to attack a monster they are also controlling just isn't very fun.

Now, here is how I would play this Malconvoker. Have her start summoning up some Minions, which you stat up or whatever, then hand control of her summons over to the players. If a player has their character incapacitated for some reason, they get priority control over one of the summons. Now, in-game she's giving her summons orders, but in order to make sure people keep doing things, the players are controlling them.
This means she still contributes to the battle without taking the spotlight away from the players.

Edit: The important thing with this is to make sure she sticks to summoning and support.

Person_Man
2009-09-15, 01:11 PM
I personally am opposed to DM PCs. Any mechanical difficulty with the party can be fixed by giving them more magic items. Any roleplaying or story prerogatives can be handled by NPCs. If you create an intriguing NPC and the PCs choose to take her along with their party (without prompting or hints from the DM) for a specific quest, that's fine. But otherwise, I'd avoid it, especially when it involves railroading them along a specific path you have laid out for them before the DM PC even enters the party.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-15, 01:13 PM
I've not had much experience with dmpc's, but I'll give some thoughts.

Firstly, you don't want it overshadowing the pc's.

So, why not simply have the character be weaker and less threatening than the PC's? Not a victim to be protected, but much more in-line with a cohort than another pc?

That said, if the setup for the campaign/etc makes it clear that such people would be around and involved, and it's not merely there as a way for the DM to also be a PC, then really it isn't a DMPC? It's just an npc ally.

I think a lot of it is about how you play them that creates the distinction.

BRC
2009-09-15, 01:21 PM
I personally am opposed to DM PCs. Any mechanical difficulty with the party can be fixed by giving them more magic items. Any roleplaying or story prerogatives can be handled by NPCs. If you create an intriguing NPC and the PCs choose to take her along with their party (without prompting or hints from the DM) for a specific quest, that's fine. But otherwise, I'd avoid it, especially when it involves railroading them along a specific path you have laid out for them before the DM PC even enters the party.
I'd disagree here. DMPC's can be handled in such a way as to make the game more exciting, it's just that most of the time a DMPC is used by the DM for a power trip. While I admit it's easy to fall into the trap of using the DMPC as a railroad conductor, since it's controlled by the DM, any suggestions a DMPC makes will be taken as the "Voice of the DM", but if you are careful you can avoid that too. DMPC's are tricky, and it's easy for them to go wrong. Make them too powerful and they steal the spotlight, make them too weak and they are dead weight. If they suggest things you may end up railroading, if they remain silent then their roleplay value is practically nonexistent. It's tough, but it can be done well.

Rhiannon87
2009-09-15, 01:24 PM
Seems like you answered your own question. In the main body of the post, in the conclusion, in the very first sentence, even. If it feels bad, probably shouldn't be doing it...

Yeah, that's kind what I was thinking, even when I posted this. :smallsigh:

The main reason that I started looking for outside opinions is because this idea was suggested by one of my players. This guy was in a campaign with me where another DM made us put up with an awful DMPC; I was talking to him about my own problems with properly motivating the party (I'm a first-time DM still learning a lot of the tricks), and among the things he suggested was a DMPC for exactly these kind of story reasons.

I'm thinking that I might just have her as an NPC, and if the party invites her along, great, but I won't make it obvious that they could, like: "Oh, man, you guys are so great and I have been traveling along for so long and we could all be such good friends..." ::stares at party and sighs longingly::

Mystic Muse
2009-09-15, 01:27 PM
all NPCs are DMPCs.

mint
2009-09-15, 01:34 PM
She probably shouldn't be powerless. I think they could grow to resent a character they constantly have to protect.
If it is a small party and you can make her likable I don't really see the problem.
Obviously you're already aware of the pitfalls so maybe it won't be a huge deal.
If she doesnt get much spotlight and you find good ways of using her summons, like letting incapacitated players control them I don't really see the problem.

Myou
2009-09-15, 01:39 PM
As Kyuubi says, there's a distinction to be made here.

You're proposing an NPC - a real DMPC occurs when the DM is also one of the players, as in my game.

In the two campaigns I run, both times I started out with a character all of my own. I play him just as they others play thier PCs and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The problem crops us when a DMPC or an NPC that joins the group doesn't follow the rules that govern the PCs.

Telonius
2009-09-15, 01:40 PM
I'd suggest that she not have any specific combat along with the PCs. Encountering them socially is fine, fighting alongside them might not be. You can have the awful emotional impact you're looking for just by using her as a recurring NPC; no need to turn her into a DMPC.

Dienekes
2009-09-15, 01:53 PM
DMPC's are tricky. On one hand they can't be totally useless as that annoys the players. On the other hand they can't be too powerful or they overshadow the players. And they need to have an interesting personality and reason for being there or the players just won't care (except to point out their being railroaded, how annoying they are they have to be saved, or how annoying they are defeating the evil monster's by themselves)

I generally find it easier to make such characters exist solely to compliment the PCs in battle. Making a helpful fighter who's entire purpose in combat is to set up the party rogue for a sneak attack, is ok. Making a helpful fighter who is an ubercharger and offs baddies left and right, is not ok.

But most importantly, show that you are not RPing through them. Make their personality and yours very different. And make sure you have a way to get rid of them before they outlive their usefulness, either through death or leaving the party to do something that normal NPCs would do. You saying she's leaving in 3-ish sessions. That's fine. Generally it's when the entire campaign keeps bringing them back that's annoying.

I might add however, it'd probably be easier to have such a character as you're going for be a normal NPC that would help in certain non combat reasons. Leads the NPCs to a shelter or something, then they see her a few times in a city if it's that sort of paced game. But as your PCs seem to only be in it for the money, I'm not sure if these sort of tricks will work.

valadil
2009-09-15, 02:14 PM
The problem with DMPCs comes from how they're used. DMs who want to show off to the party run DMPCs that ruin games. You are not trying to show off. You're giving the party a friend and information source who will later further the story. 3-5 sessions might be a little long, but it really depends on what happens in those sessions.

Person_Man
2009-09-15, 02:23 PM
I'd disagree here. DMPC's can be handled in such a way as to make the game more exciting, it's just that most of the time a DMPC is used by the DM for a power trip. While I admit it's easy to fall into the trap of using the DMPC as a railroad conductor, since it's controlled by the DM, any suggestions a DMPC makes will be taken as the "Voice of the DM", but if you are careful you can avoid that too. DMPC's are tricky, and it's easy for them to go wrong. Make them too powerful and they steal the spotlight, make them too weak and they are dead weight. If they suggest things you may end up railroading, if they remain silent then their roleplay value is practically nonexistent. It's tough, but it can be done well.

I think there are four solid reasons not to have a DM PC:

DM PCs can more easily railroad the plot and effect the opinions of the PCs to a greater degree then NPCs.
Out of combat, you the DM PC is generally seen as the voice of the DM.
Players have one less niche that they can fill (tank, blaster, utility belt, scout, healer, buffer, etc) or one of their niches is now duplicative.
During combat, PCs must wait extra time before it's their turn to act.


Now, I'll be the first to admit that a DM PC isn't necessary for the DM to railroad the plot. It just make it easier. I fully concede that a mature DM can avoid this problem. Ditto for #2. The DM just needs to announce, "Please treat my DM NPC like every other NPC."

But numbers 3 and 4 are pretty much unavoidable if you have a DM NPC.

And more importantly, I can't think of what a DM NPC actually adds to the gaming experience that you can't accomplish with a standard NPC. Specifically, if a player disagrees with a NPC, he can kick them out of the party, kill them, ignore them, etc. But you can't do this to a PC or DM PC, because a PC is the avatar of a friend that you're sitting next to. Instead of a Choose Your Own Adventure, D&D basically becomes the DM reading a play to you, and having players roll dice for the combats.

Yukitsu
2009-09-15, 02:25 PM
One thing I've noted, is never plan on something happening. People like me keep messing them over. You know that war my DM wanted to start due to an impudent bunch of bigots the players were supposed to protect? Killed them in their sleep when the party wasn't looking. You know that helicopter with that NPC in it that was supposed to get rocketed, because the DM wanted to pull the same thing you do? Player jumped out of the helicopter into the rocket. You know that species the DM wanted to be endangered? Err. I'll not go too much into that one actually.

The thing is, you can guide the game in that direction, but don't bet on it actually happening.

Umael
2009-09-15, 02:30 PM
all NPCs are DMPCs.

Actually, I think most people view it the other way around. DMPCs are NPCs, although they are a particularly vile subset in which the DM is abusing his or her authority by going on a power trip.

Even the name gives it away - the DM has a PC, someone he or she wants to play, and so gets to be on both sides of the DM screen.

Now, to call the character an NPC means that the character is there to fulfill a role, small or large, that the PCs do not fill.

Naysayers aside, yes, you can have an NPC who journeys with the group and contributes and advances the plot. But you have to keep in mind that this is an NPC, not your PC. Even if the group needs extra muscle so you made up an NPC to join the group, that character is still an NPC, and if the PCs can take care of that role, then the NPC no longer is needed and should be removed.

