PDA

View Full Version : Coolest DMPCs



Altaria87
2009-11-16, 03:59 PM
I was playing a 2e game on Saturday (the Lich Way campaign, believe it was in Dragon magazine or something) when the DM introduced one of the most hillarious DMPCs ever.
His name is Andor the Great. He thinks he's a Wizard, he has a cool staff with runes on, he detects magic by waving his hands about, but the party Mage cannot detect any magic on him.
We got him out of a room he'd locked himself into using 'Wizard's Lock' however he'd 'ran out of spells'
So the entire game centres around the PCs cleairng up his (amusing) mistakes such as when he thought he could cast Pyrotechnics (a non-offensive spell regardless) on a Hobgoblin and my fighter had to step in to sotp it all going wrong.
However he did show he can be awesome by lobbing a Zombie's head off with his staff (that's been painted incidentally).

So what have been the funniest, coolest, or most interesting DMPCs you've played with, or created?

Optimystik
2009-11-16, 04:05 PM
Aribeth :smalltongue:

The Gilded Duke
2009-11-16, 05:20 PM
Aribeth :smalltongue:

Aribeth in Hell

Asbestos
2009-11-16, 05:25 PM
A Deadpool inspired Assassin Demon (forget their goofy ass name, they're pink)

FoE
2009-11-16, 05:58 PM
I once had this powerful wizard that was like 10 levels above the party. He insisted on going with the party when they went on to defeat this dragon, and after he refused to help them defeat some goblin servants so they could gain XP on their own, he beat the dragon on his own while the players watched on the sidelines in awe. Then he got half of the dragon's hoard.

I know my players loved him because they were grinding their teeth in excitement while he fought the Big Bad.

sambo.
2009-11-16, 06:01 PM
back in the 1ed days, one DM i played with had a half halfling, half leprechaun, 100% practical joker NPC that would show up to torment us every now and again.

he had a Wand of Wonder. which he could control.

we got blinded by butterflies, a LOT.

Ridureyu
2009-11-16, 06:18 PM
The game I'm in has a DMPC because we started out with a huge gap in the party. The poor bard is known for such things as:

"That really hurts!" after being stabbed.

Dying and being rezzed immediately becuase the dwarf couldn't stop crying.

Blowing her share of the loot on beer:smallbiggrin:

She also happens to be a Canary in a Coalmine. "Are you sure we want to open that?" now causes us all to panic.

ocdscale
2009-11-16, 06:50 PM
I once had this powerful wizard that was like 10 levels above the party. He insisted on going with the party when they went on to defeat this dragon, and after he refused to help them defeat some goblin servants so they could gain XP on their own, he beat the dragon on his own while the players watched on the sidelines in awe. Then he got half of the dragon's hoard.

I know my players loved him because they were grinding their teeth in excitement while he fought the Big Bad.

I think I'm missing the sarcasm tag.

BobVosh
2009-11-16, 06:52 PM
In rifts we had a similar situation. He was trapped in a park garage since the rifts opened, and was mildly insane from it. He once casted 'Rain of Steel' because he wanted a cabbage. If you know Rifts well you would know that is practically the equivalent of an epic level spell.

herrhauptmann
2009-11-16, 07:36 PM
I once had this powerful wizard that was like 10 levels above the party. He insisted on going with the party when they went on to defeat this dragon, and after he refused to help them defeat some goblin servants so they could gain XP on their own, he beat the dragon on his own while the players watched on the sidelines in awe. Then he got half of the dragon's hoard.

I know my players loved him because they were grinding their teeth in excitement while he fought the Big Bad.

That's why I try not to use DMPCs. Or if I do, each encounter conveniently has a very high level creature that the DMPC takes care of solo. Otherwise, in addition to being more work, they're also just an excuse for the DM to have fun with himself. If a DM wants to do that, he should just play Neverwinter Nights


edit: First adventure I ran with my brother and his friends, the DMPC's job was to evaluate the characters, see if they were worthy of admission into the special hero militia (which lets players request help of cops, and order them around to an extent). So he spent most fights standing there with a clipboard. If the party was in danger of a TPK (all new players), he'd step in and trash all enemies with his awesomeness of being level 17 in the sunless citadel. Then he'd make a note on his clipboard. Too many blackmarks and they wouldn't get into the hero militia. (He'd also take all loot in the room when he had to fight)
Halfway through, I invented a reason for the examiner to leave the party, because otherwise they would have started to depend on him.

Myrmex
2009-11-16, 07:41 PM
I think I'm missing the sarcasm tag.

Oh no, Face of Evil really runs games like that. Just look at his user name.

Toliudar
2009-11-16, 07:49 PM
For a very long campaign (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) with significant PC attrition, we were sometimes without a trapspringer. For this purpose, I created a halfling Dungeon Delver named Cordo the Magnificent. He was foul-mouthed, smelly, cynical, almost useless in combat (what a terrible PrC! Tee hee) and a great cook. Whenever a PC rogue would show up, he got jealous and went off on his own in a huff. Over the course of a campaign, he showed up three times, the last time as the McGuffin that needed saving (you know that your players aren't hating the DMPC when they actually want to save him from some doom).

One of the few times I've used DMPC's, and my players have mentioned trying to bring him back in a new context in our current dragonlance campaign (transforming him into a kender, of course. The fools!).

Maryring
2009-11-16, 07:57 PM
I haven't as a player experienced any DMPCs that I enjoyed, but I think I've successfully made one of my own.

She's a very humble cleric who isn't quite as strong as the other players, in that she is primarily a buffer and out of combat healer. She doesn't try to lead or command the party in any way, but is always there to provide some clue or hint to how a puzzle that has the players really stumped should be solved.

In other words, her primary function is as plot exposition fairy, and I feel that it works quite well. It seems she's very likeable due to her plain good nature, and she never steals the spot-light. Only sometimes enter it with her divine magic.

Thajocoth
2009-11-16, 08:25 PM
I used a DMPC once, but only because the party had no healer. Sheana the Changeling Bard. Multiclassed every class that could heal for more heals, then took bonus-to-healing feats and powers that grant allies saves and heals. Then I made her a passive player who wouldn't talk much unless the PCs asked her to and she did whatever I thought tactically optimal for the other PCs (not herself) unless the PCs said they wanted her to do something else. Her existence still took XP & GP from the group.

In my current game, I took a different approach. Make 5 characters (Defender, Leader, Melee Striker, Controller, Ranged Striker) 1 level below the party's level. Each player gets one as a subordinate, so they have 2 people on the battlefield each. It turns a group of 3 into a group of 6, but not as strong as a group of 6 players would be because they're a level under. Gave them a couple personality quirks too, but it's up to the players to RP that, and they're subordinates RP-wise to the players, so they're never a detriment to the party. They take XP, but not GP or magic items. Instead, their sheets are re-made as if a brand new character each level (which, in one case replenishes consumable arrows.)

Though, we'll see about Mari... She's a cleric, and her quirk is religious masochism. (She uses some self-piercing in her daily meditation.) She's got a feat that adds 1d6 + cha mod to all her heals but stuns her if she damages a bloodied foe. She's got a power that hurts her for her surge value to heal an ally twice that and another to take ongoing 5 damage to heal an ally 15 each round. She's yet to be combat-tested and is all about self-sacrifice to aid the party.

The other two in use for this group are Kukri, the Bladeling Ranger with a Greatbow, lots of magical ammo, and a "Halt, evildoer!" personality, and Orryn, the Gnome Psion who has a stereotypically high pitched voice, Lucky Charm neck item, and always thinks he's right. Unused are a Warforged Warden and an Elf Monk.

Though, I don't think they're DMPCs... Created by me, sure, but I've offloaded the work of them onto the players...

Akal Saris
2009-11-16, 08:26 PM
One [3.5] campaign I currently run is basically a modular game for when we don't have enough PCs show up to run 1 of the other usual games.

Since that means only 2-3 PCs, I have a couple of recurring NPCs-for-hire, including Craig Ironaxe the dwarf expert and Vurgtulmak the lizardman warrior.

Craig basically is stocked with survival and various knowledge skills and spends each round doing aid another on a PC in combat, while Vurgtulmak is a shortspear+shield frontliner who deals little damage but can take a few hits. So far having them as NPC classes has kept the two from over-shadowing the PCs, and the PCs haven't hesitated to hire them on for every adventure so far, so it's been a qualified success. I might even have a truenamer make himself available!

Temet Nosce
2009-11-16, 08:36 PM
I once had this powerful wizard that was like 10 levels above the party. He insisted on going with the party when they went on to defeat this dragon, and after he refused to help them defeat some goblin servants so they could gain XP on their own, he beat the dragon on his own while the players watched on the sidelines in awe. Then he got half of the dragon's hoard.

I know my players loved him because they were grinding their teeth in excitement while he fought the Big Bad.

Yeah, I had one of my DMs make an awesome DMPC like that to. He was even smart enough to keep his lips shut after we killed the thing, and looted it.

In fact, on a scale of 1-10 any DMPC I didn't kill is a 0, and any I did is a 10. I'm just generous that way.

More seriously, I do not like DMPCs. I've seen them done right twice. Both times were in solo games, and neither were focused on battles. DMPCs by their very nature have no place in an actual PC party or any game where the DMPC would have an impact on the PCs ability to accomplish things, as their very existence steals from the PCs in multiple ways.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-16, 09:27 PM
I haven't as a player experienced any DMPCs that I enjoyed, but I think I've successfully made one of my own.

She's a very humble cleric who isn't quite as strong as the other players, in that she is primarily a buffer and out of combat healer. She doesn't try to lead or command the party in any way, but is always there to provide some clue or hint to how a puzzle that has the players really stumped should be solved.

In other words, her primary function is as plot exposition fairy, and I feel that it works quite well. It seems she's very likeable due to her plain good nature, and she never steals the spot-light. Only sometimes enter it with her divine magic.

Plot exposition fairy also strikes me as a bit weak, unfortunately. She may not steal the spotlight, but if you're going to give the players a hint, give it to them straight. Both you and they are aware that the DMPC is just a front.

DMPCs should not exist. If they do exist, they should immediately be killed and looted.

If nobody in the party bothered to roll up a healer, the party has a few options:
1. Screw it, we can take it.
2. Potions and such.
3. Hire a lowbie cleric to tag along and be healbot. As their minion, the DM should treat him as he would a players cohort.



Edit: I forgot the awesomest DMPC type. The one that's really a mole, and is going to imprison/kill you all.

Sinon
2009-11-16, 11:13 PM
Firstly, it was a PbP, so I’m reasonably sure that the players never realized it was a DMPC.

Sadly, the second reason why they never learned that was because the game collapsed as so many PbP do.

Anyway the set up was that the BBEG was a lich bent on global domination; so nothing new there. Find his phylactery and destroy him.

But the real BBEG was one of the wizard-lords who had sent the PCs on the mission in the first place. Once he had the phylactery in his possession, he would have leveraged the lich into supporting him.

DMPC was a doppelganger mindspy who “replaced a PC” and was there to go along until they had the phylactery, at which point he would have stolen it and lead them to the real BBEG.

The fun part for me was leaving little clues for the players: nothing that would reveal the character’s true nature right away, but stuff that would (hopefully) have seemed obvious in hindsight.

Duos Greanleef
2009-11-16, 11:21 PM
I had a kobold archer in service to a minor angel. His name was Grintig. He started out as the Mini's stat card, and eventually became a full character. I loved him, and my PCs loved him anymore.
I gave him a flaming shortbow and replaced the fire damage with radiant damage to represent divine service.
Consequently, this was also my best moment of D&D improvisation as well...
:smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2009-11-16, 11:23 PM
This is the kind of plotline that encourages chaotic stupid behavior. Killing anyone you can get away with is, sadly, the logical response to most DMPCs, frequent NPC betrayal, etc. Im sure you think that being betrayed by their employer was a creative, original idea, but believe me, it's been done.

DMPCs are a bad idea. Always.

arguskos
2009-11-16, 11:58 PM
This is the kind of plotline that encourages chaotic stupid behavior. Killing anyone you can get away with is, sadly, the logical response to most DMPCs, frequent NPC betrayal, etc. Im sure you think that being betrayed by their employer was a creative, original idea, but believe me, it's been done.

DMPCs are a bad idea. Always.
Sorry, but, no, that's not right. Such absolutes are never correct, since there is a time and place for everything. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :smallwink:

As for me, I have NPCs that sometimes join the party, with their permission (IC and OOC), sometimes for their own reasons, sometimes for good of the party. By technicalities, they are DMPCs, though I treat them as I would any other NPC. So far, no player has actively spoken out in anger towards this practice, not even one who is VERY strongly anti-DMPCs.

Ridureyu
2009-11-17, 12:22 AM
I still think the one I mentioned is working out well. As far as the PCs go in effectiveness, she's somewhere in the lower-middle-third, or so,but fills a good niche. Does decent things in roleplay, is neither totally right or wrong, and helps to serve as a good way for the DM to balance things.

Mikeavelli
2009-11-17, 12:28 AM
I ran a campaign once that introduced the PC's as a single party in what must have seemed like an Adventurer convention. There were something like five different adventuring groups that showed up to deal with the same problem (setup inspired by Temple of Elemental Evil fluff) - so the first few sessions were interacting with the other parties, helping some, hindering others, and ultimately the Players completed the objective, cementing them as "Special."

I took note of which NPC's the players liked, which ones they hated, and which ones they were "meh" about - the rest of the campaign consisted of using the former as allies and DMPC plot fairies, the latter as villains, and the leftovers as casualties.

Ernir
2009-11-17, 12:51 AM
One of my groups has a go-to rogue that they hire when they know their mission is going to need someone with sticky fingers or knowledge of decives. His name is Flækjufótur (Tanglefoot), rides around on a dire dachshund, and is a general PitA.

And since he is always close on hand anyway, he can temporarily join the party (under player control) when one of the PCs is temporarily unavailable for reasons of plot or death by monsters. :smalltongue:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-11-17, 01:11 AM
The only DMPCs I've run are those that started off as a random NPC the party was supposed to interact with once and then forget, but who somehow made the PCs like him/her and make him/her tag along. The weirdest one yet is Valen Longstrider, a forestlord elf (Races of the Dragon) who is ridiculously and cheesily optimized. The catch? The only thing he's optimized to do is have the ability to tree stride at will, all day, at character level 4. Other than that, he's weak enough to make a commoner 1 feel special.

He started out as a messenger for the party's patron who delivered messages to them when they were away from HQ, but they liked him enough to ask him to stay with them most of the time. He utterly ignores combat, hiding in the nearest tree until it's over--until an enemy dies, at which point he pops out, loots the body, and pops back in--and out of combat he pops from tree to tree to tree to tree to tree following the party, chattering about nothing in particular. Why they like him so much I have no idea.

Seatbelt
2009-11-17, 01:27 AM
There is a DMPC in the Ravenloft game I'm running. He is necessary, as the person playing the party cleric dropped out. I had one of the players roll him up, with some input from me as to feats. He has a mwk longsword for melee and no directly offensive spells, as per my request. The player runs him as healbot and buffer during combat.

His name is Bartleby. He is absolutely necessary since the other cleric dropped out. The party has no other way to deal with ability score damage, disease, or level drain, and nobody in the party has UMD. For the party, the game without Bartleby would be unfun, because they would spend a week resting for one day's adventuring.

He does have slightly less personality than another healbot I made for a different game. The character's name was Ban Daid, a gnome cleric who would literally walk through fire to heal you in combat. He was EPIC.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-17, 01:31 AM
A cleric isn't a requirement for an adventuring party, yknow...

If they opt to rest between adventuring days, they certainly can, and there's no requirement that every in game day takes the same amount of real life time. Skim over boring periods.

taltamir
2009-11-17, 01:57 AM
Disclaimer: This is a joke

Best DMPC is mialee, the wizard she-elf.

Solaris
2009-11-17, 01:57 AM
I once had this powerful wizard that was like 10 levels above the party. He insisted on going with the party when they went on to defeat this dragon, and after he refused to help them defeat some goblin servants so they could gain XP on their own, he beat the dragon on his own while the players watched on the sidelines in awe. Then he got half of the dragon's hoard.