Indon
2009-09-15, 02:31 PM
I use DMPC's with inexperienced players to help get them more familiar with the setting ("What, you don't know about Evil Lord Bob?"), and to help keep together what is likely to be a poorly motivated group - at least at first.

But like any good set of training wheels, I think you've got to know when to take them off and graduate your DMPC to a full NPC who just happens - or not - to be with the party.

So, a DMPC right at the beginning, with what is essentially a limited time to live, designed to help unify the party - that's about what I would use it for.

kestrel404
2009-09-15, 02:52 PM
I think that what you want is not a DMPC. Getting the level of trust/sympathy/emotional bonding you want for the party to develop for this character will be difficult, and DMPCs are generally not well looked upon OOC, which is a significant strike against the idea.

I have two suggestions. First, break the idea up. Have the 'Useful/Mysterious Clue-Giving NPC' and the 'Girl-In-Fridge' be seperate entities. If you really want the Clue-giver to go away, have them be the Girl-In-Fridge's SUMMON. Now, when the Girl gets it, the summon is lost (perhaps not permanently). This means that the Girl can be both the Innocent Victim (relatively powerless except for her summon, which can be conveniently non-available for battles involving the PCs), while still providing use and helpfullness to the party (answers, insight, whatever).

More importantly, instead of bringing in a NEW character for this purpose, find out if one of your players is willing to take on the Girl-in-fridge role. Nothing motivates players like the possibility that they're next. Take care to keep it a secret until the event, and perhaps even after to keep tension at the table. Make the death both dramatic and tragic, and steal the body afterwards to prevent any easy returns.

Combining these two ideas, you basically give your co-conspirator a magic item that allows them to summon something powerful but not combat-useful (or perhaps just the Image of something, so that they CAN use it in combat if they're creative). The item only works for them, so when they go away it's no longer helpful.

Trust me, if the player who dies is OK with the idea, this could REALLY boost your game.

Akal Saris
2009-09-15, 04:41 PM
I used to have DMPCs a long time ago, when I was just starting my D&D group and I wanted to have a character too. We had a lot of fun with it, and it taught me a lot about RPing sympathetic characters - my character was generally the sidekick to the PCs in any given game, and I think it helped me from turning into a pure-combat-focused DM like a lot of other novice DMs I've known.

Now, full disclosure - we were 12 years old when I started DMing, and what we called D&D pretty much anyone else would call a combination of play-fighting, improv voices, and rolling a pair of d6's. But still, I have pretty fond memories of James the Fighter/Thief and Tanis the Ranger (who somehow is still nominally an active NPC in our general campaign setting, despite a character history that's almost as old as our youngest PC).

I don't think I've used a DMPC in a long, long time, but I have made sympathetic NPCs similar to the ones proposed here. I have a 3.5 D&D campaign that I generally only run when there aren't enough players present for the planned campaign, and there is a set of 2-3 NPC characters who the PCs can hire on for a session depending on which roles they need.

So they are NPCs with no real significance to the plot, which I advance each session, and who are trusted to be loyal to the PCs, which makes them very close to a DMPC. Of course, their purpose is to fill roles that the PCs are missing without over-shadowing the PCs, so they are all NPC classes. There's a warrior, an expert, and an adept (though the adept's never been used since the cleric PC is always present). So far it's worked out well - the PCs are fond enough of the NPCs that they usually hire them on even if the role's already covered.

Raewyn
2009-09-15, 04:44 PM
I think that you should be able to evoke the emotional response/interest from the party without having her adventure with them. I think the only good reason to have a DMPC in the party is if your players ask for one because they're short-staffed or missing a crucial role (like a healer).

Experiential rant ahoy!

My DM has had DMPCs twice and he was doing it for the totally wrong reasons. Basically, he missed playing D&D, so he solved that by having his PCs adventure with the party. It cheesed me off a lot because sometimes I would want to open my mouth, but his PC would jump in first. He also did a lot of talking with himself. :smallannoyed: It also doesn't help that the one time he did throw an NPC in the party for the right reason (we needed a healer, so he gave us a cleric), he didn't really want to actually run him (he preferred to play his DMPC instead). So the group had to delegate his actions, which sucked because none of us were very good at playing a cleric, hence why we... yanno, didn't.

It made me doubly :smallfurious: because he asked me to give the guy a name and backstory so he wouldn't have to call him Generic-Cleric. I worked my tail off on it, and ran the details by him as I went. He eventually told me to knock it off because I was making him "too awesome." It led to a huge fight (he's also my boyfriend :smallredface:), and the campaign died for unrelated reasons. If it ever kicks off again, I'm gonna run him as my rogue's cohort so I get to do his backstory justice. *sagenod*

BRC
2009-09-15, 05:08 PM
I think there are four solid reasons not to have a DM PC:

DM PCs can more easily railroad the plot and effect the opinions of the PCs to a greater degree then NPCs.
Out of combat, you the DM PC is generally seen as the voice of the DM.
Players have one less niche that they can fill (tank, blaster, utility belt, scout, healer, buffer, etc) or one of their niches is now duplicative.
During combat, PCs must wait extra time before it's their turn to act.


Now, I'll be the first to admit that a DM PC isn't necessary for the DM to railroad the plot. It just make it easier. I fully concede that a mature DM can avoid this problem. Ditto for #2. The DM just needs to announce, "Please treat my DM NPC like every other NPC."

But numbers 3 and 4 are pretty much unavoidable if you have a DM NPC.

And more importantly, I can't think of what a DM NPC actually adds to the gaming experience that you can't accomplish with a standard NPC. Specifically, if a player disagrees with a NPC, he can kick them out of the party, kill them, ignore them, etc. But you can't do this to a PC or DM PC, because a PC is the avatar of a friend that you're sitting next to. Instead of a Choose Your Own Adventure, D&D basically becomes the DM reading a play to you, and having players roll dice for the combats.
Having read your arguments, and Re-read my own, I have reached the following conclusion.

Statement One: Though it is possible to do a DMPC right, it is very difficult, so any DM who uses a DMPC is running a considerable risk of making the game less enjoyable.
Statement Two: Any vacancy in the party makeup can be handled some other way, either by giving the party something (No cleric? Good thing you got that healing goblet) or by tailoring the adventures (No Rogue? No Traps).
Therefore, using a DMPC presents and unnecessary risk, of falling into either Railroading or Power Tripping, so they should not be used.

Kylarra
2009-09-15, 05:11 PM
There's a difference between a DMPC and an NPC that travels with the party... a subtle difference, but it's the difference between bad and good, generally.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-15, 06:45 PM
I was just thinking about that, Kylarra.

It's really important when you have this kind of discussion to explain what you really mean by DMPC. There are, as I see it, two possible definitions:

1. An NPC who is essentially another PC in all of the aspects that make him/her PC-like : can't be killed off except by DM say-so, is at least as powerful as other PCs, has at least equal impact on party decisions as any other character, etc. This is probably what most people think of when they think of DMPCs -- and this is very dangerous, extremely difficult not to wreck gameplay with, and more often than not going to be seen with some measure of resentment by the players (whether because they see it as the Voice of the DM or because they feel they're being railroaded or anything else).

2. An NPC that travels with the PCs and interacts with them on a regular/near-constant basis (at least for a certain length of time). This definition is not the same as the other. This type of NPC is still somewhat risky, (especially with being seen as the Voice of the DM and potentially overshadowing the other characters) but it is far less risky than the other type. It is much easier to avoid breaking the gameplay and ticking people off with this kind of NPC. I actually like running this kind of NPC, and I find that it is fairly easy to get the PCs to care about such a character. In fact, the last campaign I ran had an NPC name Evalyssa who, when her story role was fulfilled and she was ready to leave the party (I no longer found it necessary to keep her in the party), was actually persuaded by the PCs to stay with them because they liked her so much.

So really, everything depends on how you are defining "DMPC." If you're defining it the first way...you would be advised to not have a DMPC. If you're defining it the second way...it's perfectly OK, but you still have to be careful.

Personally, in answer to your initial post - if I were a player who had gotten attached to that "DMPC," I would be very upset by her death, would try to avenge her, and would also try to bring her back to life.

Rhiannon87
2009-09-15, 06:54 PM
2. An NPC that travels with the PCs and interacts with them on a regular/near-constant basis (at least for a certain length of time). This definition is not the same as the other. This type of NPC is still somewhat risky, (especially with being seen as the Voice of the DM and potentially overshadowing the other characters) but it is far less risky than the other type. It is much easier to avoid breaking the gameplay and ticking people off with this kind of NPC. I actually like running this kind of NPC, and I find that it is fairly easy to get the PCs to care about such a character. In fact, the last campaign I ran had an NPC name Evalyssa who, when her story role was fulfilled and she was ready to leave the party (I no longer found it necessary to keep her in the party), was actually persuaded by the PCs to stay with them because they liked her so much.



This is what I'd like to have. I am, as previously stated, new to DMing, and while I know that I'm a good player, I'm not sure if I'd be able to pull off the right balance of helpful-but-not-domineering-but-also-not-baggage that a good DMPC/NPC that travels with the group would require. I think that unless the party gets really attached to her and invites her along, she's just gonna be a recurring NPC. A frequently recurring NPC, but not someone who travels with them for any length of time. She's going to be in one combat with them, but that's when they first meet and they'll be saving her, so I figure that's okay. The PCs are still the Big Damn Heroes.

F.H. Zebedee
2009-09-15, 09:37 PM
DMPCs are sidekicks. If they stay significantly behind PCs (2-4 levels, since any more is making them dead weight), and don't become leaders, they're pretty fine.

I'm not familiar with Malconvoker, but from my experience in running DMPCs, keep an eye out for party weaknesses or things that bug players. If one player can't stand missing attacks, using some ability/aid another to buff their to-hit is a good action. If somebody is getting left behind by combat, draw the battle back towards them or offer them some kind of aid for mobility.

DMPCs should never be a main ingredient. They should always be a spice, drawing out the true potential of the PCs and making them look better.

(I must admit however, that since Malconvoker appears to be a summoning class, that might be slightly trickier. What classes are your party, and what do they focus on?)

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-15, 09:39 PM
It's really important when you have this kind of discussion to explain what you really mean by DMPC. There are, as I see it, two possible definitions: *snip*

Thanks for this Fiery Diamond. I was beginning to wonder, as the different posters seem to be having sometimes opposite definitions and thus reactions to the concept of DMPCs.

From my own experience as GM in current tabletop campaign (not D&D, so YMMV), there is an NPC who is around fairly often, and who one of the players has said that he imagines the PC as me (which was slightly amusing and slightly alarming, as I try to "act" him in the style of Brian Blessed :smallredface:). Anyway, this NPC was introduced early in the campaign, after the first adventure was over. Originally I'd only intended him as an incidental NPC, who may possibly reoccur but no definitive plans to make this happen. What happened was that a couple of the players/PCs seemed to take a shine to the NPC and tried to invite him along a few times. After he'd been with the group a while, one of those players paid the points to make him an official NPC Ally. I certainly wouldn't call him a DMPC, but it seems that opinions on this forum vary.

To the OP, I'd say that what you're planning is an NPC. Might seem hard to do/implement if you feel new to GM/DMing, but should be far from impossible as your heart/intentions seem pure. :smallwink: I guess the most important perceptions are not ours though, but those of your players. Which is something only you can judge, really. :smallsmile:

Umael
2009-09-15, 10:13 PM
This is what I'd like to have. I am, as previously stated, new to DMing, and while I know that I'm a good player, I'm not sure if I'd be able to pull off the right balance of helpful-but-not-domineering-but-also-not-baggage that a good DMPC/NPC that travels with the group would require. I think that unless the party gets really attached to her and invites her along, she's just gonna be a recurring NPC. A frequently recurring NPC, but not someone who travels with them for any length of time. She's going to be in one combat with them, but that's when they first meet and they'll be saving her, so I figure that's okay. The PCs are still the Big Damn Heroes.

Given that's how you are going to approach it, you'll probably be just fine.

For the record, in my Iron Heroes game I am running, I have five players, each with one character and one corresponding NPC. I created the NPC and said character is there as added muscle, plot hooks, and flavor - when the PCs need them. For example, the Thief (very similar to the Rogue class) has an NPC who is her cousin, an Armiger (class focused around the advantages of armor), who is also a member of the Watch. Said Armiger is actually bright and competent, but I flat-out told the player of the Thief that her character has ALWAYS stayed at least two steps ahead of him. Her cousin thinks she's up to mischief, but he doesn't have any proof, and because she's family, he's willing to help out (and not go digging, so long as she promises that she's being good - which, by her definition, she is). If the adventure calls for some heavy muscle, he's a great resource upon which she can call, but if it involves sneaking around, she'll probably just let him go perform his Watch duties.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-15, 10:30 PM
Thanks for this Fiery Diamond. I was beginning to wonder, as the different posters seem to be having sometimes opposite definitions and thus reactions to the concept of DMPCs.

You're welcome. I noticed that there were a lot of misunderstandings and thought it might be wise to explain where most of them come from - differing definitions.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-15, 10:34 PM
Creating a good DMPC in four steps:
1. Make it an interesting and likable character.
2. Don't let it steal the spotlight from the players.
3. ???
4. Profit!

From my experience, nothing else really matters.

Mystral
2009-09-16, 06:47 AM
I don' know if this counts as a DMPC or a Party-NPC, but I gave the party in the game I play in a bard NPC for 2 reasons:

1: They had, and still have, no real healer or buffer, a role which she fills.
2: The characters, and players, are new to the world, and the bard is able to give advice and tell them stuff about the world.

I don't use her to intervene in PC-NPC interaction, at least as long as she isn't asked to do it, and her main role outside of buffing and healing is sticking her pointy rapier into enemies (something she does pretty well, actually) and protecting the partys warmage.

Up until now, I have heard no complaints about her. That might change if the party discovers a little more about her, but who knows? :D

So, yeah, it seems that it is possible to bring in a DMPC into a game, as long as you have a good reason to use her, you don't steal the players spotlight in and out of combat and you are willing to throw the npc out if everyone hates it.

Killer Angel
2009-09-16, 07:28 AM
Actually, I think most people view it the other way around. DMPCs are NPCs, although they are a particularly vile subset in which the DM is abusing his or her authority by going on a power trip.


I see it more this way. The DM has a personal attachment to this kind of "NPC", so this will influence the game in a bad way.
In my group, we barely stand NPC who must travel and work with the group, so a DMPC is a no-no.

The only time I (as a DM) used one of my ex PC, I've taken from an old campaign, evolved his background, and I used him as a BBEG, letting him be defeated by the group, without remorse. It worked, but at that point he was not a DMPC...

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-16, 07:40 AM
One thing you might do is have some overarching big problem that the DMPC has to deal with, but there are related smaller problems that she assigns the PCs to solve. The little problems will have dramatic effects on the big problems. For example:

The DMPC is a high-ranking military commander of the country. She hires and assigns the PCs to go investigate rumors of a large and unprecedented Orc buildup in an uncontrolled province. She can't deal with it herself as she has her own, more pressing duties and she doesn't want to send a direct underling due to political problems (if its nothing, then having armed soldiers move through a contested area could spark a response; unaligned adventurers do so all the time and won't cause a backlash against the country specifically).

The PCs go investigate and discover that the rumors are true. A new Orcish Warlord has managed to unite the previously fractured Orc clans and is now on the march to the country. The PCs report what they found to the DMPC and she field promotes them to Commanders in their own right and sends them off to a lightly-defended town with orders to protect the town and slow the Orc advance. Her job will be to marshal the regular armies before the main Orc force can gain access to the soft interior of the country and begin ravaging the land. If the PCs do their job right, they buy enough time for the DMPC to do her job and the Orcs are routed. If they don't, then the Orcs begin savaging the countryside, causing massive damage, death, and spurring unrest.

While the big decisions and actions are being done by the DMPC, it's the actions of the PCs which inform how well the DMPC's actions work. The DMPC doesn't take center stage, but she isn't a dunsel either and is logically using her higher Badass Skills in a place where they could do more good.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-16, 07:53 AM
ScreamingDoom, IMO what you've just described is purely an NPC. A patron that hires a group of PCs, but isn't acting as if they are part of the group, is just an NPC, plain and simple. Just like any other NPCs that get involved in the plot, or have their own needs, motivations or agendas.

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-16, 07:56 AM
ScreamingDoom, IMO what you've just described is purely an NPC. A patron that hires a group of PCs, but isn't acting as if they are part of the group, is just an NPC, plain and simple. Just like any other NPCs that get involved in the plot, or have their own needs, motivations or agendas.

Well, yeah. But I thought it was previously established in the thread that this is what the OP wanted? Someone who interacts with the party frequently, and may travel with them briefly, but isn't part of the party per se?

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-16, 08:10 AM
Well, yeah. But I thought it was previously established in the thread that this is what the OP wanted? Someone who interacts with the party frequently, and may travel with them briefly, but isn't part of the party per se?

Really, I think we're in danger of allowing the label of DMPC to fall on any NPC that isn't a cardboard target or faceless shopkeeper. Which to me is wrong. I'm not really sure I like the term DMPC at all, but I can see why it has entered the lexicon: infantile GMs on ego-trips. However, we should avoid letting such unfortunate experiences railroad us into branding any NPC with a personality as a DMPC, just because it features in more than one scene/episode/adventure.

Ponce
2009-09-16, 08:43 AM
One DM - One Player setups often involve a DMPC...

Tyrrell
2009-09-16, 08:47 AM
A take that I've always wanted to do on "DMPC's" is to introduce a DM Pc who crosses over the line a bit to be slightly the "DM's super cool NPC who is better than the lame PC's" and then have the NPC treacherously betray the party and become the main villain for the game. I'd use all of the natural hate that players develop for such characters to my advantage, the players would really really want to kill My villain.

Person_Man
2009-09-16, 09:24 AM
Having read your arguments, and Re-read my own, I have reached the following conclusion.