I know my players loved him because they were grinding their teeth in excitement while he fought the Big Bad.

Heheheh. The players especially love it when the DMPC helps the DM keep the party moving along in the adventure, rather than get sidetracked with pointless wandering and exploration.

taltamir
2009-11-17, 02:17 AM
If nobody in the party bothered to roll up a healer, the party has a few options:
1. Screw it, we can take it.
2. Potions and such.
3. Hire a lowbie cleric to tag along and be healbot. As their minion, the DM should treat him as he would a players cohort.

What is the difference between #3 and a DMPC?

Frosty
2009-11-17, 02:26 AM
None, depending on your gameing style. Some DMs let the player take control of cohorts during battles, but some DMs play the cohorts themselves.

Zaydos
2009-11-17, 02:32 AM
To my shame I tend to run DMPCs. In my longest lasting game the DMPC was originally designed as a PC because one of the players was talking about running a game for the campaign so I needed one, and then we had another player who joined and I didn't want to try and balance encounters for a 3 person party. Two of the players liked him, and the third complained about him when he was simply the concept for a PC (my little brother who complained whenever I made a character concept I liked even if it was for games he was never going to be involved in). I tried to remove him two or three times but it was unanimously vetoed by the PCs so they seemed to have liked him. He was too powerful though (arcane hierophant) and mostly just buffed the party and sat in the back while his tiger went into melee. I don't think he ever used a save or die, except maximized Moon Bolt, and he never used wild shape. The players liked him though, I enjoyed him, even my little brother wouldn't let me take him out (while complaining about him existing, he is a self-contradictory person). I actually had my little brother offer to trade his character's life for the tiger's which was odd since he had hated the tiger more than the character (because he could talk to cat's and first thing he did was ask it to betray its master and it growled at him angrily).

The next campaign ended up having one for a temporary plot reason who was supposed to be a bit of a mole and let RP take its course to see if he stayed or not. A warlock he sat in the back and shot things, but he still ended up being too powerful (new players except for 2, one a power gamer and the other incapable of making characters in practice although he bragged about his character optimization skills) with 2 characters stronger than him (1 the power gamer's and the other a wizard-druid). Again though a PC complained so I said I planned to right him out and all the PCs wanted him to stay.

tl;dr I use them, they're too powerful, a PC complains, I suggest writing them out, and everyone jumps on me angrily for the suggestion including the person who urged it. I think my friends are crazy (but so am I so I like it)

Shademan
2009-11-17, 03:09 AM
in one of my campaign that is still running, sort of, there is only three players but the cleric usually miss out... So anyways, I have a DMPC, A goblin monk. He help out in combat mostly by flanking, dealing minor damage, stunning and such. and in pretty much every game he have needed healing back from the negatives

Myani
2009-11-17, 03:16 AM
In what seems to be a vast contradiction to the norm, the games that I've played in have usually had DMPCs. They stay out of the spotlight, usually, but they're there when we need them. If anything, they're like wiz/sorc familiars that way :smallbiggrin: This may be because the two DMs in question work very hard to make somewhat deep characters that aren't obvious self-insert stand-ins, and they don't usually follow standard tropes.

One (very successful and rather memorable) DMPC followed the "betrayal" model suggested above (though we forgive her for it, it's just her nature). As a (something) Rogue, she was sneaky. Always. For a while we spent most of our RP downtime trying desperately to figure our what race she was. Tantalizing glimpses of a very deep backstory have been sidelined by plot, but she was always useful in a fight, even if she was very much a glass cannon. She was instrumental in a number of our plots, and even managed to help us steal one of the most powerful artifacts in creation - by creating a distraction that hijacked a execution and turned it into a public spectacle, not by taking the limelight from the druid sneaking into the royal chambers through a mouse hole.

The aforementioned betrayal happened pretty early on; my character left DM plot hooks all over his backstory, and one of them happened to be that our boy the wizard isn't an orphan like we thought (or I wrote up). Daddy's in charge of a league of assassins, and wants his son back. Our rogue wants in on the assassination trade (or at least the PrC). One murder of another PC's parent (Mom wasn't very lucky), a well RP-ed Nat 20 bluff check (a skill she's famous for, and I trust the roll; my Sense Motive also Nat 20'd), and she's back in the party's good graces. Heck, she kills off a few annoying and mildly arrogant NPCs, and she's even back in the wizard's good graces. The DM's been humble, keeps her out unless we want her in, and makes her disappear (often very literally) when RP negotiation with NPCs shows up. In short, she adds some flavor to the party, and acts a foil for our own character development.

Another DM (who comes from a similar school of play as the first) has always kept us with a spare NPC. We tend to run through them rather quickly, so he actually has a slew of characters ready to go at the drop of a pin (or the advent of an aneurysm, in one case). Once we started paying attention to them, they often provide us with some nice combat backup (as a 3-man, caster-heavy party, it's useful), occasionally hilarity, and at least one episode of horrific destruction (we expected great things from that stowaway boy, but the absolute destruction of a major Temple of Azuth and his sudden ascent to epic levels? The chance cube was fickle that day). Other NPCs . . . get left outside a burial mound for a week because they were stubborn and didn't want to go dungeon delving. Each one of them could have been worth a plot arc of at least two months if the party could be distracted from the holy mission of Making Money.

In short, if I can even say that after writing so much, I've always had DMPCs around, and they've always been well, and memorably, run by DMs that keep them mostly in the background, use them when they have to, and are much more than just cardboard cutouts or healbots. They're part of the party, and they certainly enhance my game experience, all while staying NPCs that have depth worth perceiving. And if they occasionally back-stab people who think the wizard's a nice, squishy target, I won't complain, because nobody else was even looking! I half expect her to be around here somewhere with a knife, ready to piss the druid off again . . .

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-17, 03:28 AM
I have a few spare PCs in my folder that have been played by the players when they started, occassionally I bring them out as NPCs as sometimes they have a history with the party.

As for real GM PCs, there are two that really stand out for me.

A Jedi Knight named Wu-Wei Kuvar, perhaps the first character that I made when learning to play and often a victim of the Jedi Disappearing Acts. He's with the party, fights a bit with them and then has to leave on pressing business. He's a pretty cool guy who's totally fine with the somewhat insane way the players go on, compared to his apprentice whom I made a straight-laced more Jedi than thou type.
His second apprentice, Tavan Kre'lya started as a GMPC too and I aimed him at being antagonistic towards one of the PCs who is slowly awakening her potential with the Force but not a Jedi. Then the DM for the 4E game I am in wanted to join our group and I said I had a spare character.
Currently he's the Commanding Officer of the clones in the group and has a strong bond with one of the players. The sad thing is, with Order 66 coming up my players may end up killing him! :smallfrown:

My other favourite is a twelve year old Twi'lek kid named Bo Vanek. He was a slave, stowed away on the party's ship and I planned on the PCs leaving him at an adoption centre on the planet where they had the mission, but he stayed with them for a while longer. Even into a battle! Bo was fun to roleplay, as I could have him make the obvious comments and ask inane questions to push the story along and remain in his character. He also had the most critical hits and I rolled all his attacks publicly.
I had to put him on a bus, he's living with the father of one of the PCs but I may bring him back someday once this war is over.

EndlessWrath
2009-11-17, 03:40 AM
My favorite 3...and 2 of them are kobolds.

So we (in our current game) found a group of kobolds and saved one. His name is Scribbles. We rolled scribbles stats. Among his averaged out scores.. he receives a 17 for intel. :smalleek:. So he picks up on other languages almost immediately. Since his search check is higher than anyone elses.. he was designated trapfinder too :smallbiggrin:. Found many an awesome things...including a little button he set off by accident which caught everyone over 3ft tall on fire. He's just fun to play with and he's not Overpowered by DM choice.

The other's are a bit different. Wrath, basically a demigod. He's more of.. a different set of deities. He seeks to eliminate the current gods because the world is reaching the end of the timer on its armegeddon clock. So he is part fighter(warrior) and part sorcerer. In the end he resets the world and the PCs turn into the gods. The next game, they have to worship their previous characters. :smallamused:

The third was another kobold called Meepo. Meepo somehow became able to get from 0->7th level casting before the PCs got to 10. Not sure how...but he was quite awesome. Died to a kolyarut (but not after taking out 7 of his friends.)

-Wrath

Kekken
2009-11-17, 10:02 AM
Seriously, though, there is nothing inherently wrong with DMPCs. I have a tendency to use them and my players have never complained, and have, indeed, at times even mentioned liking them and missing them if they die or the campaign ends.

All you have to do is remember a few simple suggestions.

1. Never totally overshadow the PCs, both in skill and character. If the party already has a charming uberthief, then don't make a charming uberthief, or at least, don't make one who is automatically better.

2. DMPCs are, in essence, PCs run by the DM. They must follow all character creation and gameplay rules. If you don't allow PCs to have templates or anything like that, then don't give them to your DMPCs.

3. Never have your DMPCs exhibit DM knowledge unless it makes sense. If in doubt, make a relevant roll (in view of your players), to see if she would know, for example, the answer to a riddle, and only if the players are absolutely stumped (this ties in with 1).

4. Make them real characters, with hopes and dreams and fears. If possible, tie their background and motivation to at least one of the PCs personally.

5. (This one is for 4th ed only). When deciding on magical items to add to treasure piles, save any DMPCs for last (i.e. only add items that are definitely for them after your PCs have all had an item.)

KeresM
2009-11-17, 10:12 AM
An intelligent weapon.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-17, 10:20 AM
What is the difference between #3 and a DMPC?

It's not a DMPC unless the DM is creating and controlling it. Typically, while cohorts/hirelings are subject to DM arbitration(no, he wont walk in to the trap he just saw go off repeatedly to "disarm" it for you), they are hired and run at the discretion of the players.

Not all NPCs are DMPCs, and not even all NPCs accompanying the party are DMPCs.

pres_man
2009-11-17, 03:13 PM
It's not a DMPC unless the DM is creating and controlling it.

Huh? NPCs are created and controlled by the DM by default. Some DMs may allow players to create and/or control NPCs, but the standard is the DM does these. I think maybe your dislike for a party ally is making you state things in a slightly strange fashion.

Kylarra
2009-11-17, 03:25 PM
It's not a DMPC unless the DM has a personal stake in the character. It's a very thin line between friendly NPC and DMPC, but there is a difference.

DiscipleofBob
2009-11-17, 03:32 PM
Let's see...

First, there was Argos, the Brain in a Jar which couldn't really dominate anyone without the PC's permission, as it didn't want the PC's to simply smash its jar. Because of this, Argos had no real sensory organs, so couldn't make sense of the situation unless he was ordered to by the PC's. His best moment was when the warlock ordered Argos to dominate 'that mind over there that's full of itself,' referring to an NPC noble duelist in the party, but due to the phrasing, Argos dominated the party fighter instead, and immediately dropped his sword due to disorientation, completely ruining the chance for surprise.

Then there was Dace, a bodyguard for the noble and temporary guide for the PC's. He was short, lean, and had the eeriest smile. When combat came around, he would put on a chainmail glove, used some fire mana to heat outside of the glove to red-hot temperatures, then would proceed to grab baddies by the face and throw them into other baddies.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-17, 03:44 PM
The only good DMPC is a dead DMPC. I now have three such scalps on my belt, as killing DM pets is almost as much fun as a well run game.

Sidenote: I blame DMPCs and hombrewed monsters for my munchkinism.

Ormagoden
2009-11-17, 03:47 PM
Disclaimer: This is a joke

Best DMPC is mialee, the wizard she-elf.

First order of business
Ewww....

Second order of buisness.
Isn't there really no such thing as a cool DMPC as much as we like the idea. Most of them come down to being cool only via DM fiat...



Huh? NPCs are created and controlled by the DM by default. Some DMs may allow players to create and/or control NPCs, but the standard is the DM does these. I think maybe your dislike for a party ally is making you state things in a slightly strange fashion.

I think tyndmyr has got it exactly right actually...

dsmiles
2009-11-17, 03:49 PM
I tend to avoid using DMPC's as a DM, mainly because the players think that they can turn to said DMPC for advice on how to proceed on the adventure, or which corridor will lead to greater treasure.
DMPC's have to be played very close to the line, and most of the time fail miserably at this. They tend to control the party's actions and basically act as a XP sponge.

Ormagoden
2009-11-17, 04:06 PM
I tend to avoid using DMPC's as a DM, mainly because the players think that they can turn to said DMPC for advice on how to proceed on the adventure, or which corridor will lead to greater treasure.
DMPC's have to be played very close to the line, and most of the time fail miserably at this. They tend to control the party's actions and basically act as a XP sponge.

Agreed!
I really only invest in a DMPC if the player group is small (3 or less)
Even then I generally only do this to fill a role that the players definitely need.
Such as a rogue, monk, barbarian group that needs healing.
To further focus the "DMPC" I generally make them excel at their task (such as optimizing a healer for healing in the above party) and they tend to be a bit sheepish, cowardly, or non-alpha personalities. I don't like to "rail road" my players so those personality types tend to help out.

pres_man
2009-11-17, 04:35 PM
I think tyndmyr has got it exactly right actually...

That an NPC is "not a DMPC unless the DM is creating and controlling it." That sounds exactly right to you? Seriously? So I guess using that logic, I have entire worlds of DMPCs because I (a) create all the NPCs and (b) control them. Is that the "exactly right" reasoning that you are advocating? Really?

Boci
2009-11-17, 04:41 PM
That an NPC is "not a DMPC unless the DM is creating and controlling it." That sounds exactly right to you? Seriously? So I guess using that logic, I have entire worlds of DMPCs because I (a) create all the NPCs and (b) control them. Is that the "exactly right" reasoning that you are advocating? Really?

She also mentioned the DM needs a personel stake in the NPC to to make it an DMPC.

I once had a deliberatly annoying DMPC. He was useful, supplying the PCs with information, but he also got on their nerves. In the end they killed him. (And no, there was no 17th level cleric who just happened to know true rez in the area)

pres_man
2009-11-17, 04:49 PM
She also mentioned the DM needs a personel stake in the NPC to to make it an DMPC.

That was a different poster. Check the names. I think that Tyndmyr just stated their point poorly and probably could state it a better fashion. I'm sure that they didn't mean that an NPC becomes a DMPC if a DM creates it and runs it, as that is just idiotic since almost all NPCs are created and run by DMs. What I found strange is Lostfang actually found no flaw in that statement and actually found it "exactly right".

Tyndmyr
2009-11-17, 04:55 PM
I also stated PC in that description, though perhaps I didn't make the description clearly enough. In short, PCs and NPCs are typically quite different, and in such a world, a DMPC is one that the DM is essentially using as his/her personal PC.

The merchant you sell your gear to is not a DMPC. The hireling the players bring along to carry their loot or fill other mundane tasks is not a DMPC. The guy who routinely adventures with your party and has his own motives and actions controlled by the DM is.

pres_man
2009-11-17, 04:59 PM
I also stated PC in that description, though perhaps I didn't make the description clearly enough. In short, PCs and NPCs are typically quite different, and in such a world, a DMPC is one that the DM is essentially using as his/her personal PC.

The merchant you sell your gear to is not a DMPC. The hireling the players bring along to carry their loot or fill other mundane tasks is not a DMPC. The guy who routinely adventures with your party and has his own motives and actions controlled by the DM is.

Thank you. That makes a lot more sense.

Toliudar
2009-11-17, 05:08 PM
I've had all sorts of games in which a variety of NPC companions - from faceless and nameless servants through to family members of PC's, have been used. For me, the final arbiter remains: do the players want the character around? If there's no affection for the character (I'm dealing this in a dragonlance campaign, in which an ostensible "love interest" has so completely rubbed the player the wrong way that I need to writer her out as soon as possible), they need to go. If they're serving a plot function and the PC's are putting up with it, get ready to write them out as soon as the plot function is completed. If (in my experience) the players can remember the character's name and something about them, and laugh when they remember it, the character's in for a while.

I agree that when a DM has an emotional stake in the survival and success of an NPC, it can lead to problems. I kill off NPC's with tremendous regularity - they are the red shirts of my group. Doesn't mean the red shirts can't have motives and actions.