Statement One: Though it is possible to do a DMPC right, it is very difficult, so any DM who uses a DMPC is running a considerable risk of making the game less enjoyable.
Statement Two: Any vacancy in the party makeup can be handled some other way, either by giving the party something (No cleric? Good thing you got that healing goblet) or by tailoring the adventures (No Rogue? No Traps).
Therefore, using a DMPC presents and unnecessary risk, of falling into either Railroading or Power Tripping, so they should not be used.

I agree.

And just so people know, I don't think that the DM should avoid roleplaying or dice rolling or taking an active part in the game. It's just the nature of that interaction which sets roleplaying games apart from computer games. I have nothing against long running NPCs who accompany the party, as long as:

1) The NPC doesn't start the adventure with the party. The party must meet the NPC as part of their adventure and freely choose to have the NPC join them without coercion or plot railroading.

2) The NPC is essentially a non-combatant and/or is written in such a way that their turn during combat takes little or no time, to avoid stealing spotlight time.

3) Everyone in the party is well aware that the all NPCs are in fact NPCs, and not an author avatar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorAvatar) or similar stand in for the DMs character ideas. Those should be played when it's someone else's turn to DM.

Violet Octopus
2009-09-16, 09:37 AM
One group I RP with takes turns GMing within the one campaign. As a result, everyone has a PC, which becomes a DMPC when that player GMs.

It works fine, partly because we know not to plan an adventure that revolves around our own characters. As long as DMPCs aren't central to the plot of any session, and don't get special treatment in rules adjudication, they seem to work for us.

pres_man
2009-09-16, 10:45 AM
Definition
DMPC:
1) a character, run by the DM, that if it was run by any other player would be considered a PC (see NPC Ally in the DMG)
2) (derogatory) any character run by the DM that has a negative impact on the game
=======================

Any NPC can be a problem. Whether it is a party member or the BBEG who always has the right spells and methods of escape. The key is not to be a jack-hole when you are a DM. If you can accomplish that then any character should be fine.

As for what are the benefits of having a party member run by the DM?

1) It can give a more "real" sense of the game world. That the different characters in the setting can be viewed as actual people and not cartoon cutouts with exclamation points above their heads. It also makes it more realistic when a party member dies and a new party member must be brought in. If the group is unwilling to let anyone else in, why would they suddenly let this new person in, just because an old ally died? But if different characters come and go from the group semi-regularly, then it doesn't seem so strange.

2) It is often useful to provide a voice in game to the party in a consistent manner. For example, one of my games is going to have a about a month in real time between sessions (labor day weekend and a couple of other weekends where people were gone). When they come back, most won't remember what is going on, who will? Me the DM. Now I could just give a metagame recap, or I can use an NPC that has been traveling with the party remind them of what was going on. I prefer the ingame option over the metagame option myself.

3) A party NPC can give nudges to a party that seems lost. I don't think the character should be telling the group what to do (nor should any one player be deciding for the entire group), but perhaps pointing out some options that the party hadn't considered without endorsing any. Again, often times the DM has a better feel for the entire situation then the players who may have forgotten some details. An NPC that has been traveling with them (and has experienced everything they have) can "realisticly" remind them.

4) A party NPC can fill a role that the other players don't want to, but feel is needed. The most common one is the healer. Yes, magic items can take the place of that, but those often cost an action/round to deal with, while an NPC could do it and the player could still have their actions as well (which often is found to be more fun). It is often more believable as well. If potions are dropping from the sky when the party doesn't have a healer but suddenly dry up when the party does have one, that would seem strange to most groups. True groups could "force" one of the players to step up into the role even if they don't want to, but this often forces the most laid back player to be "punished" while the more agressive players get "rewarded" by playing what they want. As a DM, I am opposed to that type of social interaction.

Tyrmatt
2009-09-16, 01:16 PM
Apart from a "DMPC" I built to teach a group of new players how to do combat, they probably shouldn't be done.
She had a couple of fighter levels and a level of wizard so that she could show them spells and melee. Did an opening fight against some kobolds with the PCs to show them, split off from the party to let them have an encounter of their own and then rejoined them for the boss fight before the main BBEG of the campaign showed up to kill her while the party watched. She came, she saw, she was conquered. Done in a single session and used only for a tutorial drone.
Apart from that, I wouldn't give them a much longer life.

Thajocoth
2009-09-16, 01:29 PM
A good DMPC is one built to fill in a gap in the party's abilities (like a healer in a party without one), who's fairly quiet and gets very little DM attention. If you add an NPC to a party temporarily for a mission, it's best to give the NPC's sheet to one of the players... When I've done it, I gave the sheet to the player who's character was most similar to the NPC.

only1doug
2009-09-16, 02:32 PM
I am running an occasional game for 2 of my nephews (9 & 10 years old) and they have a party of 3 PCs, one for each of them (Whizzy Flashbang the wizard & rogue) and one that is their little brother's (Stan Steel the fighter) (who never attends the sessions), their sister also has a PC but she only materialises to heal the party and scold them for getting injured.

I run the fighter as a NPC who gains xp as a PC, but he's not a DMPC because I don't pretend to be playing in the game, I'm DMing and I don't see any way to DM and play a PC at the same time.

pres_man
2009-09-16, 02:44 PM
I run the fighter as a NPC who gains xp as a PC, but he's not a DMPC because I don't pretend to be playing in the game, I'm DMing and I don't see any way to DM and play a PC at the same time.

You don't roleplay the character? You don't roll dice for mechanical issues? What does it mean to play a PC that is so different from playing an NPC?

only1doug
2009-09-17, 02:02 PM
You don't roleplay the character? You don't roll dice for mechanical issues? What does it mean to play a PC that is so different from playing an NPC?

yes, I rp the character, as I do every NPC.

Yes I roll dice, as I do every NPC.

It isn't a DMPC because it isn't MY character, its a NPC.

the difference is in the GMs opinion of the characters role.

Kylarra
2009-09-17, 02:06 PM
You don't roleplay the character? You don't roll dice for mechanical issues? What does it mean to play a PC that is so different from playing an NPC?The difference between a DMPC and an NPC is that with a DMPC, the DM has a personal stake in its survival and actions. It is literally, their character in the party. An NPC is a character who the DM scripts and plays, but has no personal stake in their survival outside of the norm.

pres_man
2009-09-17, 02:13 PM
I'm DMing and I don't see any way to DM and play a PC at the same time.


So it is not an issue of "playing" but instead about "feeling". You can "play" any character, you just can't "feel" for any character.

EDIT:
I sometimes find it strange when these discussions come up and people claim things like how they can't be interested in an NPC as a DM. Why not? There is some unspoken idea here. What is that idea? That if a player has an interest in their character that they will cheat for that character. I think this is kind of a sad assumption.

When I play, I don't try to "get away with" anything. I don't try to cheat the DM or the other players. Sure I care about my character and try to play them reasonably (get hurt back out of the fight, or in a rare circumstance sacrifice them to save someone else). If the character dies, I don't pull an "Oh no Blackleaf!" moment. I just start cranking out another character as quick as I can so I can get back into the game. Maybe it is just me, maybe I am just a heartless bastard, since I don't weap over the deaths of my characters. But then again, when I DM, there is no concern that I am going to start fudging rolls and dropping items just for the NPC I am running, even if I am playing them (and in my case [not] feeling for them) as a PC.

Do people really play with people that are constantly trying to cheat each other? Do people seriously break rules just so their character can get ahead? I can't imagine what someone like that would be like to game with.

Lost Demiurge
2009-09-17, 02:37 PM
I don't generally use DMPC's, unless the players seek them out. Even then, I try never to let'em overshadow the PC's, and treat them as very frangible.

Had a group (Our first D&D 3.0 campaign) that adopted a goblin once, kept him around, treated him like a mascot. He was consistently about 2-3 levels below them throughout the game, an abject coward, and a mushroom-junkie. They freaking loved him. He got the magic items that they outgrew. He died once. They paid to have him raised.

He ended the game a warrior 4/rogue 7/shadowdancer 1. The players still laugh when they talk about Poogy...

valadil
2009-09-17, 03:00 PM
Had a group (Our first D&D 3.0 campaign) that adopted a goblin once, kept him around, treated him like a mascot. He was consistently about 2-3 levels below them throughout the game, an abject coward, and a mushroom-junkie. They freaking loved him. He got the magic items that they outgrew. He died once. They paid to have him raised.


This isn't a traditional DMPC though. This is a pet that the players kept and the GM rolled with it. I put this in the same boat as a hireling cleric. It's an NPC that enters the game on demand of the PCs. It's entirely different from the character the GM decides to insert in game whether or not the players want it.

AslanCross
2009-09-17, 05:43 PM
I once had a player who quit my game due to academic issues. The party loved her character and her RPing contributed a lot to the party's warming up to each other (everyone, including myself, was a newbie). We agreed to kill off her character at a certain point, so what I did was DMPC her until we got to a dramatically-relevant point, which was only the course of about 4 or 5 encounters.

She was skewered by the BBEG's right hand swordswoman. I had planned to bring her back as a vampire for a much higher-level encounter, but they never got that far.

The main reasons why the players didn't protest the DMPCing of this character were likely:

1. They may have been too new in the game to care.
2. This character was the most well-RPed character in the party, her being a rather ordinary Tsundere type notwithstanding.
3. She wasn't optimized and didn't get any preferential treatment; if anything she was more devastating when she was being played by her original player.
4. The party and I knew she was going to die at some point, so there were no attachment and/or favoritism issues.

onthetown
2009-09-17, 05:59 PM
My DM has always had one or several DMPCs around, depending on party size, and it always works out great.

As far as I understand, you just have to be very conscious about where your character is going to stand with the rest of the party so as not to end up metagaming while in the party... If the other characters ask yours what he/she thinks, you can agree with the general opinions or REALLY play your character to the letter (even if you know that you have to solve a puzzle to get the door to open, your character might just want to smash it in). Let your players decide who's leader (and don't let them make it you).

Really, when I think about it, his DMPCs act as minor informants (hey, I heard such-and-such was going on) so that he can set up plot hooks; it's also nice to have an extra character around when you're fighting something, but the players might resent getting a little less exp...

That's only from what I've noticed, but I've never had a bad experience with DMPCs.

Frosty
2009-09-17, 06:12 PM
I have a few DMPCs lying around. The players get a say in whether the DMPCs come along for a particular mission or not.

Navigator
2009-09-17, 06:17 PM
One of the people in my gaming circle never fails to run a DMPC when he's DM. He always claims that its to "fill in the gap", and the gap always ends up being something like a Leap Attacking Fighter/Ninja or a Hexblade/Occult Slayer.


For those that run DMPCs because they need to "fill in the gap", why don't you just let one of the PCs take Leadership? Why can't they hire someone?
Why is there even a "gap"? If you don't have a Rogue to find and disarm traps, for example, can't you resist making every encounter a trap? If the party doesn't have an arcanist, can't you decrease the need for teleporting everywhere?


In any case, DMPCing detracts the DMs attention from running the game, and it forces the actual PCs to sit around and wait for the DM to roll dice against himself every turn in combat. If you want to roll dice against yourself, can't you do that on your own time?

Umael
2009-09-17, 06:31 PM
For those that run DMPCs because they need to "fill in the gap", why don't you just let one of the PCs take Leadership? Why can't they hire someone?
Why is there even a "gap"? If you don't have a Rogue to find and disarm traps, for example, can't you resist making every encounter a trap? If the party doesn't have an arcanist, can't you decrease the need for teleporting everywhere?


Just to be clear, you are talking about why a DMPC rather than just an NPC (if any at all), yes?

Because I can come up with a lot of reasons to have NPCs running around with the party. Just not a DMPC.

Set
2009-09-17, 06:36 PM
So, why not simply have the character be weaker and less threatening than the PC's? Not a victim to be protected, but much more in-line with a cohort than another PC?

That's the ideal situation. Make the DMPC lower level or use some sort of NPC class, so that the character simply *can't* steal anyone's thunder.

On the other hand, in my experience, parties are just as likely to hate someone who is a deliberate bumbler, or creates problems.

Frosty
2009-09-17, 06:38 PM
I try to have DMPCs be support characters that buff others. Helping others be more effective.

pres_man
2009-09-17, 06:58 PM
One of the people in my gaming circle never fails to run a DMPC when he's DM. He always claims that its to "fill in the gap", and the gap always ends up being something like a Leap Attacking Fighter/Ninja or a Hexblade/Occult Slayer.

Yeah that can be crappy. I can understand the reason it might happen, especially if you play with other DMs and they are always saying no, you might feel like when you are DMing is the only time a creative build might see light. But definitely a DM shouldn't be doing a bunch of mental masturbation at the group's expense.



For those that run DMPCs because they need to "fill in the gap", why don't you just let one of the PCs take Leadership? Why can't they hire someone?
Why is there even a "gap"? If you don't have a Rogue to find and disarm traps, for example, can't you resist making every encounter a trap? If the party doesn't have an arcanist, can't you decrease the need for teleporting everywhere?



I do, but I fail to see how that "solves" the issue, because a cohort is an NPC, which means it will undoubtably fall into the DM's lap to build it and run it, and you are right back to the "problem" of having a DM with a "character". If you can't trust the DM to run a character in the party then it doesn't really matter if it is a full-fledged party member or a cohort, you can't trust them.
I actually agree with you here. If there is no rogue, then the number of traps should certainly be decreased. Heck, most of the time the number and locations of traps is kind of silly. "He trapped the crapper? I mean, yeah he was a kobold, but he trapped the crapper? WTF?" As for mages, I agree as well that they could for the most part be done away with in need. The healer is the only role that I would say is a bit harder to do away with. Yeah you can supplement the loss with more potions and such but in the end that feels kind of fake to me and it costs actions for the players which often feels lame to them.


In any case, DMPCing detracts the DMs attention from running the game, and it forces the actual PCs to sit around and wait for the DM to roll dice against himself every turn in combat. If you want to roll dice against yourself, can't you do that on your own time?

I will not disagree, but I will say that if the character is not very complicated and the DM already has to run all of the other NPCs the level of distraction can be very small and the gain can out weigh it. A PC that is about to be coup-de-grace being healed/defended by a DM run party character probably isn't going to complain too much about the DM rolling a few extra dice.

Niccolo Deval
2009-09-17, 09:15 PM
This will probably go against the majority opinion, but I'm currently in a campaign with a NPC that is, as the DM states, "Essentially a part of the party at the moment." And it's working out alright, even though the character is arguably overpowered, because the DM focuses primarily on the three regular PCs. She's a valuable part of the party, as well- generally, when she isn't around, we die. Or run fast. Either way, I don't mind her, and the DM's still does a great job. I guess you could say that 90% of all DMPC's suck, but there remain 10% that can do it right.

shadow_archmagi
2009-09-17, 09:48 PM
What, precisely, is the difference between a DMPC, and an NPC who joins the party?

pres_man
2009-09-17, 10:45 PM
What, precisely, is the difference between a DMPC, and an NPC who joins the party?

DMPC IS a character the DM cheats with. An NPC CAN be one the DM cheats with.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-17, 10:49 PM
Rather, a DMPC is specifically the DM's 'avatar' in the world - a specific NPC, as opposed to every single other Non-PC. They frequently bend, break, or outright destroy rules because they represent the DM him/herself, and it's almost irresistable to give 'yourself' extra stuff. Sometimes they travel with the party, differentiating from hirelings/cohorts in that they claim a share of the XP and loot, sometimes picking first or getting cooler prizes. They have gear far more powerful than the players around them, and often steal the spotlight away from PCs.

pres_man
2009-09-17, 11:59 PM
Rather, a DMPC is specifically the DM's 'avatar' in the world - a specific NPC, as opposed to every single other Non-PC. They frequently bend, break, or outright destroy rules because they represent the DM him/herself, and it's almost irresistable to give 'yourself' extra stuff. Sometimes they travel with the party, differentiating from hirelings/cohorts in that they claim a share of the XP and loot, sometimes picking first or getting cooler prizes. They have gear far more powerful than the players around them, and often steal the spotlight away from PCs.

Right, like I said, a character a DM cheats with.

Though some "allies" (as per 3.5 DMG p. 104) can "travel with the party, differentiating from hirelings/cohorts in that they claim a share of the XP and loot". Though, those clearly are NPCs because they are not necessarily used to cheat by the DM.

JadedDM
2009-09-18, 01:44 AM
Rather, a DMPC is specifically the DM's 'avatar' in the world - a specific NPC, as opposed to every single other Non-PC. They frequently bend, break, or outright destroy rules because they represent the DM him/herself, and it's almost irresistable to give 'yourself' extra stuff. Sometimes they travel with the party, differentiating from hirelings/cohorts in that they claim a share of the XP and loot, sometimes picking first or getting cooler prizes. They have gear far more powerful than the players around them, and often steal the spotlight away from PCs.

Yes, precisely. It's the DM's "PC." It gets annoying that so many people are under the impression that a DMPC is just an NPC who joins the party. The term "DMPC" has a very negative connotation, just like "munchkin" or "mary sue."

So there is no 'right' way to use a DMPC. If the character is just an NPC who joins the party and the DM has no emotional investment in it whatsoever, it's NOT a DMPC it's just an NPC.

If, however, the character is clearly given special treatment, often overshadows the actual PCs, never loses, gets the best gear, and has the storyline revolve around them, then they are a DMPC.

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 02:01 AM
Yes, precisely. It's the DM's "PC." It gets annoying that so many people are under the impression that a DMPC is just an NPC who joins the party. The term "DMPC" has a very negative connotation, just like "munchkin" or "mary sue."

So there is no 'right' way to use a DMPC. If the character is just an NPC who joins the party and the DM has no emotional investment in it whatsoever, it's NOT a DMPC it's just an NPC.

If, however, the character is clearly given special treatment, often overshadows the actual PCs, never loses, gets the best gear, and has the storyline revolve around them, then they are a DMPC.

See sometimes I have problems with definitions like this. There are only two options presented DMPC or regular NPC but there is a lot of grey area between the qualities listed for each that according to the above definitions wouldn't fall into either catagory.