Emlyn
2009-11-17, 05:13 PM
What is the difference between #3 and a DMPC?

Title?

I have a DMPC in use right now mainly due to the party having 2 people. He's a drow assassin that tends to kill people when the begin to revel too much plot. This was by design as I wanted the players to hate him(in fact they attempted to kill him at one point, that went well.) It made things more interesting when they had the option to kill him after they found out he was being controlled by a psion and take his place or rescue him. They actually rescued him, which threw me for a loop.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-17, 05:20 PM
It made things more interesting when they had the option to kill him after they found out he was being controlled by a psion and take his place or rescue him. They actually rescued him, which threw me for a loop.

This is the proper reaction to DMPCs. Do the opposite of what your DM has planned for them. If he's going to great lengths to keep his precious alive, kill him, raise him, and kill him again until he stops accepting rezes or runs dry on levels. If a dramatic death is in order, throw a wrench in the works.

Ormagoden
2009-11-17, 05:22 PM
Is that the "exactly right" reasoning that you are advocating? Really?

Yup!

And looky looky you agree! Pass the cake!!!

Yukitsu
2009-11-17, 05:25 PM
DMPCs tend to make me optimize my defences harder. I get them up to the point that I can safely irritate the DMPCs by mocking them, making fools of them, taking their stuff, kidnapping or seducing their minions etc. Killing a DMPC makes the DM get angry once, making the character that the DM thought was totally cool into a complete jackass is much more satisfying in the long run.

If he pulls the "It's hundreds of levels above you." mallarky I just leave the game, and the rest of the group pretty much follows suit.

Thurbane
2009-11-17, 08:06 PM
When we played Shattered Gates, we had a DMPC to pad out the party. Bones, the 1/2 Orc Barbarian, from the Graveyard Stompers clan. He'd go into a rage every time we fought undead, particularly skeletons. :smallbiggrin:

Poor old Bones got killed in a battle with a Howler, in the end. I was pretty sad, because even though he was basically an NPC, my Wizard had built a friendship with him. :smallfrown:

Fhaolan
2009-11-17, 08:54 PM
*Blink*

So basically any NPC that has more than a statblock and a one-sentence description is a DMPC?

NPCs are not allowed to have nice things, apparantly.

Yukitsu
2009-11-17, 08:55 PM
Well, they do have a much more limited wealth by level than a PC, so I guess yeah, they aren't allowed nice things.

The_JJ
2009-11-17, 09:09 PM
Giwwy and Cap't Doom.

Best sidekicks ever. Pair of comedic foils that taged along while went sailin'.

Then we exploited the multiple rez clauses in the system (Either an intact torso or a brain would suffice.) His brain got put in tank by the baddies, so we figured we'd clone him.

Turns out we broke the universe and summoned an Eldrich Abomination into anthro-goldfish form, at which point it killed the good twin, sent Capt' Doom into a tizzy... and got talked into gooditude and stuff by the clerics, warped time back to before he killed people. Then the resident Trickster god/Eldrich Abomination honcho showed up, told us off for messing with the nature of causality and the fabric of space time (because that was his job) and left with the formerly-Evil clone.

Good times.

pres_man
2009-11-17, 10:47 PM
DMPC/NPC Ally discussions are almost always pretty funny to read. I remember about 6 years ago on the wizards boards hearing people say that any NPC that is with the party is a DMPC and a spotlight hog and broken and must be killed forthwith.
"So a 3rd level commoner who is watching the 12th level party's mounts while they explore a dungeon is a DMPC and must be killed?"
"YES!"
Seriously, there were discussions like that. And as you can see some people are very passionate about their hatred of any NPC playing in their sandbox.

Heck I remember having a discussion about DMPC/NPC allies and having a person tell me they were bad because they knew everything about the setting. Huh? Yeah, apparently it is impossible for a DM not keep his knowledge separate from the character's knowledge.

An underlying issue is that many people don't trust other players. They believe given a chance any player will cheat, munchkin, and steal the spotlight from the rest of the group. Given the DM has more access to the chance to cheat, they will therefore cheat every time and ruin the game for others if given the chance, thus why any NPC that attempts to join the party must be destroyed.

I personally think it is more fun to treat each character as would be appropriate without taking into consideration if the character is an NPC or a PC (with in reason of course). If a character is being a total jack-hole and making the entire party angry, they should be booted, no matter if the character is an NPC or a PC (which might mean the player has to make a more compatible character or perhaps find a different game). If a character is a boon to the party, then they should be embraced. I prefer to play the characters, so maybe I'm crazy.

EDIT: On topic, I had an orc cleric of Kord named Grog in the party. Sometimes he spoke like Arnold, sometimes like Stallone, he was "too stupid to have a constant accent". The party always seemed to get a kick out of his stupid comments about really obvious things. There was a "magi" bard (think Jedi) named Lothis. My wife says she always remembered him trying to help out and getting his butt handed to him and still singing for everyone's benefit (his "battle mediation"). Usually if I have a character in the party it is a support character helping the other players be better, this is true if it is an NPC or a PC (if I am a DM or a player).

The party currently has an NPC, that is a not a DMPC because I purposefully broke a lot of PC rules to make him. He is a celestial catfolk spirit shaman 3/dragon shaman 1 (for the healing aura) named Leopold. His father was a leonal that the party had met during the previous campaign and had left some artifacts with. He is basically acting as a bridge between the campaigns (and a healbot). Occasionally he'll jump into combat, but he usually is just as likely to get knocked out as do anything effective.

Choco
2009-11-17, 10:57 PM
DMPC/NPC Ally discussions are almost always pretty funny to read. I remember about 6 years ago on the wizards boards hearing people say that any NPC that is with the party is a DMPC and a spotlight hog and broken and must be killed forwith.
"So a 3rd level commoner who is watching the 12th level party's mounts while they explore a dungeon is a DMPC and must be killed?"
"YES!"
Seriously, there were discussions like that. And as you can see some people are very passionate about their hatred of any NPC playing in their sandbox.

Heck I remember having a discussion about DMPC/NPC allies and having a person tell me they were bad because they knew everything about the setting. Huh? Yeah, apparently it is impossible for a DM not keep his knowledge separate from the character's knowledge.

An underlying issue is that many people don't trust other players. They believe given a chance any player will cheat, munchkin, and steal the spotlight from the rest of the group. Given the DM has more access to the chance to cheat, they will therefore cheat every time and ruin the game for others if given the chance, thus why any NPC that attempts to join the party must be destroyed.

I personally think it is more fun to treat each character as would be appropriate without taking into consideration if the character is an NPC or a PC (with in reason of course). If a character is being a total jack-hole and making the entire party angry, they should be booted, no matter if the character is an NPC or a PC (which might mean the player has to make a more compatible character or perhaps find a different game). If a character is a boon to the party, then they should be embraced. I prefer to play the characters, so maybe I'm crazy.

THANK YOU!!

Finally someone who sees reason, who's judgement is not clouded by hate brought about from playing with "hardcore" groups!

I agree 100% with what you just said. It is amazing just how paranoid some players are, though you can't blame em given that they were likely made that way by playing with DM's and other players who literally were out to kill them for so long. It is amazing how being in that kind of game will often mess a player up for their entire RP career.

Dust
2009-11-18, 12:01 AM
In one of the the Mutants and Masterminds core books - a superhero setting - is a quick sample adventure involving a bank robbery with two twin, punk-teen villains calling themselves Rant and Rave.

Our GM was scrambling one day and quickly dropped that premade adventure on us while he tried to whip up something else for the rest of the session.

A few natural 20s on intimidate and good-cop persuasive rolls later, and my pacifistic emotion-control hero had recruited Rant and Rave into the forces of good. So they shed their villain names and became Rock and Roll instead.

The next game session they decided these new monikers were "ghey" were calling themselves Pause and Select, then Rose and Thorns, then Thunder and Lightning and so forth and so on...for about two RL years solid. It never got old.

The highlight was when they showed up to try and bail us out when we got captured by the mad scientist type villain and introduced themselves as Asskicker and Nametaker. Several facepalms occured.

Zorg
2009-11-18, 02:30 PM
*Blink*

So basically any NPC that has more than a statblock and a one-sentence description is a DMPC?

NPCs are not allowed to have nice things, apparantly.

I say the difference is thus:

NPC - great backstory, in every adventure, well defined personality etc. Can be high level, etc etc, but is in no way directly competing with the characters goals.

DMPC - I'll use an example or two here:

Playing a cyberpunkish/white wolfish game, we were battling four super cyborgs aboard a 747 over the Atlantic, protecting a traitor supercyborg. There were three of us, and the guy we were protecting (and had been for some time) could take on on himself. NPC guy we were protecting was handling one, and the other party members were each taking another.
The entirety of this adventure was this fight and, after about four real time hours of combat, I finally was about to kill my foe when NPC guy shows up and finishes my opponent with a single punch. :smallmad:

Similarly 'supercool' badguys who wear invincible plot armour - see my first character's arch nemesis, who they killed in their final adventures.

This nemesis re-appeared in a later campaign:
"Isn't that the Witch Queen?"
"Yes."
"My other character killed her."
"She's back."
"I stabber her in the head with a magic sword that consumed her body and very soul."
"She's too cool for me not to keep using. [paraphrased]"

Totally nullified my previous character's efforts, leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

See also sitting and listening for 30 minutes while GM describes his two super awesome characters battling it out. Here's a hint - how about you write it down and email it to me later so the other players in this game can do something aside from eat M&Ms and stare at our character sheets.


There is no such thing as a cool DMPC - there are very well done NPCs, but as soon as the DM has his or her own character in the party equal to the PCs he's getting double share of game time. One GM + three players equals a 25% share of 'screen time' on average. Add in a DMPC getting as much time as the PCs, and interacting with NPCs the same way a PC would, that cuts out 5% of my laying time at best, but DMPCs tend to be spotlight hogs and never as interesting as the GM thinks. Maybe this is because they get special builds and exemptions, maybe because they seem 'fake', maybe because they're playing the role the players of the PCs are their to play.


TL;DR: When a NPC gets more 'screentime' than a PC they're probably a DMPC (especially if the PCs find them tedious or annoying to be around). Similarly when they escape death or similar due to the GM not wanting to stop playing them, they're probably a DMPC.

DMPCs duplicate the PC's role, usually rendering a player (or most / all of the party) redundant - and you know the DMPC will be better than any of you.

Ormur
2009-11-18, 03:33 PM
NPC's are made for the player's to interact with. You can have cool monsters that are satisfying to kill, dangerous BBEG's with interesting goals to be thwarted and colourful townsfolk to talk to but they're all there to make the game fun for the PC's.

DMPC seem to be made not to be interacted with but to play out the adventure themselves and since the DM already knows all the NPC stats and back stories it gives them an unfair advantage and too much screen time. Why would I have players if talking to myself was so fun?

pres_man
2009-11-18, 03:43 PM
...NPC guy we were protecting was handling one, and the other party members were each taking another.
The entirety of this adventure was this fight and, after about four real time hours of combat, I finally was about to kill my foe when NPC guy shows up and finishes my opponent with a single punch. :smallmad:

So your "ally" dealt with his opponent slightly faster than you dealt with yours (you both took quite some time, 4 hours you say) and he decided to come to your aid and help you finish off your opponent. The horror! He should have just stood back and watched you keep fighting on your own and not tried to aid you at all. Yes, I can definitely see how that would be annoying, that your ally actually tried to aid you. Stupid allies.


Similarly 'supercool' badguys who wear invincible plot armour - see my first character's arch nemesis, who they killed in their final adventures.

This nemesis re-appeared in a later campaign:
"Isn't that the Witch Queen?"
"Yes."
"My other character killed her."
"She's back."
"I stabber her in the head with a magic sword that consumed her body and very soul."
"She's too cool for me not to keep using. [paraphrased]"

Totally nullified my previous character's efforts, leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.

Which I might point out is nothing like a PC (you know as in DMPC). In fact, thank you for this example, because it goes to show that a badly run character by the DM, is a badly run character, irregardless if the character is in the party or not. Not having an NPC in a party does not protect a group from a DM that intends to negate their actions and rain on their fun.


There is no such thing as a cool DMPC - there are very well done NPCs, but as soon as the DM has his or her own character in the party equal to the PCs he's getting double share of game time. One GM + three players equals a 25% share of 'screen time' on average. Add in a DMPC getting as much time as the PCs, and interacting with NPCs the same way a PC would, that cuts out 5% of my laying time at best,

Ok, finally a logical argument against DMPCs, time. There is a finite amount of time, and then more character a DM runs in a game then the less time a party has to "act" for themselves. Of course, there is the idea of quality versus quantity. Merely having more (stage) time is not necessarily going to enhance the roleplaying and fun a group. In fact having slightly less (stage) time but having some one that gives you cues is often going to enhance the game play.

I've found that the only person that truly remembers all of the details, things the individual characters would know but the players with their real life and week(s) of breaks between sessions often forget, is the DM. Having a DM run character conviently around to remind the party of something is often quite useful. "Ok we finally got the jade idol. ... Huh ... Does anyone remember why we want this thing?" "Yes, remember we needed it close the rift forming in the dwarven kingdom." "Right! Let's go guys, to the dwarven kingdom, we got to show those fiends a bit of what-for!"

Frosty
2009-11-18, 03:49 PM
There's a difference between merely have a douchebag DM and a DM that knows how to use NPCs correctly and not stealing the spotlight.

Shademan
2009-11-18, 03:53 PM
I like to believe I did right with the goblin dmpc i mentioned earlier. Since that campaign (run on gametable) usually only have two of the players present and the third one missing out it's kinda ok to have three voices in the party (I don't know the dwarfs personality well enough to npc him accordingly. not that it really matters since the goblin was with them since the begining).
And I think the players like him. He usually stays out of social interactions unless dragged into them, but he will protest on things being morally objectable (neutral good) and he is fine to use as a minor plot device. Being a wise man(er, goblin) he can come up with lore that the characters wouldn't otherwise know etc etc.
And spotlight? hah! he does like 1d4 damage in combat. If he uses a feat he does 2d4.
oh yeah, he is a monk

Frosty
2009-11-18, 04:00 PM
DMPCs tend to make me optimize my defences harder. I get them up to the point that I can safely irritate the DMPCs by mocking them, making fools of them, taking their stuff, kidnapping or seducing their minions etc. Killing a DMPC makes the DM get angry once, making the character that the DM thought was totally cool into a complete jackass is much more satisfying in the long run.

The DM doesn't need to pull a "many levels above you" schtick to punish you. Logical in-game consequences follow. If a priestess of Pelor who is well-liked by the community decides to assist you in a mutually beneficial quest to rid her town of an undead menace, and you start stealing from her and mocking her or even killing her, the town will probably turn on you.

That'd what I'd do as a DM if you start randomly, using OOC reasons to habitually harass NPCs.

John Campbell
2009-11-18, 04:39 PM
Sorry, but, no, that's not right. Such absolutes are never correct, since there is a time and place for everything. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :smallwink:

As for me, I have NPCs that sometimes join the party, with their permission (IC and OOC), sometimes for their own reasons, sometimes for good of the party. By technicalities, they are DMPCs, though I treat them as I would any other NPC. So far, no player has actively spoken out in anger towards this practice, not even one who is VERY strongly anti-DMPCs.

If you treat them like you would any other NPC, they're not DMPCs. They're NPCs that happen to be accompanying the party.

The way I figure it, the dividing line is here:

If you, as DM, say, "The troll attacks Bob, and... -roll- ...misses. Bob attacks the troll and... -roll,roll- ...hits, for 8 damage," then what you have is an NPC who accompanies the party, and you should be cautious in what you do with it, but it isn't necessarily a problem.

If you, as DM, say, "The troll attacks me, and... -roll- ...misses. I attack the troll and... -roll,roll- ...hit, for 8 damage," then what you have is a DMPC, and it can die in a fire. And if I'm in the game, I'll be doing my best to see that it does.