For instance you could have the DM make an NPC that they really like (or atleast as much as they like the characters they make when they are a PC) and have an emotional investment in them but the character doesn't get special treatment or any of that other stuff they are simultaneously not an NPC but are still not a DMPC by your definition.

Also just because a DM has an emotional invstment in a character does not make that a bad character as long as they don't cheat the system for the characters benefit.

mikej
2009-09-18, 02:08 AM
To answer the OP's original guestion about "Non-Terrible DMPCs." I've never experience such a thing. I'm aware that the word is a poorly deratory term and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Just every DM's pet NPC was always some rude, arrogant, show off and wealth hogging extension of the DM. It was always a hinderance to my overall sastifaction other than enhancing it. One of my first posts here on GiTP was a guestion regarding a friend of mine and myself about our current DM's little pet NPC. The thread is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97099) if anyway wants to get further opinions about this matter. Warning, it's not for the faint of heart and the fans of Ebberon. :smallwink:

John Campbell
2009-09-18, 02:54 AM
The way I figure it, the line is:

If you (as DM) say, "The troll attacks Bob, and..." -roll- "... misses. Bob attacks back, and..." -roll, roll- "... hits for 17 points of damage," then what you have is Bob the NPC who's accompanying the party, which you should be careful with but which is not necessarily bad and sometimes even desirable.

If you (as DM) say, "The troll attacks me, and..." -roll- "... misses. I attack back, and..." -roll, roll- "... hit for 17 points of damage," then what you have is Bob the DMPC. There is no such thing as a non-terrible DMPC. Even in cases where the DM can resist showing himself blatant favoritism, having a PC with the group who is the avatar of the DM warps the game dynamic all out of shape in bad ways.

pres_man
2009-09-18, 09:48 AM
You know what is worse though than DMPCs? The PC of the DM's significant other. I mean if you think the DM is going to cheat for themselves, what do you think they will do for the one giving them the loving? DMs shouldn't game with the significant other, too much risk of favortism. While we are listing dangerous characters in a game for the DM to fall down with, let's not forget the PC of his best friend either. That PC has to be kicked out also, too much chance the DM might bend things in favor of his friends. You know, thinking about it, about the only people the DM can game with are people he doesn't give a damn about and doesn't know from Adam. Anyone else and there is just too much chance of favoritism.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-18, 10:16 AM
You know what is worse though than DMPCs? The PC of the DM's significant other. I mean if you think the DM is going to cheat for themselves, what do you think they will do for the one giving them the loving? DMs shouldn't game with the significant other, too much risk of favortism. While we are listing dangerous characters in a game for the DM to fall down with, let's not forget the PC of his best friend either. That PC has to be kicked out also, too much chance the DM might bend things in favor of his friends. You know, thinking about it, about the only people the DM can game with are people he doesn't give a damn about and doesn't know from Adam. Anyone else and there is just too much chance of favoritism.

Er, I have to disagree to a point. I won't deny that there is a risk. But that doesn't mean that it is automatically the case that the GM will show favouritism to their significant other. Although I'd certainly be more weary of a bunch of teenagers gaming with SO's in the group, than a group of older players.

In fact, I think this comes down to a maturity issue generally. The older the average age of the group, the more likely that the GM or players will game with their SO. Conversely, the older the group, the less likely that there will be DMPC or "significant other PC" issues.

Lost Demiurge
2009-09-18, 10:17 AM
The way I figure it, the line is:

If you (as DM) say, "The troll attacks Bob, and..." -roll- "... misses. Bob attacks back, and..." -roll, roll- "... hits for 17 points of damage," then what you have is Bob the NPC who's accompanying the party, which you should be careful with but which is not necessarily bad and sometimes even desirable.

If you (as DM) say, "The troll attacks me, and..." -roll- "... misses. I attack back, and..." -roll, roll- "... hit for 17 points of damage," then what you have is Bob the DMPC. There is no such thing as a non-terrible DMPC. Even in cases where the DM can resist showing himself blatant favoritism, having a PC with the group who is the avatar of the DM warps the game dynamic all out of shape in bad ways.


Oh! Yeah, okay. In that case, I fully concur. There ARE no good DMPC's.

Lost Demiurge
2009-09-18, 10:20 AM
You know what is worse though than DMPCs? The PC of the DM's significant other. I mean if you think the DM is going to cheat for themselves, what do you think they will do for the one giving them the loving? DMs shouldn't game with the significant other, too much risk of favortism. While we are listing dangerous characters in a game for the DM to fall down with, let's not forget the PC of his best friend either. That PC has to be kicked out also, too much chance the DM might bend things in favor of his friends. You know, thinking about it, about the only people the DM can game with are people he doesn't give a damn about and doesn't know from Adam. Anyone else and there is just too much chance of favoritism.

Mm, I'd disagree.

First time my wife joined our game, I told her "Dear, just so you know, if the dice fall wrong I'm gonna f*cking kill you."

She laughed, and later on the dice DID fall wrong, and her character got smoked. She took it like a trooper, and kept on going.

That's one of the reasons why I married her, chief. :) She's that awesome. And I'd be doing her a disservice by spoiling her with special treatment.

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 10:22 AM
Er, I have to disagree to a point. I won't deny that there is a risk. But that doesn't mean that it is automatically the case that the GM will show favouritism to their significant other. Although I'd certainly be more weary of a bunch of teenagers gaming with SO's in the group, than a group of older players.

In fact, I think this comes down to a maturity issue generally. The older the average age of the group, the more likely that the GM or players will game with their SO. Conversely, the older the group, the less likely that there will be DMPC or "significant other PC" issues.

Now I'm not positive on this one but given his line about the only safe people to play with are complete strangers you don't care about or know at all (and given that gaming will encourage you to get to know them and thus force a continuous reshuffling of the game table if the advice wee followed) and the fact that his earlier posts seem to be saying something more like "It's not DMPC's that are bad it's DM's who abuse them that are (hopefully I interpreted his posts correctly and don't come off as a complete idiot...)" I would assume his post was largely sarcastic.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-18, 10:32 AM
Now I'm not positive on this one but given his line about the only safe people to play with are complete strangers you don't care about or know at all (and given that gaming will encourage you to get to know them and thus force a continuous reshuffling of the game table if the advice wee followed) and the fact that his earlier posts seem to be saying something more like "It's not DMPC's that are bad it's DM's who abuse them that are (hopefully I interpreted his posts correctly and don't come off as a complete idiot...)" I would assume his post was largely sarcastic.

Hmmm, perhaps you're right. :smallbiggrin: I don't remember reading that, but then there have been quite a few posts on this subject so far :smallwink:

pres_man
2009-09-18, 10:34 AM
Now I'm not positive on this one but given his line about the only safe people to play with are complete strangers you don't care about or know at all (and given that gaming will encourage you to get to know them and thus force a continuous reshuffling of the game table if the advice wee followed) and the fact that his earlier posts seem to be saying something more like "It's not DMPC's that are bad it's DM's who abuse them that are (hopefully I interpreted his posts correctly and don't come off as a complete idiot...)" I would assume his post was largely sarcastic.

Nope (you are not coming off as a complete idiot), you got it. If you can't trust a DM not to cheat for himself, then it seems ludicrious to assume that they wouldn't cheat for someone that they cared for. And yet, despite that, people are quite able to DM with people they care all the time, but if they can't be trusted how does that work? The answer is, that most people can be trusted to not cheat for themselves or someone else. Some people just have become so jaded by the bad experiences they have had with a power-tripping DM who was abusing a tool that they come to fear the tool and not see the problem was the DM not being mature enough the entire time.

truemane
2009-09-18, 10:42 AM
Part of the issue with this conversation (and many int0rwebz arguments) comes down to the definition of the word. I have always defined DMPC simply as a character who takes on a larger role in the on-going campaign than a typical NPC. The DM's 'main character' as it were. I've had them in campaigns all kinds of times and I've never had them go terribly wrong.

Some things that tend to work (in my experience):

1. Keep them out of combat
Either tilt them toward buffing/healing/support or keep them out of the fighting altogether. You can hang all the story elements off of them that you like without taking the chance that they'll overshadow the PC's.

2. If they ARE in combat, roll all their dice ahead of time.
Pre-roll a big list of d20's and their typical damage and all the rest. Then, their turn doesn't slow down combat at all. Part of the frusrtation I've seen in table-top gaming with DMNPC's is just that: everyone stop while the DM rolls for his own stupid guy. Instead, his turn should just be narrated ("And Marek attacks and misses and the troll laughs at him. Okay, your turn Bob."). Also, if the PC's see the list of numbers and trust that you're using them, it can reduce the fears of favouritism.

3. Don't overuse them.
By this I mean don't shove them into every conversation and every discussion and every planning session. I've found this point to be far more important than their relative power level. A DMNPC can be WAY more powerful than the PC's if you just use them sparingly. They should be like a familiar: useful when you need them, and effectively invisible when you don't. Everyone asumes they're back there somewhere hanging out following along, but unless something directly involves them, leave them out of it unless someone else brings them into things.