There are circumstances in which an NPC that accompanies the party might be a neutral or even good thing. There are no circumstances whatsoever in which a DMPC is ever a good thing. No one wants to watch the DM play with himself.

pres_man
2009-11-18, 04:53 PM
If you, as DM, say, "The troll attacks Bob, and... -roll- ...misses. Bob attacks the troll and... -roll,roll- ...hits, for 8 damage," then what you have is an NPC who accompanies the party, and you should be cautious in what you do with it, but it isn't necessarily a problem.

If you, as DM, say, "The troll attacks me, and... -roll- ...misses. I attack the troll and... -roll,roll- ...hit, for 8 damage," then what you have is a DMPC, and it can die in a fire. And if I'm in the game, I'll be doing my best to see that it does.

So does that mean if I am a player and not the DM, and choose to refer to my character in the third person ...
"Bob Dole, the elderly bard, will sing courage this round. That is what Bob Dole will do."
... does that make my character an NPC?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-18, 04:56 PM
An underlying issue is that many people don't trust other players. They believe given a chance any player will cheat, munchkin, and steal the spotlight from the rest of the group. Given the DM has more access to the chance to cheat, they will therefore cheat every time and ruin the game for others if given the chance, thus why any NPC that attempts to join the party must be destroyed.

They don't have to be cheating to be lame. Cheating does, however, guarantee that they are evil, and should be destroyed. To those who ask if I'm talking about the character or the player....yes.


I personally think it is more fun to treat each character as would be appropriate without taking into consideration if the character is an NPC or a PC (with in reason of course). If a character is being a total jack-hole and making the entire party angry, they should be booted, no matter if the character is an NPC or a PC (which might mean the player has to make a more compatible character or perhaps find a different game). If a character is a boon to the party, then they should be embraced. I prefer to play the characters, so maybe I'm crazy.

I have no problem assassinating a character that pisses off the entire party either. If your PC is imposing his moral code on everyone else, endangering the party for private gain, etc to the point where the other characters would reasonably take up the issue, there's a very high chance of you ending up dead/imprisoned/sold into slavery/expelled from the party.

That's a bit of a seperate issue from DMPCs, but no, just being a PC shouldn't give you immunity from the repercussions of your actions.


The party currently has an NPC, that is a not a DMPC because I purposefully broke a lot of PC rules to make him. He is a celestial catfolk spirit shaman 3/dragon shaman 1 (for the healing aura)....

Just because you broke lots of PC rules making a character is not sufficient to keep him from being a DMPC. In fact, breaking lots of rules ensures that if he is a DMPC, he needs to die a horrible death.

pres_man
2009-11-18, 05:00 PM
Just because you broke lots of PC rules making a character is not sufficient to keep him from being a DMPC. In fact, breaking lots of rules ensures that if he is a DMPC, he needs to die a horrible death.

If a character does not resemble a PC, then he is not a DMPC. He is a NPC ally of the party, nothing more, nothing less.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-18, 05:02 PM
If a character does not resemble a PC, then he is not a DMPC. He is a NPC ally of the party, nothing more, nothing less.

Breaking rules of character creation doesn't automatically make something an NPC.

It merely means he's a broken, illegal character.

If he's a DMPC or not depends on how the DM plays him. A broken illegal character is the worst kind of DMPC, in my experience.

pres_man
2009-11-18, 05:07 PM
Breaking rules of character creation doesn't automatically make something an NPC.

It merely means he's a broken, illegal character.

If he's a DMPC or not depends on how the DM plays him. A broken illegal character is the worst kind of DMPC, in my experience.

So a dragon foe is a broken, illegal character because it can be made without the character creation rules the party is allowed?

Again, I think your dislike of NPC allies is making you state things in a fashion that don't make a lot of sense. Lots of NPCs use rules that are not available to players for character creation. Heck some NPCs can't be played as a character race (oozes for example). Saying that DM creates a character uses rules different than those available for the PCs is making a "broken, illegal character" is just silly.

EDIT: As for the comment about "how the DM plays him", please clarify. And when you do so, make sure that your descriptions wouldn't make certain player characters become "NPC"s. See my above statement about Bob Dole the old bard.

Oslecamo
2009-11-18, 05:19 PM
One of my DMs made what was basicaly a DMparty, of almost epic characters he tought would make the ultimate combination. They were the legends of the realm, taking care of the biggest problems while we did minor tasks like taking care of the gnoll tribes, hunting a lychantrope clan and raids on the demonic outposts of the material plane.

Luckily however that's pretty much everything we heard from them. The DM was smart/kind enough to don't spend more than the strictly necessary time to tell just how awesome his DMparty was.

The rest of the time, they would just apear momentarily to give us new quests/rewards.

The few times a member of our party tried to turn against them ended up with "DMnpcs falls, you get uncoscious(roll a save if you wish, but you'll never make it), the rest of the party finds you tomorrow bound and gagged up".

One particular time we ended up begging for the help of one of them to rescue the party's tank that had been inprisioned in a demonic base after trying to charge a Balor at lv10. And both of the Balor bodyguards.

Granted, it was naive of us to assume that when the DM told us that a big badass demon was passing by our position, ignoring us, he actualy meant a big badass demon we had no chance to defeat.

The tank was rescued in one day, but we had to pay a fat price for it. Meh, still less than we would have lost in terms of equipment of said tank(new characters started pretty much naked).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-18, 05:21 PM
So a dragon foe is a broken, illegal character because it can be made without the character creation rules the party is allowed?

Again, I think your dislike of NPC allies is making you state things in a fashion that don't make a lot of sense. Lots of NPCs use rules that are not available to players for character creation. Heck some NPCs can't be played as a character race (oozes for example). Saying that DM creates a character uses rules different than those available for the PCs is making a "broken, illegal character" is just silly.

EDIT: As for the comment about "how the DM plays him", please clarify. And when you do so, make sure that your descriptions wouldn't make certain player characters become "NPC"s. See my above statement about Bob Dole the old bard.

No, it's a perfectly legal monster. ECL and level adjustment are different. Just because the players can't play it doesn't make it forbidden for use as an adversary. Technically, you can end up as an ooze. It takes time and a PrC, but it's legal. There are also perfectly legal rules for draconic characters. Lots and lots of them.

However, if the DM makes a DMPC by taking whatever draconic options he thinks are cool, with no regard for what the rules limit him too, you have a problem.

I think you're making the assumption that DMPC == NPC. This is not the case. This has already been addressed, but to be a DMPC, the DM has to be playing him like a PC. If he is not, then it's not a DMPC. You can have bad NPCs too, but that's a seperate problem. You can also have NPCs with the party that are not DMPCs.

Crafty Cultist
2009-11-18, 05:36 PM
I think you're making the assumption that DMPC == NPC. This is not the case. This has already been addressed, but to be a DMPC, the DM has to be playing him like a PC. If he is not, then it's not a DMPC. You can have bad NPCs too, but that's a seperate problem. You can also have NPCs with the party that are not DMPCs.

I agree. if the character is an NPC they will act and react like everyone else, even when they work alongside the party. a DMPC will have the world revolve around them because of the DM's desire to have them succeed

Gnomo
2009-11-18, 05:46 PM
In my case, like some others have said, the DMPCs I have had have been created by the party, they were just regular NPCs that the players took a liking for (whatever the reason) and I just played along.

One very memorable was teenage human expert with an 16 Int and all the feats spent in skill related stuff, his name was Shorty McSailor, cause he was supposed to be the cheapest boat ride in one of the adventures and they took it, he was a kickass sailor and when one of the character realized how smart he was he tried to teach him magic... in the end I agreed to give him a Wizard level and that's when he became a DMPC, one that doesn't do anything useful at battles anyway, just lurks around trying not to get killed, after that he started to travel with the characters handling the ship they bought after becoming wealthy.

Deadmeat.GW
2009-11-18, 06:02 PM
She also mentioned the DM needs a personel stake in the NPC to to make it an DMPC.

I once had a deliberatly annoying DMPC. He was useful, supplying the PCs with information, but he also got on their nerves. In the end they killed him. (And no, there was no 17th level cleric who just happened to know true rez in the area)

Hum, so the npc that hires the party to give the GM a reason to hand the adventure to the party by that definition is a DMPC, heck, getting your PLOT to the players seems to be one of the things a GM has BIG stake in if only so that you have you know a game...

I have the impression that people use the excuse that ''the GM has a stake into a npc'' as an excuse to kill anything that they think they can get away with or can get them something shiny instantly for no cost...ussually regardless of professed alignment...

pres_man
2009-11-18, 07:02 PM
I think you're making the assumption that DMPC == NPC. This is not the case. This has already been addressed, but to be a DMPC, the DM has to be playing him like a PC. If he is not, then it's not a DMPC. You can have bad NPCs too, but that's a seperate problem. You can also have NPCs with the party that are not DMPCs.

And if the character is not build like a PC, and thus not being played like a PC, it is not a DMPC. Thank you, that is what I said in the first place. Using different rules and not PC character creation rules, means it is not a DMPC. In order to be played like a PC, it has to be ... like a PC. If it is unlike a PC, then it can't be played like a PC.

EDIT: I might also point out that any character run by the DM is an NPC. Thus all DMPCs are by definition NPCs. That doesn't means all NPCs are DMPCs. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. DMPC is a subset of NPCs. And I would suggest that poorly run NPCs are a different subset of NPCs that of course intersects the DMPC subset, but the DMPC subset is not necessarily a subset of the poorly run NPC subset. :smallcool:

Tyndmyr
2009-11-18, 11:02 PM
And if the character is not build like a PC, and thus not being played like a PC, it is not a DMPC.:

Uh, how a character is built has nothing to do with how it's played. You can make a character using normal character creation rules, and play him like an NPC or make one using no rules at all, and play him like a PC.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-18, 11:04 PM
I'd just like to go on the record again: The only good DMPC is a dead one.

pres_man
2009-11-19, 12:35 AM
Uh, how a character is built has nothing to do with how it's played. You can make a character using normal character creation rules, and play him like an NPC or make one using no rules at all, and play him like a PC.

Then please describe how one plays a character as a "PC" and as a "NPC". And please write the description so that it takes into account not only the characters a DM runs but also the characters other players run. Again see my example of Bob Dole the old bard above for complications to consider.

Kylarra
2009-11-19, 02:18 AM
There are no complications to consider with your bard, he's a strawman. 1st/3rd person references are irrelevant and obfuscating the point.


As your character is your avatar in the gameworld, a DMPC represents the DM's avatar in the gameworld. A DMPC is literally the DM's Player Character.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 02:33 AM
What she said.

The significance is that the DM identifies with the character as his. That's what makes something a DMPC. How players describe their characters is irrelevant, because they cannot make DMPCs....they are not DMs.



On a pedantic level, yes, PCs can also run NPCs. If they hire, say, a commoner to carry their loot. He's merely part of the world. Sure, he may eventually develop a personality, and become a part of the story, but by default, he's just a guy.

Indon
2009-11-19, 08:22 AM
As your character is your avatar in the gameworld, a DMPC represents the DM's avatar in the gameworld. A DMPC is literally the DM's Player Character.

That definition is logically impossible.

A DMPC is a generally plot-favored NPC.

Frequently, DMPC's are also favored mechanically, in order to facilitate the plot. Like any NPC, a DMPC can be run poorly or run well. Unlike any NPC, the pivotal position of a DMPC makes poor use of the character that much more obvious.

I'll give an example of the last DMPC I used in a game, and why I think the players expressed approval for the character (which I should note that they did).

The character was a Sidereal Exalt in a game of Exalted. Sidereals, interestingly, make for awesomely good DMPC's by virtue of their nature, but I'm digressing. Anyway, this fellow was particularly politically inept, and had managed to land in such dire straits that he was given a task that nobody seriously believed he would accomplish, or really even survive, such that he could be quickly and neatly reincarnated in the hopes that the next Chosen would be a bit more tactful.

This fellow had a different idea - instead, he started finagling in Heaven's bureaucracy to conceal the exaltations of select individuals from his fellows and assembled them into a circle which he could use for his own ends.

Now, with a circle of relatively fresh Exalts, he set about guiding the party in the Sidereal way - cryptic advice and guidance. Those times he did travel with the party, he proved largely inept at combat (at least, by Exalted standards), and in fact one time in combat when he did succeed at something important, the group actually cheered for him.

Anyway, as the players grew more experienced with the game and my style, I was able to slowly transition from holding their hands with my DMPC towards a more sandbox-oriented approach. Sadly, the campaign disintegrated due to player availibility reasons before I could bring him back as a villain.

As NPC's go, this fellow recieved exceptional attention both mechanically and in terms of plot, and I did not hesitate to quietly bend the rules in his favor when it suited my purposes.

I'm not quite sure what I would have done, admittedly, had I some Chaotic Psychotic player decide to randomly kill the Sidereal simply because he was there and he was plot-pivotal, as it seems could have happened with some of the players at this forum. But barring that, the character seemed to have done quite well and my group not only viewed him favorably, but will probably enjoy the next time they encounter him in my new Exalted campaign (possibly with their old PC's, not sure yet).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 08:58 AM
A plot-favored NPC is different from a DMPC, though yes, the two overlap quite often. Not exactly the same, though.

The king that gives you missions? Yeah, due to the plot, he has an unusual amount of power. This can be quite normal. Of course, it is also possible to use non-DMPC NPCs poorly, but it's a different problem, with often different problems.

As for him travelling with the party, and you frequently bending the rules in his favor whenever you wished, that's pretty shaky ground. If someone legitimately killed him, and you said "no"...you screwed up. Thankfully, that didn't happen to you, but regardless of NPC/DMPC/whatever...if you give the PCs the opportunity to kill something, they often will. Plan for that possibility, rather than making the entire plot hinge on a single character.

Kalirren
2009-11-19, 08:59 AM
That definition is logically impossible.

Why is that definition logically impossible? It only really is if you look upon a DM as someone apart from the players, as opposed to the player who (also) has the responsibility of moderating the game environment and playing the devil's advocate.

In practice I find that the only games I've truly liked as a player were the ones where multiple DMPCs were used, mainly because they helped contextualize my own character. A game without that contextualization feels fake because the PCs then become insular: they're "special" in a way, and that's just kludgy.

Indon
2009-11-19, 09:34 AM
As for him travelling with the party, and you frequently bending the rules in his favor whenever you wished, that's pretty shaky ground. If someone legitimately killed him, and you said "no"...you screwed up. Thankfully, that didn't happen to you, but regardless of NPC/DMPC/whatever...if you give the PCs the opportunity to kill something, they often will. Plan for that possibility, rather than making the entire plot hinge on a single character.

It's Exalted. Saying "no" to someone trying to kill you is a fundamental and common game mechanic, and one that I used a few times for him, albeit towards NPC's. I even let him stunt the charm for use on the whole party once (I have a houserule in which I allow for charms to be used in unusual ways with a stunt in lieu of the standard benefits).

Honestly, I guess I'm just lucky I was DMing for adults with extensive tabletop experience, rather than inexperienced players more interested in screwing around than engaging in a roleplaying game. I imagine I'd be unwilling to DM anything particularly complex for such a group, so I would indeed not make the plot hinge on a single character.

Instead, I would give such a group far more straightforward plots, probably with few friendly NPC's at all - more like Diablo than Morrowind.


Why is that definition logically impossible? It only really is if you look upon a DM as someone apart from the players, as opposed to the player who (also) has the responsibility of moderating the game environment and playing the devil's advocate.

Well, aside from the DM being the person who runs the Non-Player Characters, there's also the fact that DMPC's are not necessarily beholden to the rules PC's have to abide by - they can interact with the rules as NPC's, a freedom PC's lack.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 09:44 AM
It's Exalted. Saying "no" to someone trying to kill you is a fundamental and common game mechanic, and one that I used a few times for him, albeit towards NPC's.

I don't disagree that Exalted contains ways to become effectively immortal...or at least, rather close to it. I disagree that you should bypass the actual rules by just saying "no, I don't die".

Exalted or not, nobody wants to see the god-npc displaying how badass he is by pwning other npcs.

Zorg
2009-11-19, 10:07 AM
So your "ally" dealt with his opponent slightly faster than you dealt with yours (you both took quite some time, 4 hours you say) and he decided to come to your aid and help you finish off your opponent. The horror! He should have just stood back and watched you keep fighting on your own and not tried to aid you at all. Yes, I can definitely see how that would be annoying, that your ally actually tried to aid you. Stupid allies.

Well given I was 'the fighter' of the group, and this was 'my moment' so to speak, yeah. It was also that he did it with one punch. These dudes took anti tank rockets to damage, let alone kill. If he could do that why did it take so long to kill the other one?

Say your character is a diplomat. You've just spent 4 hours talking King Bob around to doing something majorly important. Then just as he's wavering and you can taste the victory of winning him over, the DMPC walks in and says "hey Bob, it's me Sergei from school! I think you should make the deal.". Bob replies "Hey Sergei! For you, of course I'll make the deal!"
My comment was basically "So why is my character in the party again?"




Which I might point out is nothing like a PC (you know as in DMPC). In fact, thank you for this example, because it goes to show that a badly run character by the DM, is a badly run character, irregardless if the character is in the party or not. Not having an NPC in a party does not protect a group from a DM that intends to negate their actions and rain on their fun.

Well without going into a four thousand word dissertation on the character, they were more like a hostile PC run by the GM than an NPC. They didn't act the same or be described the same as the NPCs in the world - they were run the same way the GM ran his PCs when he was just a PC. Only this time there was no one to rein in the 'coolness' of the DM's dream character. At one point he basically said they were unkillable because he didn't want to stop playing her. Despite his giving us repeated missions to kill her. We ended up just ignoring refusing to do them as we knew they were impossible and frustrating.




Ok, finally a logical argument against DMPCs, time. There is a finite amount of time, and then more character a DM runs in a game then the less time a party has to "act" for themselves. Of course, there is the idea of quality versus quantity. Merely having more (stage) time is not necessarily going to enhance the roleplaying and fun a group. In fact having slightly less (stage) time but having some one that gives you cues is often going to enhance the game play.

I've found that the only person that truly remembers all of the details, things the individual characters would know but the players with their real life and week(s) of breaks between sessions often forget, is the DM. Having a DM run character conviently around to remind the party of something is often quite useful. "Ok we finally got the jade idol. ... Huh ... Does anyone remember why we want this thing?" "Yes, remember we needed it close the rift forming in the dwarven kingdom." "Right! Let's go guys, to the dwarven kingdom, we got to show those fiends a bit of what-for!"

I see that as more a good NPC than a DMPC. Same as high level antagonists, Kings who give missions, and accompanying Priests. A good GM knows when to let the NPCs fade into the background - usually at the climax of a story arc such as a major showdown. It is rare that the PCs will not be the ones to be striving to defeat the bad guy at the end of the story, and having an NPC get and equal piece of the pie is often taking from their moment of glory.
How often when telling 'war stories' to players recount epic battles betwwen NPCs? Funny ones pretty often, but not epic battles between super bad-ass NPCs. They'll tell you in great detail of what they and the other PCs did, and how the GM constantly did evil things to them, but I'm yet to hear someone gushing about how they got to sit and watch while the GM played with himself.

onthetown
2009-11-19, 10:08 AM
Am I the only person who likes DMPCs? :smallconfused:

I'm a shy person by nature and it's hard for me to play in a large group of people, so most often I'm solo with my DM. Maybe he's just good at making the DMPCs that my characters party with, but I've never had any major issues with them.

Alex112524
2009-11-19, 11:10 AM
I see that a good bit of the conversation in this thread has turned to what is or is not a DMPC, so I'd like to try and answer that in a satisfactory way. To start off, I'll define a PC.

A PC is not just something that a person in real life controls completely, as every thing in a game is controlled completely by someone, a PC is a player's avatar in the game world, a character who's player feels ownership towards and identifies with, and who's main purpose is to accomplish in the game world what the player wants done.

An NPC is not this, their main purpose is to interact with the PCs and to be the world, no one feels ownership of them or responsible for their well being like they would for their PC. Finally, an NPC is not their for wish fulfillment, they are not there just to do cool things just because the person running them wants them to, though they can, it's not their purpose, and they certainly do not carry the plot by themselves, it is their interactions with the PCs that make up and advance the plot.

A DMPC is a character controlled by the DM that exhibits features of a PC, the DM doesn't want them to die, or have their stuff taken or broken, or lose at anything, for reasons that don't have anything to do with the story, similarly to a Player and their PC. They treat this character as their avatar, it's purpose is to whatever they want it to do, in ways that may have nothing to do with the plot. They are often capable of carrying the plot forward by themselves, without any input or interaction from non-DM PCs. I've seen a lot of examples of good NPCs that people have called DMPCs, like that sailor that the players liked and taught him how to be a wizard, he was just an NPC who the players liked, so they kept him around. If it's a DMPC, the DM will keep the character around, no matter what any one else thinks about it.

I guess that's it, I think I got most of what I wanted to say, but I don't feel like writing anymore :smalltongue:

Fhaolan
2009-11-19, 11:42 AM
I see that a good bit of the conversation in this thread has turned to what is or is not a DMPC, so I'd like to try and answer that in a satisfactory way. To start off, I'll define a PC.

A PC is not just something that a person in real life controls completely, as every thing in a game is controlled completely by someone, a PC is a player's avatar in the game world, a character who's player feels ownership towards and identifies with, and who's main purpose is to accomplish in the game world what the player wants done.

An NPC is not this, their main purpose is to interact with the PCs and to be the world, no one feels ownership of them or responsible for their well being like they would for their PC. Finally, an NPC is not their for wish fulfillment, they are not there just to do cool things just because the person running them wants them to, though they can, it's not their purpose, and they certainly do not carry the plot by themselves, it is their interactions with the PCs that make up and advance the plot.

A DMPC is a character controlled by the DM that exhibits features of a PC, the DM doesn't want them to die, or have their stuff taken or broken, or lose at anything, for reasons that don't have anything to do with the story, similarly to a Player and their PC. They treat this character as their avatar, it's purpose is to whatever they want it to do, in ways that may have nothing to do with the plot. They are often capable of carrying the plot forward by themselves, without any input or interaction from non-DM PCs. I've seen a lot of examples of good NPCs that people have called DMPCs, like that sailor that the players liked and taught him how to be a wizard, he was just an NPC who the players liked, so they kept him around. If it's a DMPC, the DM will keep the character around, no matter what any one else thinks about it.

I guess that's it, I think I got most of what I wanted to say, but I don't feel like writing anymore :smalltongue:

So... basically it sounds like people are blaming the DMPC, and taking their ire out on it, for what is a DM problem.

If the DM is incapable of running PC-like NPCs without them turning into douches, then they really shouldn't be DMs. Take the DMPC away from them, and the douchery will express itself in other ways. Unsolvable puzzles, undisarmable traps, encounters you can't win or run away from.

Because all of it is just passive-aggressive 'I'm better/smarter than you' wish fulfillment. Unless a DM grows out of this, he's not going to be a good DM.

Kylarra
2009-11-19, 11:57 AM
Am I the only person who likes DMPCs? :smallconfused:

I'm a shy person by nature and it's hard for me to play in a large group of people, so most often I'm solo with my DM. Maybe he's just good at making the DMPCs that my characters party with, but I've never had any major issues with them.Well, in a one on one context, then yes, there is not really as much of an issue of spotlight whoring considering there's only one other person to consider. :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 12:00 PM
So... basically it sounds like people are blaming the DMPC, and taking their ire out on it, for what is a DM problem.

If the DM is incapable of running PC-like NPCs without them turning into douches, then they really shouldn't be DMs. Take the DMPC away from them, and the douchery will express itself in other ways. Unsolvable puzzles, undisarmable traps, encounters you can't win or run away from.

Because all of it is just passive-aggressive 'I'm better/smarter than you' wish fulfillment. Unless a DM grows out of this, he's not going to be a good DM.

DMPCs ARE a DM problem. You can have perfectly good campaigns without DMPCs, and while yes, there are other problems caused by bad DMs as well...that doesn't mean you should just ignore one.

pres_man
2009-11-19, 12:14 PM
A DMPC is a character controlled by the DM that exhibits features of a PC, the DM doesn't want them to die, or have their stuff taken or broken, or lose at anything, for reasons that don't have anything to do with the story, similarly to a Player and their PC. They treat this character as their avatar, it's purpose is to whatever they want it to do, in ways that may have nothing to do with the plot. They are often capable of carrying the plot forward by themselves, without any input or interaction from non-DM PCs. I've seen a lot of examples of good NPCs that people have called DMPCs, like that sailor that the players liked and taught him how to be a wizard, he was just an NPC who the players liked, so they kept him around. If it's a DMPC, the DM will keep the character around, no matter what any one else thinks about it.


I find the bolded part the most telling here. Personally I prefer not to play with non-DM players who exhibit the behavior you are describing here, which I guess is why I have no problem with a DM run character being played like any other character. Since the other player's characters are being played as not douchebags, DM playing a character in a fashion similar to them (i.e. non-douchebag) is no problem. Perhaps the problem is with the types of players people game with. If you can't trust the other people at the table not to be douchebags, unless you are one yourself, I wonder why you would tolerate playing with such people.

Alex112524
2009-11-19, 12:31 PM
I find the bolded part the most telling here. Personally I prefer not to play with non-DM players who exhibit the behavior you are describing here, which I guess is why I have no problem with a DM run character being played like any other character. Since the other player's characters are being played as not douchebags, DM playing a character in a fashion similar to them (i.e. non-douchebag) is no problem. Perhaps the problem is with the types of players people game with. If you can't trust the other people at the table not to be douchebags, unless you are one yourself, I wonder why you would tolerate playing with such people.

So you want all of your characters to fail at the things they try to accomplish, like losing your gear for no reason, and like seeing monsters tear up your character and have them for lunch? And all of the people you play with are like that? Or do you want to see your character prevail over long odds, gather cool items that enhance their abilities and help them accomplish tasks, and want your characters to actually survive encounters with monsters? Not wining all the time and not getting everything you want is obviously not interesting, but that doesn't mean you don't want your PC to come out on top most of the time. However, a DM should not be invested in a character like that, otherwise it becomes very tempting to always give that character good and cool items and arbitrarily decide that the just so happen to succeed at most of their endeavors, and that is usually a bad thing.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 12:46 PM
For those who think DMPCs are a viable option, I suggest the following. DM a game for yourself. Just you.

See how long it remains fun, and how well it works in comparison with a more traditional character in a normal game. Pretty hard to surprise yourself, or do any number of tactics that a normal DM could do vs players, isn't it? If this wasn't true, DM screens would not exist.

Now, think to yourself...would having a bunch of spectators make this any better or more fun? If your answer is yes, please procede to smack yourself with a book until the ego goes away.

Ormagoden
2009-11-19, 01:04 PM
Am I the only person who likes DMPCs? :smallconfused:

I'm a shy person by nature and it's hard for me to play in a large group of people, so most often I'm solo with my DM. Maybe he's just good at making the DMPCs that my characters party with, but I've never had any major issues with them.

Defiantly not.
I however like well played, non-annoying, non-spotlight hogging, DMNPCs.

Since I generally game with a group smaller than 4 I have the opportunity to introduce NPCs with greater depth that tag along with the party for a while quite often (read DMPC)


Just to be clear because apparently posters in this thread like pres_man need a ludicrously well formed definition for everything.

NPC= Any character the DM plays.
DMPC= Any character the DM plays that
A) hangs out with the party for a while.
B) has a good backstory
C) acts like a party member
D) the DM enjoys roleplaying
E) doesn't outshine player RP
F) functions well in and out of combat
G) is an ally of the party (Not an enemy)
H) is of the same level of the party
I) levels with the party
J) the players enjoy roleplaying with
K) the party considers a friend
L) doesn't use DM fiat to be "cool"
M) do not railroad the party
N) do not represent the DM in play
O) do not have premonition of plot

I think the main gripe of this thread can be summed up as.
DMPCs that break the rules to be cool, hinder the party, and/or railroad the party suck. Therefore all DMPCs suck.

Which I don't feel is the case.

Indon
2009-11-19, 01:12 PM
Exalted or not, nobody wants to see the god-npc displaying how badass he is by pwning other npcs.

A fine point regarding how to make a good DMPC: Make your DMPC good at something the group can't do (in my case, fate manipulation), but not at something the group does do (in my case, and many others, combat).


DMPCs ARE a DM problem. You can have perfectly good campaigns without DMPCs, and while yes, there are other problems caused by bad DMs as well...that doesn't mean you should just ignore one.

You can have a perfectly good campaign without a lot of things. That doesn't necessarily make any of them bad.

In this case, bad DMPC's are bad, but not all are bad.


For those who think DMPCs are a viable option, I suggest the following. DM a game for yourself. Just you.

Amusing trivia: The 4th edition books have a section on this.

Anyway, frankly, it sounds like bad experiences have soured you to the very concept, such that you automatically associate "DMPC" with "Badly-played Mary Sue character run by the DM". This is a character type by no means monopolized by (though aggrivated by) the DM position, and one which is generally indicative of poor roleplaying - a personal problem, not a systemic one.

And not all DMPCs are like that.

Fhaolan
2009-11-19, 01:32 PM
DMPCs ARE a DM problem. You can have perfectly good campaigns without DMPCs, and while yes, there are other problems caused by bad DMs as well...that doesn't mean you should just ignore one.

No, you don't ignore it. But it's trying to deal with a symptom rather than the root of the issue. The root of the problem of DMPCs, is the fact you have a douchebag DM.

A reasonable DM should be capable of having a DMPC that *isn't* a show-stealing, mary-sue, 'play with yourself' character that can assist (or hinder, if it's a villain) the party. If the DM can't do that, then it's not a 'Reasonable DM'. It's a douchebag DM, and you should use that as a signal to replace DMs. Taking it out on the DMPC doesn't *do* anything except hide the issue for it to crop up later in the game some other way.

It's like someone who knows he has a nut allergy making himself a PB&J sandwich and eating it. The sandwitch is not at fault here, it's the idiot eating it. The DMPC is not at fault, the DM is.

Yes, you can have perfectly good campaigns without DMPCs. But you can also have perfectly good campaigns *with* DMPCs. The quality of the campaign has *NOTHING* to do with DMPCs. Instead it has to do with the quality of the DM. Again, if the DM can't handle DMPCs without them turning into the horror stories I read here, then he's a low-quality DM (or simply inexperienced) and he can't really run a 'perfectly good campaign'.

Yukitsu
2009-11-19, 01:39 PM
Why should you *need* something more than an NPC to help the party? If it's active in combat, and is for some reason necessary in combat, then you could instead scale back combat a little. If it's for plot, they can hand it to you and bugger off. If you're supposed to protect them, then they shouldn't be in the lime light. Even if your DM is otherwise excellent, you'd be wasting my time if you spend a 5th of each combat describing what Ted the DM's PC does, and frankly, if my time is going to get wasted, I'd rather it be on another party member.

Basically, there is no situation where the DM should be forcing this extra entity into the party, even if he is good enough to theoretically run one. There's simply no point beyond either showing off, or as some condescending notion that the party simply can't succeed without their "divine" assistance.

Toliudar
2009-11-19, 01:56 PM
Why should you *need* something more than an NPC to help the party? If it's active in combat, and is for some reason necessary in combat, then you could instead scale back combat a little. If it's for plot, they can hand it to you and bugger off. If you're supposed to protect them, then they shouldn't be in the lime light. Even if your DM is otherwise excellent, you'd be wasting my time if you spend a 5th of each combat describing what Ted the DM's PC does, and frankly, if my time is going to get wasted, I'd rather it be on another party member.

There are a few elements here that I'll take issue with. In most reasonable games, there IS no distinction between an NPC and DMPC. The only difference is in the attitude of the DM. If you're engaged in a battle on a city street, noting the actions of the town guards that show up and begin acting is not a waste of time - it's part of the situation.


Basically, there is no situation where the DM should be forcing this extra entity into the party, even if he is good enough to theoretically run one. There's simply no point beyond either showing off, or as some condescending notion that the party simply can't succeed without their "divine" assistance.