4. Make sure the players know they don't know anything.
Or, more specifically, know exactly what they know and what they don't. Maybe they know the way to the ancient cave of magic, maybe they're slick with municipal politics, but that's it. When the PC's start planning something, you don't want them to turn to the DMNPC and ask 'What do you think?' because that amounts to them asking the DM what to do.

I've had the most success with DMNPC's over the years by using them as a sort of talking atlas: they possess a body of information that the PC's do not, but are no better at using than anyone else. So the PC's ask them questions and get full and complete answers, but they still have to figure out how to proceed.

I've run into problems most often when the DMNPC seems to have a good handle on things and so when they give advice 'in character' the PC's were prone to listening to it (because it's like the DM giving advice) which means then I have to decide how often to lie and how often to be reasonable and the players get bored thinking I'll just hand feed them what they want to know.

It works better when the NPC is the guy who knows all about a kingdom, but the PC's still have to ask the questions and use the answers constructively.

5. Context
It all depends. What you want to do, no matter which road you take, is to keep an eye on how things are going and how the players are reacting. Keep your story felxible enough to shuft gears in mid-gamne if you have to. If you're going along and suddenly you realize all the players hate this person, then kill them off and move along without them.

...

That's all I got. It's not easy. But saying there are no non-terrible DMNPC's is unfair and untrue. Anything can work, you just have to pay attention.

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 10:45 AM
Glad I didn't completely miss the mark there. I think one of the major problems with DMing and playing a PC is that it limits your options. Unless you play EVERYTHING by ear and make it all up as you go then you have an unfair advantage. Either you can use it or completely ignore it or try to use it sometimes and any of those 3 options has major pitfalls.

Option A) Use your DM knowledge to give your PC an unfair advantage is being a jerk.

Option B) Refusing to use anything you know as DM is 99% likely you will also wind up ignoring things you would know as a regular PC and being terribly ineffective.

Option C) Trying to balance them. Maybe the best one as it has you at about the same level of knowledge used as a regular PC but definately too hard.

For example. You know the weakness of the monster you designed. You know if you do action A it has a 90% of being extremely successful. If you do Action A you run the risk of giving yourself an unfair advantage. If you don't you're intentionally gimping your character which may lead the other players to think of your character as dead weight. Either way I think that playing a PC while DMing has some serious potential and easily fallen into pitfalls and as such should only be attempted by someone who is all of the following:
Not a jerk, experienced as both player and DM, not a jerk, and last but not least in a group that is willing to try it and are experienced enough and not jerks.

pres_man
2009-09-18, 10:59 AM
I think one of the major problems with DMing and playing a PC is that it limits your options. Unless you play EVERYTHING by ear and make it all up as you go then you have an unfair advantage. Either you can use it or completely ignore it or try to use it sometimes and any of those 3 options has major pitfalls.

And yet how is this different from an experienced player or a part-time DM. I mean consider the old trolls/acid/fire metagame/player knowledge vs. character knowledge issue. How many players know that acid and fire do better against trolls then straight weapon damage? But how many first level character should know that? The easiest way to deal with these issues in 3.x, is with knowledge checks. Roll a knowledge check, and use it to determine how much the character knows in the given situation. Using player knowledge in place of character knowledge is metagaming, something I think most of us try to avoid. It doesn't fly when it comes to my players, why should it fly when it comes to NPCs?

As to the knowledge issue in general, I've found people have different ideas about this. I've had people on messageboards say, they start out assuming every NPC knows everything and then they "trim" away the information that the character shouldn't have, this is why they are worried about DMPCs because they may forget to do some "trimming". Myself on the other hand, start with assuming that all NPCs don't know anything, and then I "add on" bits of information they should know (do to experience and/or knowledge skills). Thus my default response for any character I run is, "Why are you asking me? Why should I know?" Most of the time the character doesn't know anything, occasionally they do (after a knowledge check or if it was something they actually experienced) and will respond accordingly, but I am always bewildered by people assuming that a character would have knowledge about something just because the person running the character has that knowledge.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-18, 11:12 AM
Some good points there pres_man, but not everyone avoids metagaming to the same extent that you seem to :smallwink:

Grumman
2009-09-18, 12:00 PM
I mean consider the old trolls/acid/fire metagame/player knowledge vs. character knowledge issue. How many players know that acid and fire do better against trolls then straight weapon damage? But how many first level character should know that?
Trolls are a relatively common, relatively low CR wandering monster. I'd consider "Trolls are vulnerable to fire" to be common knowledge in the same way as "Red dragons breathe fire" and "Bears generally live in forests and caves".

Umael
2009-09-18, 01:23 PM
Mm, I'd disagree.

First time my wife joined our game, I told her "Dear, just so you know, if the dice fall wrong I'm gonna f*cking kill you."

She laughed, and later on the dice DID fall wrong, and her character got smoked. She took it like a trooper, and kept on going.

That's one of the reasons why I married her, chief. :) She's that awesome. And I'd be doing her a disservice by spoiling her with special treatment.

I tip my hat to you and yours. Good for her, and bravo for you realizing that was a selling point for marrying her!

Ichneumon
2009-09-20, 12:10 AM
So, everybody loves playing a character and that includes the DM, however does it inherently ruin the game when he also plays the part of one of the antognists? I don't have much experience with the concept of a "DM-PC", but I've heard about it and would like to know your experience and thoughts about it.

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 12:13 AM
There are few things that players love more than watching the DM roll dice for his optimized character against mobs. Really.


:invisiwink:


On a slightly more serious note, there are notably few situations where this is a good idea and the majority are played badly, even in those situations.

Yukitsu
2009-09-20, 12:14 AM
Most people view them as the gaming equivalent to dating your sister's squeeze. While they're married. You just don't do it.

I think they are OK, but it takes some tact to pull off properly. Much like dating your sister's husband takes some careful negotiation if you want everyone at the table to be cool with it.

Ichneumon
2009-09-20, 12:18 AM
Alternatively, instead of having a real "player character" you could of course also have a regular NPC or villain that make extra "fluffy", as long as you accept that in the end of the day, it's not him that needs to shine, but the real PCs. In fact, making your antagonists special and giving them a real persona might actually add to the joy of the players, however, you do need to realise that the ultimate purpose of the antagonists is to be defeated by the players. At least, that's my view on things.

Xenogears
2009-09-20, 12:22 AM
To be honest I've never played in a game where the DM DIDN'T also play a PC (of note is the fact that 90% of those games were me and only one or two other people including the DM) so I don't see a problem with it. I've never had the DM use it as an excuse to be a jerk, overpower himself (indeed his high lvl casters always remained completely ineffective compared to my melee brutes...), or any of the other bad things people always go on about. But maybe I was just lucky...

Random832
2009-09-20, 12:22 AM
So, everybody loves playing a character and that includes the DM, however does it inherently ruin the game when he also plays the part of one of the antognists? I don't have much experience with the concept of a "DM-PC", but I've heard about it and would like to know your experience and thoughts about it.

Well... that's not realy what a DMPC is. A DMPC is when the DM tries to be another protagonist (which can end badly in his character always seeming to outshine the rest of the party, etc).

It's the DM's _job_ to play the antagonists, and make at least the BBEG a character with a decent amount of depth etc.

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 12:22 AM
I misconstrued the initial question, so here's an expanded answer based on the actual question.

If the game becomes DM vs PCs in a PvP war, DM can naturally cheese out farther than the PCs and abuse RAW more easily, and always get the drop on them when applicable, so... there's no point in them avataring themselves as the BBEG.

Raum
2009-09-20, 12:22 AM
So, everybody loves playing a character and that includes the DM, however does it inherently ruin the game when he also plays the part of one of the antognists? I don't have much experience with the concept of a "DM-PC", but I've heard about it and would like to know your experience and thoughts about it.Can you clarify what you're asking? The GM / DM generally plays all the antagonists...but antagonists are not (usually) PCs. So your GM playing the antagonist is the norm...

A DMPC is often defined as "a character inserted into the 'party' at the GM's behest without giving the other players much, if any, say in the inclusion."

Now, if you're talking about an antagonist who meets the definition above, you almost certainly have issues...

Ichneumon
2009-09-20, 12:24 AM
Well... that's not realy what a DMPC is. A DMPC is when the DM tries to be another protagonist (which can end badly in his character always seeming to outshine the rest of the party, etc).

It's the DM's _job_ to play the antagonists, and make at least the BBEG a character with a decent amount of depth etc.

Good point, indeed, there is a big difference between making interesting antagonists and wanting to play another protagonist.

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 12:25 AM
Can you clarify what you're asking? The GM / DM generally plays all the antagonists...but antagonists are not (usually) PCs. So your GM playing the antagonist is the norm...

A DMPC is often defined as "a character inserted into the 'party' at the GM's behest without giving the other players much, if any, say in the inclusion."

Now, if you're talking about an antagonist who meets the definition above, you almost certainly have issues...That would be a pretty cool, albeit trope-y, BBEG if pulled off well enough, assuming it was an NPC "ally" they picked up somewhere rather than a DMPC.