This I agree with. As I said before, if the players don't want the NPC around, it should be possible to make their involvement in the story brief. If they want the NPC around, why is it a problem?

Choco
2009-11-19, 02:03 PM
No, you don't ignore it. But it's trying to deal with a symptom rather than the root of the issue. The root of the problem of DMPCs, is the fact you have a douchebag DM.

A reasonable DM should be capable of having a DMPC that *isn't* a show-stealing, mary-sue, 'play with yourself' character that can assist (or hinder, if it's a villain) the party. If the DM can't do that, then it's not a 'Reasonable DM'. It's a douchebag DM, and you should use that as a signal to replace DMs. Taking it out on the DMPC doesn't *do* anything except hide the issue for it to crop up later in the game some other way.

It's like someone who knows he has a nut allergy making himself a PB&J sandwich and eating it. The sandwitch is not at fault here, it's the idiot eating it. The DMPC is not at fault, the DM is.

Yes, you can have perfectly good campaigns without DMPCs. But you can also have perfectly good campaigns *with* DMPCs. The quality of the campaign has *NOTHING* to do with DMPCs. Instead it has to do with the quality of the DM. Again, if the DM can't handle DMPCs without them turning into the horror stories I read here, then he's a low-quality DM (or simply inexperienced) and he can't really run a 'perfectly good campaign'.

What he said.

Talk to the DM about the DMPC's being douchebags and stealing the spotlight etc. If they are good DM's, they will realize "hey, the players, whos enjoyment I should be tailoring the game to, do not like this as much as I thought they might, and I guess I did get a little carried away, maybe I should resolve the situation so the players can have more fun". If not, then it is in fact time to find a new DM.


Why should you *need* something more than an NPC to help the party? If it's active in combat, and is for some reason necessary in combat, then you could instead scale back combat a little. If it's for plot, they can hand it to you and bugger off. If you're supposed to protect them, then they shouldn't be in the lime light. Even if your DM is otherwise excellent, you'd be wasting my time if you spend a 5th of each combat describing what Ted the DM's PC does, and frankly, if my time is going to get wasted, I'd rather it be on another party member.

Basically, there is no situation where the DM should be forcing this extra entity into the party, even if he is good enough to theoretically run one. There's simply no point beyond either showing off, or as some condescending notion that the party simply can't succeed without their "divine" assistance.

I generally agree with you, but my group in particular are actualy roleplayers as opposed to rollplayers which means our DM's (me included) gotta do what we gotta do to make it believable. For example, a paladin is in town gathering willing people to help him clear out some undead infestation. Should the PC's elect to help out, it would not make sense for the paladin to not come along with them unless he had something more important to do back in town (which would be unlikely, cause chances are he in town to specifically clear out the undead). While that would not qualify as a DMPC, it would still be an NPC with the party for both combat and plot reasons. He is not necessarily needed, but it makes more sense story-wise for him to be there than not. If I had the paladin just give the players directions and then tell them to scram and report back, they would look at me and go "really? the guy we are supposed to be 'helping' clear undead is just gonna sit back and make us do all the work like some politician?" Of course, if the overweight mayor came begging them to save his town from undead it's a different story.

But, that is just my group. If I had a group of players like Tyndmyr I would have to tailor my style to match.

Indon
2009-11-19, 02:07 PM
Basically, there is no situation where the DM should be forcing this extra entity into the party, even if he is good enough to theoretically run one. There's simply no point beyond either showing off, or as some condescending notion that the party simply can't succeed without their "divine" assistance.

It's not a matter of 'should'. It's one of many options, each of which can offer a different experience.

Also, not all DMPC's are more powerful than the party. Please do not equate a DMPC with a mary sue wish-fulfillment character.

Jayabalard
2009-11-19, 02:11 PM
DMPCs ARE a DM problem. You can have perfectly good campaigns without DMPCs, and while yes, there are other problems caused by bad DMs as well...that doesn't mean you should just ignore one.You can have perfectly good campaigns without traps, or puzzles, or any number of other things; you can have perfectly good campaigns with DMPCs. The quality of the game has nothing to do with whether those elements are present or not.

The DMPC isn't, in and of itself, a problem; the problems come about due to how they're used; a terrible DM is going to be terrible, whether they use DMPC's or not. Even a bad DMPC is only a symptom of the actual problem, not the problem itself.

Yukitsu
2009-11-19, 02:12 PM
It's not a matter of 'should'. It's one of many options, each of which can offer a different experience.

Also, not all DMPC's are more powerful than the party. Please do not equate a DMPC with a mary sue wish-fulfillment character.

I didn't say more powerful than the party. I said the DM thinks the party can't handle XY or Z without it, either because he thinks the party is incompetent, or he thinks he's gods gift to gaming. Either way, the best solution is not the one involving a fifth of all combats involving the DM fighting off himself, succesfully or not.

Ormagoden
2009-11-19, 02:20 PM
Also, not all DMPC's are more powerful than the party. Please do not equate a DMPC with a mary sue wish-fulfillment character.

That seems to be what most everyone is doing.

I run a living world. Not a ball of dirt filled with vapid faceless support characters, Sorry.

Don't like description?
Don't like investing your time in the stories of characters that aren't the PCs?

I guess I can make a world with only the PCs, Unintelligent monsters, and a vending robot that purchases items, sells items, and enchants your items for you.

I think they call those video games though...

Boci
2009-11-19, 02:22 PM
I didn't say more powerful than the party. I said the DM thinks the party can't handle XY or Z without it, either because he thinks the party is incompetent, or he thinks he's gods gift to gaming. Either way, the best solution is not the one involving a fifth of all combats involving the DM fighting off himself, succesfully or not.

Sometimes a DMPC who can hold his own in combat without steping on the PC's toes can be useful if there is a lot of obscure setting info that needs to be fed periodically to the players.

Yukitsu
2009-11-19, 02:26 PM
Why does it have to be anywhere near combat though? It doesn't really. Mr. exposition says "Those dragons are weak to ice attacks mr. hero. You should prepare ice spells before you leave the village." or whatever. There's no reason they should join the party.

I think the biggest irritation for me is having to split EXP, which no level of DMPC modesty can solve. By my reckoning, killing the DMPC to get the XP they stole is the only solution.

Choco
2009-11-19, 02:28 PM
That seems to be what most everyone is doing.

I run a living world. Not a ball of dirt filled with vapid faceless support characters, Sorry.

Don't like description?
Don't like investing your time in the stories of characters that aren't the PCs?

I guess I can make a world with only the PCs, Unintelligent monsters, and a vending robot that purchases items, sells items, and enchants your items for you.

I think they call those video games though...

You bring up a good point. It is sad how many people play D&D like a hack&slash/dungeon crawl video game. When you do that, the only differences are the lack of graphics and the ability to creatively solve problems.

I for one have never seen the appeal of endless dungeon crawls that consist of alternating moments of "I check for traps, and I will attempt to disarm any that I find. Assume I am walking 5 feet at a time and taking 10 minutes inspecting each 5-foot tile", "I disbelieve <insert everything in the area, including the dust on the bookshelves>", and "I kill every living thing in the area that is not in the party".

Yukitsu
2009-11-19, 02:30 PM
That seems to be what most everyone is doing.

I run a living world. Not a ball of dirt filled with vapid faceless support characters, Sorry.

Don't like description?
Don't like investing your time in the stories of characters that aren't the PCs?

I guess I can make a world with only the PCs, Unintelligent monsters, and a vending robot that purchases items, sells items, and enchants your items for you.

I think they call those video games though...

No one said they don't like NPCs. They dislike NPCs that become party members.

Fhaolan
2009-11-19, 02:37 PM
I didn't say more powerful than the party. I said the DM thinks the party can't handle XY or Z without it, either because he thinks the party is incompetent, or he thinks he's gods gift to gaming. Either way, the best solution is not the one involving a fifth of all combats involving the DM fighting off himself, succesfully or not.

In both cases, he's a crappy DM. Both these situations sounds to me like the DM thinks his *players* are incompetent. When your DM looks down on you like that, it's time to get a new DM.

Okay, I need to check something:

We've got a party, here's the PC composition:

Dwarf Cleric of the Wanderer (Good-aligned trickster god)
Half-Orc Barbarian/Bard (took a dip level in Bard for the lulz)
Human Rogue
Centaur Sorceress
Formerly Human Fighter (now a squirrel due to a botched reincarnation roll. Was originally a NPC, but a new player joined in and took over the character as a PC.)

They are also voluntarily dragging around these NPCs:
Human Aristocrat/Bard/Loremaster (Extremely old and almost useless. He's their employer, and is only with them because they accidentally/on-purpose blew up the city he was living in and they feel responsible for him. His entire contribution the party is information, which is often sufficiently out-of-date to not be helpful.)
Human Paladin (Confused minion to the Cleric. Is under the impression the group are undercover investigators for the Unified Church. The party usually forgets she's there, unless they need an alternate 'face' than the Dwarf to deal with people.)
Orc Ranger (Was originally meant to be a one-shot NPC in an early adventure where the party and his clan had a temporary alliance to deal with a common enemy. The party convinced him to stay with them after the alliance was disolved because they wanted a new meatshield to replace the squirrel until they can figure out what that's all about. Technically the squirrel's minion, but his level is higher than the others because he'd be a pretty poor meatshield otherwise.)
Two Elf Fighter/Rogues (Twin minions for the Bard/Barbarian. So low level, these guys are the ones guarding the horses/camp most of the time.)

The DM is controlling all these NPCs, except during combat when their actions are controlled by all the players (with the player who's character has them as a minion has veto control). Unless there's a guest player showing up for a single session who wants in, in which case they get to pick which NPC they want to deal with as their 'temporary' PC. To this end, they are all built using complete PC rules on the off chance one of the guest players wants to join in full time.

So, which is the DMPC? At least one of them has to be, because they're NPCs travelling with the party. Which one do you think this Good-aligned party should arbitrarily kill? All of them?

Zorg
2009-11-19, 02:39 PM
Anyway, frankly, it sounds like bad experiences have soured you to the very concept, such that you automatically associate "DMPC" with "Badly-played Mary Sue character run by the DM". This is a character type by no means monopolized by (though aggrivated by) the DM position, and one which is generally indicative of poor roleplaying - a personal problem, not a systemic one.

And not all DMPCs are like that.

They are, from my understanding of it anyway. A DMPC is the DM wanting to create an awesome world, and an awesome character who they can play in it to to experience how awesome their awesome idea is first hand (since the PCs seem to be having so much fun). A DMPC is the DM's way of having their cake and eating it - they get to make the world, run it and play a character in it equal (or superior) to the PCs (not a supporting cast member) all at the same time.

A character who is powerful, guides the characters, fills gaps in the party structure and has a full backstory and unique personality is just a really good NPC (of which I approve wholeheartedly). They can get the spotlight now and then sure, Star Trek has its 'Below Decks' episodes, but when the Borg come knocking Ensign Smith gets back to Z deck and lets Piccard handle things. Unfortunately then Wesley shows up and steals Picard (and Data, and Worf's) screentime.

Too many times an NPC is too perfect - everything they do works, they solve the brain breaking problem, they get the girl, they slay the dragon. But when it's the guy writing the script it's not cool, it's annoying for the players as it just feels fake to them. Of course he got the girl when the DM's controlling both of them, of course he killed the dragon when the DM's making all the rolls behind the screen, of course he can solve the puzzle when he wrote it himself.
That's what makes an NPC into a DMPC.

In my previous example of sitting around watching two DMPCs duke it out that campaign was great as it had dozens of fully fleshed out NPCs and they were each as well developed as any PC in the campaign. 90% of the campaign was non-combat social interaction. We had an entire plot arc which was one PC meeting someone and getting married. We had PCs moving to a new town and making friends (!) with the locals. The exciting adventures of the aprentice wizard going to school. Relationships started and broke up between PCs & NPCs, the PCs set up pairs of NPCs etc.
Just because I hate DMPCs doesn't mean I don't play in living worlds with wonderful characters. That makes them all the more galling as if it was a flat world with no personality the invincible perfect paragon of existance wouldn't stand out from the very real people that otherwise inhabited it.

But there was one NPC who became the focus, who would appear and derail the plot to be about them every game almost. Who was awesome and mysterious, who gained mind control powers over one of the PCs, who had cool powers nobody else did etc etc. They didn't "fit" with the NPCs, and were forced down our throats at every turn, and we were constantly reminded about how cool they were. That's what made them a DMPC.

gdiddy
2009-11-19, 02:49 PM
I'm going to say that DMPCs are one of two things:

Really dumb or really awesome.

One DM both Lostfang and myself play with has literally 1-2k words written on any given character we encounter more than once. He always has a DMPC or two with the party. Nothing over-shadowing, and always a pleasure to be around.

One DMPC he created was an asthmatic long-sword fighter. No two-weapon fighting, no shield, no cloak, and no einhander feat. He was woefully unoptimized, and after 5 rounds of combat, took only half actions or Con damage. His father had left him a (dinky +1) sword, and he had run away from home at 16. He was an absolutely endearing man who wanted to be an adventurer his whole life and was living the dream, despite being physically incapable. He was an okay fighter in a low magic campaign, whose main specialty consisted of being made of hit points. At one point, a Grey Render grabbed him, which resulted in the entire party dropping what they were doing and spending every resource we had to save him.

His name was Aemon Garris. He was a non-heroic man who traveled with the heroes. I haven't played a game with him in years, but he is what a DMPC should be.

Jayabalard
2009-11-19, 03:00 PM
Why does it have to be anywhere near combat though? Because in many situations it makes more sense.

John Campbell
2009-11-19, 03:04 PM
As your character is your avatar in the gameworld, a DMPC represents the DM's avatar in the gameworld. A DMPC is literally the DM's Player Character.
That definition is logically impossible.

That's kind of the point. It's a nonsense concept... but it happens. Making it possible requires twisting the definitions of "DM" and "player" all out of shape, with corresponding ill effects on the way the game fundamentally works.

I'm currently saddled with a DM who insists on foisting DMPCs on us, because he "want(s) to play too". (That is a direct quote.) These are not mere NPCs that accompany the party. These are the DM trying to play in the game that he's running. It's his character, as opposed to all of those other NPCs that are unimportant scenery decoration.

On the bright side, he's not a big enough douchebag to outright cheat for his DMPC, or make it levels higher than the rest of the party so that the whole session just degenerates into munchkin masturbation. His character is still the party cop (and he's also That Guy Who Always Plays Paladins, in a group where most everyone else usually plays CG or one of its bordering alignments), the railroad conductor, and a constant drain on attention that he should be giving to actually running the game.

Half of combat is frequently the DM rolling dice and muttering to himself as he resolves his NPCs attacking his DMPC and vice versa, interactions with any actual NPC are invariably shallow, because all of his focus is on his DMPC (who is frequently participating in the same conversation, leading to ridiculousness and confusion), and he's often paying more attention to what "he" is doing than to what the actual PCs want to do.

We've asked him to stop doing this. We abuse his characters. We marginalize his characters. We ignore them outright whenever possible. We've ditched his characters several times (they always seem to find us again - strange that). I've been seriously considering just killing them out of hand whenever they show up, with no provocation beyond, "It's a DMPC," and seeing how many of them I have to go through before he gets the hint. I don't think anyone else in the party would try to stop me, and I'm pretty sure a couple of the other PCs would help. The only reason I haven't done this is that I'm not sure it's worth the out-of-game mess that would certainly result, and then I'd probably end up having to be DM, which would mean I wouldn't get to play the character I've been wanting to play for the last two years, because I'm not a wanker who runs DMPCs.

And these are among the better DMPCs.


A DMPC is a generally plot-favored NPC.
No, it's really not.

Boci
2009-11-19, 03:09 PM
Why does it have to be anywhere near combat though? It doesn't really. Mr. exposition says "Those dragons are weak to ice attacks mr. hero. You should prepare ice spells before you leave the village." or whatever. There's no reason they should join the party.

I think the biggest irritation for me is having to split EXP, which no level of DMPC modesty can solve. By my reckoning, killing the DMPC to get the XP they stole is the only solution.

If I were to use such an DMPC, I would not drain XP from the players. I would just include an extra monster to keep him occupied for the fight. If the PCs are heading into a jungle to investiagte a lost civilization, it helps to have someone who knows a lot about the civilization who can share his knowledge with the PCs.

Indon
2009-11-19, 03:10 PM
They are, from my understanding of it anyway. A DMPC is the DM wanting to create an awesome world, and an awesome character who they can play in it to to experience how awesome their awesome idea is first hand (since the PCs seem to be having so much fun). A DMPC is the DM's way of having their cake and eating it - they get to make the world, run it and play a character in it equal (or superior) to the PCs (not a supporting cast member) all at the same time.

So, I think I can summarize the disagreement as such.

-Some people think that DMPCs are, by definition, poorly-created wish-fulfillment characters. They think the characters described by the second group are just really prominent NPCs, and that characters described by the third group are just particularly fleshed-out NPCs.

-Some other people think that DMPCs are, by definition, exceptionally prominent characters with an integral role in the plot and/or party. They think the characters described by the first group are just really bad NPCs, and characters described by the third group are just NPCs played strictly rather than off-the-cuff.

-Yet more people think that DMPCs are, by definition, characters that the DM runs as if they were another PC character. They think the characters described by the first group are poorly-played DMPCs, and characters described by the second group could be, but aren't necessarily, important DMPCs.

I think I've summarized things.

One thing really jumps out at me: Nobody seems to have a definition of a DMPC that can't be described as a particular type of NPC.

Dienekes
2009-11-19, 03:14 PM
One thing really jumps out at me: Nobody seems to have a definition of a DMPC that can't be described as a particular type of NPC.

Isn't that really obvious, since by definition a DMPC is not played by a player, ergo an NPC?

Indon
2009-11-19, 03:20 PM
Isn't that really obvious, since by definition a DMPC is not played by a player, ergo an NPC?

Okay, lemme rephrase that.

Nobody seems to use the term "DMPC" in a way that's actually necessary. That is to say, there's arguably no point in bothering to even use the term. It doesn't describe anything new and it potentially causes more confusion than explanation.

Alex112524
2009-11-19, 03:35 PM
Okay, lemme rephrase that.

Nobody seems to use the term "DMPC" in a way that's actually necessary. That is to say, there's arguably no point in bothering to even use the term. It doesn't describe anything new and it potentially causes more confusion than explanation.

Or it could mean that the DM decides that he wants to be both a DM and Player and makes a character and decides that although he is the DM he is also this character's player. The character would not be a normal PC, as it is technically run by the DM, nor is it an NPC, as the DM has decided that he is that character's player, thus DMPC.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 03:38 PM
Yes, DMPC is a subset of NPC, since, obviously, it's created and run by the DM. Any character run by the players cannot be a DMPC.

Not all NPCs are DMPCs, though. The PC part is also a requirement. If the DM is not running an NPC like a PC, it's not a DMPC.

Indon
2009-11-19, 03:42 PM
Yes, DMPC is a subset of NPC, since, obviously, it's created and run by the DM. Any character run by the players cannot be a DMPC.

Not all NPCs are DMPCs, though. The PC part is also a requirement. If the DM is not running an NPC like a PC, it's not a DMPC.

This seems like it would exclude your god-moding wish-fulfillment definition: NPCs can bypass the rules, but PCs can not.


Or it could mean that the DM decides that he wants to be both a DM and Player and makes a character and decides that although he is the DM he is also this character's player. The character would not be a normal PC, as it is technically run by the DM, nor is it an NPC, as the DM has decided that he is that character's player, thus DMPC.

...See group three?

Yukitsu
2009-11-19, 03:45 PM
In both cases, he's a crappy DM. Both these situations sounds to me like the DM thinks his *players* are incompetent. When your DM looks down on you like that, it's time to get a new DM.[/quotes]

Those are the situations where DMPCs arrise.

[quote]Okay, I need to check something:

We've got a party, here's the PC composition:

So, which is the DMPC? At least one of them has to be, because they're NPCs travelling with the party. Which one do you think this Good-aligned party should arbitrarily kill? All of them?


They are also voluntarily dragging around these NPCs:

The bolded word means they are less DMPCs as they are either cohorts sans the leadership feat, or are mere background.


Human Aristocrat/Bard/Loremaster (Extremely old and almost useless. He's their employer, and is only with them because they accidentally/on-purpose blew up the city he was living in and they feel responsible for him. His entire contribution the party is information, which is often sufficiently out-of-date to not be helpful.)

Utterly useless, potentially entertaining, likely glossed over completely in combat. Background.


Human Paladin (Confused minion to the Cleric. Is under the impression the group are undercover investigators for the Unified Church. The party usually forgets she's there, unless they need an alternate 'face' than the Dwarf to deal with people.)

Cohort because of the bolded word.


Orc Ranger (Was originally meant to be a one-shot NPC in an early adventure where the party and his clan had a temporary alliance to deal with a common enemy. The party convinced him to stay with them after the alliance was disolved because they wanted a new meatshield to replace the squirrel until they can figure out what that's all about. Technically the squirrel's minion, but his level is higher than the others because he'd be a pretty poor meatshield otherwise.)

Cohort for the reasons bolded.


Two Elf Fighter/Rogues (Twin minions for the Bard/Barbarian. So low level, these guys are the ones guarding the horses/camp most of the time.)

Hirelings that you aren't apparantly paying for, unless your horses/camp get attacked while you are gone a lot, and your DM goes into detail as to what they do.


The DM is controlling all these NPCs, except during combat when their actions are controlled by all the players (with the player who's character has them as a minion has veto control). Unless there's a guest player showing up for a single session who wants in, in which case they get to pick which NPC they want to deal with as their 'temporary' PC. To this end, they are all built using complete PC rules on the off chance one of the guest players wants to join in full time.

Those are the rules for how cohorts are to be played. The player has tentative control over their general actions, but they are NPCs, and thus technically would be roleplayed by the DM. In combat, they are actually just player characters.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 04:02 PM
This seems like it would exclude your god-moding wish-fulfillment definition: NPCs can bypass the rules, but PCs can not.


They *can*, it's called cheating. A DMPC doesn't have to be overtly cheating to be bad, but cheating as well guarantees that A. this DM sucks, and B. this campaign is shot.

Ormagoden
2009-11-19, 04:25 PM
Gdiddy knows the power!

pres_man
2009-11-19, 04:42 PM
So, I think I can summarize the disagreement as such.

-Some people think that DMPCs are, by definition, poorly-created wish-fulfillment characters. They think the characters described by the second group are just really prominent NPCs, and that characters described by the third group are just particularly fleshed-out NPCs.

-Some other people think that DMPCs are, by definition, exceptionally prominent characters with an integral role in the plot and/or party. They think the characters described by the first group are just really bad NPCs, and characters described by the third group are just NPCs played strictly rather than off-the-cuff.

-Yet more people think that DMPCs are, by definition, characters that the DM runs as if they were another PC character. They think the characters described by the first group are poorly-played DMPCs, and characters described by the second group could be, but aren't necessarily, important DMPCs.

I think I've summarized things.

One thing really jumps out at me: Nobody seems to have a definition of a DMPC that can't be described as a particular type of NPC.

Be careful, I got jumped on by folks for wanting a precise definition as people seemed to be using the "DMPC" title in very different ways. I, personally prefer the term NPC ally, as this is actually described in the 3.5 DMG. One type of ally is one that (a) travels with the party, (b) participates in encounters (combat or otherwise), and (c) shares in the rewards (xp and wealth).

=================
Definition of DMPC:
1. A character controled by the DM, that would be considered a PC if it was run by another player (a special type of NPC ally)
2. derogatory: any character run by the DM that disrupts the game.

pres_man
2009-11-19, 09:22 PM
So you want all of your characters to fail at the things they try to accomplish, like losing your gear for no reason, and like seeing monsters tear up your character and have them for lunch?

Is that how you roleplay NPCs? Wow, that is pretty enlightening.

No, I want to explore any character I control goals and objectives and for them to try their best to succeed. But keep in mind, that might mean the paladin I play when I am not a DM is quite willing to give his life to save his party. I don't try to cheat that outcome, I embrace it because that is incharacter for the paladin I am playing. Likewise, I don't have the last goblin standing, after his five companions were dropped, and he is facing four heavily armed PCs to just stand there and die on their swords. He is going to make a break for it or plead for his life or try anything to stay alive. Play the character is what I say.


And all of the people you play with are like that? Or do you want to see your character prevail over long odds, gather cool items that enhance their abilities and help them accomplish tasks, and want your characters to actually survive encounters with monsters? Not wining all the time and not getting everything you want is obviously not interesting, but that doesn't mean you don't want your PC to come out on top most of the time.

Certainly, I enjoy watching the characters I control on both sides of the screen succeed. And of course the opponents of the party are often over their heads with the PC, because that is how the system is set up. But that doesn't mean I don't play the opponents smart (with in the limits of the stats) and they don't try to succeed, and I don't take some satisfaction when they do accomplish something. But keep in mind, NPCs that travel with the party are party members. When the party succeeds, they succeed. The game isn't DM vs. Players, or at least it does not need to be.


However, a DM should not be invested in a character like that, otherwise it becomes very tempting to always give that character good and cool items and arbitrarily decide that the just so happen to succeed at most of their endeavors, and that is usually a bad thing.

Really. So that means that DMs can't play with their significant others either, correct? Because the DM would want their characters to succeed as well. Or good friends or family members or anyone they care about. If you are worried someone will cheat for themselves, and not worried they will cheat for a significant other, that seems deluded to me. Rosy Palm won't tell someone to go sleep on the couch, a significant other will.

Really it is a bit silly to worry the DM is going to cheat. Some people have compared a DM to a ref or judge. Ok, let's consider that analogy. If someone was the ref of a game AND the coach of the opposing side AND a player on the opposing side, would it be better or worse if they were also a player on your side? If someone is a judge AND they have a stake in the success of one party, do you think they will be more or less impartial if they also have a stake in the success of the other party?

A DM run NPC in the party doesn't make the DM cheat and rain on everyone's fun. Being immature and/or without morals makes them do so.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-19, 11:47 PM
Really. So that means that DMs can't play with their significant others either, correct? Because the DM would want their characters to succeed as well. Or good friends or family members or anyone they care about. If you are worried someone will cheat for themselves, and not worried they will cheat for a significant other, that seems deluded to me. Rosy Palm won't tell someone to go sleep on the couch, a significant other will.

This isn't a hard and fast rule, but in my experience, there is a significant risk having someone DM for his S/O. It can be done well, but I've often seen it done...poorly. It's not always even the DMs fault. Sometimes RL problems get brought into the game. This is always a risk of this sort of thing, but this makes it more likely.

Still, this is a problem that isn't DMPC-related.


Really it is a bit silly to worry the DM is going to cheat. Some people have compared a DM to a ref or judge. Ok, let's consider that analogy. If someone was the ref of a game AND the coach of the opposing side AND a player on the opposing side, would it be better or worse if they were also a player on your side? If someone is a judge AND they have a stake in the success of one party, do you think they will be more or less impartial if they also have a stake in the success of the other party?

Um, in essentially all professional sports, the refs don't play. I presume this is precisely for impartiality.

A DM has two jobs...one, creating and running the adventure/NPCs/world. Two, acting as a judge/referee. Yes, it might be more fair to use two separate people for these roles, but frankly, its hard enough to find good DMs as it is. Giving them a player character as well will not magically make them unbiased.

Kalirren
2009-11-20, 12:25 PM
Really it is a bit silly to worry the DM is going to cheat. Some people have compared a DM to a ref or judge. Ok, let's consider that analogy. If someone was the ref of a game AND the coach of the opposing side AND a player on the opposing side, would it be better or worse if they were also a player on your side? If someone is a judge AND they have a stake in the success of one party, do you think they will be more or less impartial if they also have a stake in the success of the other party?



A DM has two jobs...one, creating and running the adventure/NPCs/world. Two, acting as a judge/referee. Yes, it might be more fair to use two separate people for these roles, but frankly, its hard enough to find good DMs as it is. Giving them a player character as well will not magically make them unbiased.


Insofar as the DM is part of the gaming group, the DM already has a stake in making sure that the other players meet with success. I don't understand where this line of argument is going on either side.

Maybe my position on this issue has to do with the style of game that I play. I play in small groups, like 2 or 3, sometimes 2 or 3 including the DM, and there's really no hard-and-fast line between PCs and NPCs. The fact that we're playing the PCs doesn't change the fact that the PCs are just people. On past occasions, we have had people play multiple characters, switch characters, and even rotate the DM seat and distribute the DMing responbilities. So no, there's no real difference between the DMPCs and the NPCs, but neither is there really a difference between NPCs and PCs.

I guess if you had some sort of conception that PCs were inherently different from NPCs, and the DM exclusively plays NPCs, then a DM-run character whose plot-influencing capabilities were similar to those of PCs might come to be called a "DMPC." But that seems like such an artificial way of looking at roleplaying to me.

Dienekes
2009-11-20, 12:40 PM
Insofar as the DM is part of the gaming group, the DM already has a stake in making sure that the other players meet with success. I don't understand where this line of argument is going on either side.

Different play styles. For me, I don't try to make my players meet with success. I provide the world and challenges, sure each of them are beatable but the success part is almost completely on the ingenuity of the player.

Jayabalard
2009-11-20, 12:44 PM
Isn't that really obvious, since by definition a DMPC is not played by a player, ergo an NPC?That doesn't hold, since many people consider the DM to also be a player. So you can't use "by definition" to back up your argument.



In both cases, he's a crappy DM. Both these situations sounds to me like the DM thinks his *players* are incompetent. When your DM looks down on you like that, it's time to get a new DM.

Those are the situations where DMPCs arrise.Those are 2 of the situations, not all of the situations where they arise. They're both indicative of having a bad DM, not that DMPCs are bad in and of themsevles.

Kalirren
2009-11-20, 12:54 PM
Different play styles. For me, I don't try to make my players meet with success. I provide the world and challenges, sure each of them are beatable but the success part is almost completely on the ingenuity of the player.

Same play style, actually. That's pretty much my base style of DM'ing. I sort of take it for granted that there's a -way- to do anything that needs to be done. I feel that a DM who -isn't- open to something like that, who actively attempts to defeat the players, instead of just playing an adversary who attempts to defeat the players, (does that distinction make sense to you? It does to me.) is really not playing fairly.

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 01:33 PM
Those are 2 of the situations, not all of the situations where they arise. They're both indicative of having a bad DM, not that DMPCs are bad in and of themsevles.

What other motivations would you posit as alternative causes?

gdiddy
2009-11-20, 01:38 PM
Fun? Immersion? The Idea that players are not the end-all be-all of creation?

I think it comes down to style differences. Why not everybody leave it at that?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 02:57 PM
Same play style, actually. That's pretty much my base style of DM'ing. I sort of take it for granted that there's a -way- to do anything that needs to be done. I feel that a DM who -isn't- open to something like that, who actively attempts to defeat the players, instead of just playing an adversary who attempts to defeat the players, (does that distinction make sense to you? It does to me.) is really not playing fairly.

It's a pretty decent assumption. Sure, there are mistakes here and there in the rules(see, that damn crab), but in general, the system is designed in such a way as to give players options to deal with the challenges it presents.

The goal of a DM isn't to "win" by defeating the players...at least, it shouldn't be. The NPCs may have those goals, yes, but any decent DM should be able to separate his goals from the NPC's goals. The DM isn't inherently against the players, imo. Yes, he may present challenges for them, but without challenges, it'd be a pretty crappy game, and the players probably wouldn't enjoy it much.

Thus, there is no need for DMPCs to "balance" the bias, because you shouldn't be biased against the players in the first place.

Toliudar
2009-11-20, 03:02 PM
Tyndmyr, I don't think that anyone is claiming that an NPC who travels with the players is necessary to all games.

If it's okay to assume a DM that is free of bias, why isn't it okay to assume that a DM can have characters working with the players, but whom he deals with in an unbiased manner?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 03:05 PM
The point Im arguing against was that someone claimed DMs are naturally biased against the party, because they run the guys you fight, and thus, them running a PC as well restored the proper balance.