Raum
2009-09-20, 12:40 AM
Perhaps. But I suspect it's far easier to 'do right' when a single author controls the entire story. It's more difficult in a game situation...

Besides, betrayals are overdone all to easily.

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 12:43 AM
Perhaps. But I suspect it's far easier to 'do right' when a single author controls the entire story. It's more difficult in a game situation...

Besides, betrayals are overdone all to easily.Well yes, betrayals are done all too easily I agree. That's why I said BBEG rather than just henchman for the BBEG. :smallbiggrin:

Xenogears
2009-09-20, 12:45 AM
Perhaps. But I suspect it's far easier to 'do right' when a single author controls the entire story. It's more difficult in a game situation...

Besides, betrayals are overdone all to easily.

I read someones account of a game they played where this basically happened. They posted it here once but I don't remember where, when, or who they were. Basically they "rescued" some guy and liked his character so they wound up bringing him along with them and it turned out he was a general or something for the evil guys and had been feeding them info the whole time. They sounded very pleased with the results.

I believe it was a largely unplanned thing though so perhaps that is why it turned out so well...

Serpentine
2009-09-20, 12:50 AM
So much DMPC hate...
The two main games I've played in (not including the first debacle, which did include a bad variety of DMPC) have both had DMPCs. In the first one, the DM knew the character inside and outside, back-to-front, and so roleplaying the character wasn't a distraction at all. He just helped motivate the party.
The second one, I'm the DM. I deliberately swapped out my usual character for a more backgroundy Knight. This DMPC is built and played exactly like all other PCs, no favouritism. In fact, I even drowned her horse to make her a bit easier, and also a bit less tough. She's a bit of a follower, mostly lets others make the decisions, that sort of thing. While I do occasionally, to a degree, "talk through her", most of the time what she says is purely in-character - if her ideas run counter to my plot, then that's what she comes up with. The point of Knights is to get hit so that others don't, and she fulfills this role admirably (she's been killed more than about any other character in the game :smallsigh:).
Now, I do worry about her doing a lot of damage, about her being the focus of many attacks, and about her turns taking up time. Regarding the first, most of the rest of the party are spellcasters, so it's generally not a big deal. The second, I've checked with the others repeatedly, and if anything they seem quite glad to have her take the brunt of it. The third, most complaints of this line are directed at spellcasters who don't look up their spells in advance, and I make sure I roll everything at once. It is still a problem, though, that I constantly try to fix. Other than that, she seems to be a perfectly welcome addition to the party (if anything, I've had one or two comments that I don't roleplay her enough).

I can see that DMPCs can be bad, and I understand that that's the experience for many. But I don't believe that "DMPC" is necessarily a dirty word.

mabriss lethe
2009-09-20, 03:19 AM
I don't shy away from DMPCs, but I try to avoid playing them if there's another way. Right now, I'm running an undead PC game. here are a few examples of stuff I do.

There's Ungh the orc. He's started his misadventures as a level 1 expert (sailor) that got suckered by the PCs and turned into a wight. (he's childlike, speaks in the third person, and is utterly terrified of the cleric of nerull, She's got a "thing" for the boyfriends without a pulse.) It was early on in the game and he was killed by a PC with death devotion, so I ruled that he came back as a Level 1 wight using the monster class from libris mortis. He's been with the party for months now and the more they risked him in combat, the more I levelled him, until recently. He became a full wight, but he's very squishy compared to the rest of the party. He's now part of the "follower" train, to be called on when his special talents are needed. (want to turn a village into an army, call Ungh!) he also commands an Uberspawn (a lev6 hexblade/3suel arcanamach/1wight) because he got in the killing blow after the hexblade dropped into neg hp. (said uberspawn is actually more combat effective than some of the PCs)

I use a "buddy system" in combat. they can have as many minions as they want in a fight, but I only allow them to take one flunky per PC into the fray. the player controls their PC and the buddy. Any others add to the circumstance of the fight (detaining reinforcements, whatever) but don't contribute to any damage dealt or slow down combat. If the PC isn't availible when something is going on (the vampire is in her coffin, the necromancer is paralyzed or the meatshield just bit the dust) There's always a backup character for them to play. keeps'em at the table and interested.

I rarely control a character other than the antagonists in combat, but I've often used them to help fill in on some important knowledge roll or to drop them some hints as to what's going on. At one point, the entire party's welfare rested on the fact that Ungh was the only character with ranks in survival. The rest of the party couldn't navigate its way out of a paper sack.

Umael
2009-09-20, 02:18 PM
Alternatively, instead of having a real "player character" you could of course also have a regular NPC or villain that make extra "fluffy", as long as you accept that in the end of the day, it's not him that needs to shine, but the real PCs.

Small nitpick here.

At the end of the day, the story is about the PCs.
Not, at the end of the day, the ones who need to shine are the PCs.

For example, you can do a story in which the PCs are, say, 6th level, and their general leading the army against the evil horde is, say, 20th level. When the war is over, the general is the big hero - but the story was always about the PCs. It was a story about how they had to fight to survive in the blizzard, how they were ambushed and almost slaughtered, how one of them found romance and another found their mate had died - all of these things are the stories, and if the players are cool with that kind of thing, great.

But PCs are not automatically heroes, or the ones who shine. They are the protagonists, the one those whose eyes the story unfolds (because it is the most interesting place for the story to unfold, usually).



In fact, making your antagonists special and giving them a real persona might actually add to the joy of the players, however, you do need to realise that the ultimate purpose of the antagonists is to be defeated by the players. At least, that's my view on things.

Not so small nitpick.

The ultimate purpose of the antagonists is not to be defeated by the players. That is often the case, but there are so many antagonists and so many ways they bring out the conflict.

For example, if the evil vizier is manipulating the kindly king, who then goes and issues demands that thwart the PCs - both the vizier and the king have become antagonists. The king is deluded, possibly old and infirm, and his edicts are the result of an addled mind that has been easily swayed by foul advice. But the king IS an antagonist, one whose decisions can hurt the PCs. If the PCs kill the vizier, but don't convince the king that the vizier was evil, the king will continue to make bad edicts. Or maybe the king will stop making bad edicts, but will believe that the vizier died a hero, and as such, needs to be given a ceremonial burial with full honors - and orders the PCs to be the honor guard.

Also, just because an antagonist is defeated doesn't mean that he or she (or it) is meant to be defeated by the PCs, or that if the antagonist is defeated by someone OTHER than the PCs, the story is unsuccessful. Imagine a Call of Cthulu game where the antagonist is a cultist leader who is trying to call upon Powers Not Meant To Be Known By Mankind. The PCs spend the adventure defeating the follower cultists, rescuing hostages, and getting the **** out of dodge. The leader, laughing, succeeds on calling up the Unspeakable Monstrosity... only to have it devour him and everything (living, dead, animate, inanimate, organic, and inorganic) without 100 feet. The PCs did NOT defeat the cultist leader... but the story was complete, the PCs are successful, and the leader was quite defeated.

For a smaller example, there are hundreds of possible minor antagonists who don't get defeated. A merchant who cheats one of his customers (a PC), a street thief who snags a (PC's) purse, the guard who refuses admittance because the PC isn't following proper dress code. Go into the PC's history and look at how many dysfunctional family members you might find - now THOSE are antagonists!

More to the point of all this, if all antagonists were pre-destined to be defeated, at the hands of the PCs, no less, the game might get pretty boring.

Antagonists are not always villains, and the villains of the story are not always defeated by the main heroes of the story. Yes, the MAIN VILLAINS of the story often are defeated by the MAIN HEROES (which is usually the PCs), but this is not always the case.

Otodetu
2009-09-20, 02:57 PM
A dmpc is always a bad idea.
Even if it is a well-used dmpc it will forever be tainted with being a dmpc.

Calmar
2009-09-20, 03:31 PM
In a campaign I ran my players encountered an NPC whom they liked quite a lot and decided to pick him up.
(There was also a cleric travelling with them, but he was bland and boring...)

Tyndmyr
2009-09-20, 04:08 PM
I read someones account of a game they played where this basically happened. They posted it here once but I don't remember where, when, or who they were. Basically they "rescued" some guy and liked his character so they wound up bringing him along with them and it turned out he was a general or something for the evil guys and had been feeding them info the whole time. They sounded very pleased with the results.

I believe it was a largely unplanned thing though so perhaps that is why it turned out so well...

I actually did that once...the basic theme was stolen from one of Asimov's foundation series. In this particular case, he was an illusionist. Sadly, that campaign broke up for unrelated reasons(three players lost due to moving away and a breakup), but it seemed like an interesting twist at the time. Honestly, I expected them to figure it out earlier, given all the little details that just didn't quite add up...I mean, you've *got* to have foreshadowing. It's no fun if you don't give them that "aaaah" moment.

But yeah, he was truly an NPC, not a dmpc, since I fully expected him to die, and didn't have him take much of a role in the party beyond "save poor lil helpless me". DMPC, imo, implies that the dm is actually playing the char significantly, and for reasons other than advancing the plot. That's a very dangerous road to go down, and I prefer to avoid it entirely.