I said a DM *should* be free of bias. I don't assume that all DMs *are* free of bias. I also don't believe that running mobs inherently biases you against the party.

Toliudar
2009-11-20, 03:16 PM
I agree. I think that it should be assumed that a DM can run characters without being biased. If you agree, why is having NPC's who have a personality and work with the player characters something to be avoided at all costs?

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 03:19 PM
Because then a 5th of the game that's supposed to be devoted to the players is the DM playing with himself, while he already has a significant portion of the game devoted to himself.

They don't add anything anyway in that case. It's just another PC that isn't a reliable part of the group that could backstab you all that drains EXP and resources for no real gain. In essence, they bog down play at best

Fhaolan
2009-11-20, 03:32 PM
It's just another PC that isn't a reliable part of the group that could backstab you all that drains EXP and resources for no real gain.

Which pretty much describes *all* PCs, not just DMPCs.

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 03:34 PM
True. I forgot that my group works very well together, with no backstabbery, and no abandoning the group for whatever reason, and that not all groups work this way.

Though if players are also that unreliable, I'd say that they aren't exactly good player characters to be around either.

Dienekes
2009-11-20, 03:52 PM
That doesn't hold, since many people consider the DM to also be a player. So you can't use "by definition" to back up your argument.

Then there are no such things as NPCs. If the DM is a player, all characters are thus PC.

Personally I find this to be more confusing than it's worth and simpler to call the DM not a player or at least not a player in the same way as the others, ergo they can play Non-player characters. Though I suppose we could rework the entire way we talk about characters to Dungeon Master Characters for what used to be NPCs, and Non-Dungeon Master Player Characters or (NDMPC) for what used to be PCs.

Course I doubt many would follow the trend, but at least you're happy.


Same play style, actually. That's pretty much my base style of DM'ing. I sort of take it for granted that there's a -way- to do anything that needs to be done. I feel that a DM who -isn't- open to something like that, who actively attempts to defeat the players, instead of just playing an adversary who attempts to defeat the players, (does that distinction make sense to you? It does to me.) is really not playing fairly.

Makes perfect sense. I merely misunderstood you. My apologies.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 04:00 PM
I agree. I think that it should be assumed that a DM can run characters without being biased.

I never actually said that. And in any case, I don't think you can lump all characters together. Some DMs might be biased torward certain character types. Some might be too badly biased to be a good DM at all. People are not all the same, and characters are not all the same. I would not assume that all people who DM can run all characters without bias. It's an excellent goal, but the assumption of perfection is bound to be flawed.


If you agree, why is having NPC's who have a personality and work with the player characters something to be avoided at all costs?

First off, NPCs who have a personality and work with the party are not invariably bad. I'll answer the question as if you had said DMPCs, since that's the topic.

1. Time. More players in a party means longer combats, and each individual PC has less screen time, etc. When the DM is running both the mobs and PCs, a very good chunk of time is spent with all the players waiting for the DM. This isn't usually particularily fun.

2. Bias. Real or perceived, this can be a problem. There is a conflict of interest between the role of the player and the role of the DM. If there was not, we wouldn't ever bother with dedicated DMs, everyone would just be a player, and we'd all ajudicate rules and such together. Unfortunately, D&D just doesn't work well that way. The rules assume that a DM is arbitrating, and thus, the DM will end up arbitrating on judgement calls that affect his character. As in the example of someone both playing in a sport and judging it, this is highly suspect, and will lead to disagreements.

3. Information. The DM inherently has foreknowledge of the adventure, and thus, can never surprise himself, as a player. Yes, player knowledge and character knowledge should be separate, but a DM has a lot of info to keep track of, and it's possible to slip, even if only accidentally. Some DMs embrace this intentionally, using the DMPC as a conduit for plot-related information to the party. This weakens the challenges the party faces, and provides the DMPC with an advantage.

AtwasAwamps
2009-11-20, 04:20 PM
Because then a 5th of the game that's supposed to be devoted to the players is the DM playing with himself, while he already has a significant portion of the game devoted to himself.


Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.

Kalirren
2009-11-20, 07:57 PM
Because then a 5th of the game that's supposed to be devoted to the players is the DM playing with himself, while he already has a significant portion of the game devoted to himself.

They don't add anything anyway in that case. It's just another PC that isn't a reliable part of the group that could backstab you all that drains EXP and resources for no real gain. In essence, they bog down play at best.

-That-'s an interesting perspective. I disagree completely.

Maybe the potentially good use of a DMPC is a thing that playing in small groups makes obvious, so I invite you to consider the extreme example of a small group: a solo game. I've seen many DMs of solo games who use DMPCs as a way of keeping the PC in touch with the world.

Otherwise the PC just stands alone and does random stuff of variable consequence (even if it's as consequential as taking over the world,) and the game is essentially an OOC bust because there are no meaningful foils for the PC, no second entity to which that PC can relate and truly consider a comrade. Adding a DMPC as a PC-like entity enables the PC to have something to relate to as an equal, an external perspective that reliably contrasts with yet relates to the PC.

I've had many experiences in using an DMPC like that, and it can be beneficial to, and indeed propel, a game's flow. Obviously the utility of this approach declines as the number of players goes up. By the time you're around 4 or 5 players besides the DM, it's not really so valuable to have a DMPC.

Based on this, I'd hazard a guess that the people who like/don't mind seeing DMPCs tend to play in smaller groups.

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 08:02 PM
On the contrary, I play solo in some instances where the DM let's my character run online when I can't attend normal sessions. In those instances, it's usually my job to go in and finish the missions, because for some odd reason, the party usually doesn't.

Running a solo mission is best when the mission is complex, but short. Where the individual planning and information gather doesn't get bogged down by the input of other players, which is often just as good as mine, but in a tangential direction.

The best NPCs in those games are those that are not with me, but whom I can talk with as the mission is set up and prepared for, and afterwards.

Kalirren
2009-11-20, 08:26 PM
On the contrary, I play solo in some instances where the DM let's my character run online when I can't attend normal sessions. In those instances, it's usually my job to go in and finish the missions, because for some odd reason, the party usually doesn't.

Running a solo mission is best when the mission is complex, but short. Where the individual planning and information gather doesn't get bogged down by the input of other players, which is often just as good as mine, but in a tangential direction.

The best NPCs in those games are those that are not with me, but whom I can talk with as the mission is set up and prepared for, and afterwards.

I didn't mean solo -stints- or even solo play sessions in an otherwise group-driven game. I meant a solo -game.- In a solo session within a group-driven game you can still form your core relations with the rest of the party. In a solo game, on the other hand, there is no "rest of the party" that doesn't get built from at least one DMPC.

Regarding missions: I agree with you that pretty much the only way you could involve a DMPC inside a combat context is as either a supporting NPC ally or an ally who fights or otherwise influences the conflict offstage. And in circumstances that are complex but short, often only important to one person, like those you described, it's often faster, easier, and better to run a solo mini-session.

But there's more to RP than missions, wouldn't you say? Over the long-term course of a campaign, which may or may not involve much in terms of combat or missions, there are many other and more significant ways in which PCs can effectively shape and be shaped by NPCs and DMPCs alike, and those are obviously the situations in which DMPCs are most useful. I'm curious, do you ever play games where different PCs have entirely different -ways-, not merely means, of resolving things? Games that don't revolve around combat and missons, but friendship, agency, position, power, and other themes of a societal level?

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 10:51 PM
Outside of missions, where time is not devoted to mechanical aspects at all, it's RPing with whoever the sole player happens to want to hang out around. It could be no one, if they are RPing a loner, it could be the rest of the party, if you're a seperate part, or it could be a random vampire, like when I played. However, in no instance are those individuals actually player characters any more so than a local shrub. They provide characterization, they grow, they develop, but they aren't being played, if they aren't the focus of the missions, and if they disappear off the existential map when the player isn't with them, then they aren't a player character.

As an aside, I didn't have contact with the rest of the party during that time for various contrived reasons, as I couldn't RP interactions with them, on account of my not being around when they were.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 11:33 PM
A solo game is, imo, a bit exceptional in D&D. The standard party assumes a DM and about four players, each running a PC.

Thus, in standard D&D, the bit about screen time is a perfectly valid argument. Sure, in solo games, it may be a bit different, but D&D isn't really designed as a solo game in the first place.

pres_man
2009-11-21, 02:05 AM
1. Time. More players in a party means longer combats, and each individual PC has less screen time, etc. When the DM is running both the mobs and PCs, a very good chunk of time is spent with all the players waiting for the DM. This isn't usually particularily fun.

Not necessarily correct. Let's consider combat. A player that doesn't have to leave melee to heal but instead has another character come and heal them can save them actions. Something like 2-3 rounds (1 round to withdraw, 1 round to retrieve and drink a potion, and 1 round to move back into melee). So while it is true that an additional character will increase the length of each round marginally, it might significantly reduce the total number of rounds.


2. Bias. Real or perceived, this can be a problem. There is a conflict of interest between the role of the player and the role of the DM. If there was not, we wouldn't ever bother with dedicated DMs, everyone would just be a player, and we'd all ajudicate rules and such together. Unfortunately, D&D just doesn't work well that way. The rules assume that a DM is arbitrating, and thus, the DM will end up arbitrating on judgement calls that affect his character. As in the example of someone both playing in a sport and judging it, this is highly suspect, and will lead to disagreements.

Again, not necessarily true. Many groups composing of adults that respect each other's opinions can run a very inclusive game where everyone gets a say on how the rules work. Many groups have one or more individual players (not the DM) that are actually called upon to make certain rule calls because those players know the rules better. The idea that the DM is the god and makes all the final calls is a throwback to the time when the rules were not very well detailed. Of course the assumption is that if players are given free rein they will start "cheating" (monty hauling and such). Most groups of mature players will not do this, though as it is ultimately not entertaining.


3. Information. The DM inherently has foreknowledge of the adventure, and thus, can never surprise himself, as a player. Yes, player knowledge and character knowledge should be separate, but a DM has a lot of info to keep track of, and it's possible to slip, even if only accidentally. Some DMs embrace this intentionally, using the DMPC as a conduit for plot-related information to the party. This weakens the challenges the party faces, and provides the DMPC with an advantage.

So if a group is running a module that one of the players might have played in or run before, then that player can not be allowed to play? No DMPCs, no significant others, and now no experienced players. Seems as if only newb strangers can appropriately game with one another.


Because then a 5th of the game that's supposed to be devoted to the players is the DM playing with himself, while he already has a significant portion of the game devoted to himself.

They don't add anything anyway in that case. It's just another PC that isn't a reliable part of the group that could backstab you all that drains EXP and resources for no real gain. In essence, they bog down play at best

So individual PCs don't interact with one another and only interact with NPCs not in the party? If they do interact with each other, then a party character run by the DM would not be "playing with himself", but instead playing with the other players' characters. Yes there may be situations where the party character run by the DM will interact with other NPCs, but then if there is more than one NPC "on stage" at a time this bound to happen anyway.

As for draining xp, not necessarily if the encounters are properly balanced for the new party size. "DMPC"s that craft items can also save the party gp and they can cover skills and/or feats that the party does not have but still would find valuable (does anybody have knowledge (geography)?). And the backstabbing issue is a problem with type of game your particular DM wishes to run. It could just as likely happen if the DM had another player they trusted to betray the party for them.

taltamir
2009-11-21, 02:19 AM
A large portion of this thread seems to be people disagreeing about what the definition of a DMPC is.

rather then saying "DMPC bad because <insert specific action here>" or "DMPC good because they do not <insert specific action here>" it would make more sense to describe what it is that you oppose (ex: the DM playing with himself while the players watch) rather then argue about the definition.

Yukitsu
2009-11-21, 10:56 AM
So individual PCs don't interact with one another and only interact with NPCs not in the party? If they do interact with each other, then a party character run by the DM would not be "playing with himself", but instead playing with the other players' characters. Yes there may be situations where the party character run by the DM will interact with other NPCs, but then if there is more than one NPC "on stage" at a time this bound to happen anyway.

In combat, you don't particularly interact with anything unless you're buffing or hitting it. Unless your DM allows infinite free action out of turn talking in that six second window that is a round, long, drawn out conversations would be unlikely, and even if they are allowed, they are kind of odd. Either way, when someone's initiative count comes up, it's not time for everyone's input, it's that person's turn.


As for draining xp, not necessarily if the encounters are properly balanced for the new party size. "DMPC"s that craft items can also save the party gp and they can cover skills and/or feats that the party does not have but still would find valuable (does anybody have knowledge (geography)?). And the backstabbing issue is a problem with type of game your particular DM wishes to run. It could just as likely happen if the DM had another player they trusted to betray the party for them.

So, the solution to EXP is to increase the difficulty of the challenges, when one of my complaints was that the DMPC is a superfluos waste of time. So now the combat is 1/5th harder, to accommodate the party being 1/5th larger, taking 1/5th longer to run, for absolutely no net gain in difficulty, treasure or EXP, but taking significantly longer. At least if your combats take anywhere near as long as mine do. If the DM did this, I'd question the reason, and I'd be irritated that the combats take longer.

And yes, one party member will have knowledge geography in my gaming group. 20:1 odds that it'll be me.

Edit:

Many of these definitions seriously lack the "PC" of "DMPC". I mean how many of you let some other player take over your character when combat starts, stay relatively behind the scenes at all times or have skills that are so rare, you can only assume your existance is related to being mr. or mrs. exposition? Those aren't PCs, and when the DM is using one, they aren't his PCs either.

pres_man
2009-11-21, 12:20 PM
In combat, you don't particularly interact with anything unless you're buffing or hitting it. Unless your DM allows infinite free action out of turn talking in that six second window that is a round, long, drawn out conversations would be unlikely, and even if they are allowed, they are kind of odd. Either way, when someone's initiative count comes up, it's not time for everyone's input, it's that person's turn.

I find my groups interact a lot in combat, from requests of someone to flank with to some asking if anyone knows of a weakness to the creature they are fighting to a request for someone to stop the goblin from escaping and set off the alarm to something as simple as a call of "MEDIC!" And of course there tends to be the discussion about what to do with prisoners and unconscious foes (coup-de-grace, heal (check) them and take them as prisoners, or allow the fates to decide and leave them be). And this is just a small sample of the interactions that occur during combat and right before or after.


So, the solution to EXP is to increase the difficulty of the challenges, when one of my complaints was that the DMPC is a superfluos waste of time. So now the combat is 1/5th harder, to accommodate the party being 1/5th larger, taking 1/5th longer to run, for absolutely no net gain in difficulty, treasure or EXP, but taking significantly longer. At least if your combats take anywhere near as long as mine do. If the DM did this, I'd question the reason, and I'd be irritated that the combats take longer.

As I said, it can actually shorten combat overall despite lengthing individual rounds (see my example above about having to drink a potion during combat). And increasing the number of foes (which almost always a better choice than just amping up a single foe) actually has some nice effects for players. Consider as just one example the fighter with cleave and greater cleave. The more foes there are, the more these feats are an advantage. Facing one or two foes always makes these feats almost entirely worthless.


And yes, one party member will have knowledge geography in my gaming group. 20:1 odds that it'll be me.

Good for you for being the one to pick a suboptimal choice, something I myself often do when I am a player. Still you have to admit there is only a finite number of skill points available to each character, thus more characters allow a wider range of skills to be developed in a meaningful fashion (one rank in a skill often isn't going to do much for you).


Many of these definitions seriously lack the "PC" of "DMPC". I mean how many of you let some other player take over your character when combat starts, stay relatively behind the scenes at all times or have skills that are so rare, you can only assume your existance is related to being mr. or mrs. exposition? Those aren't PCs, and when the DM is using one, they aren't his PCs either.

I have had several players that tend to be wall-flowers. They are quite willing to stand in the background much of the time and let the more outgoing/aggressive players step up and take charge. That doesn't make their characters any less of a PC. Not all PCs have to be blustering blowhards. These players also are quite willing to take on roles, skills, feats that have limited usefulness but in very specific situations can greatly aid the party. So a DM playing a party character such as that is not necessarily not playing as a "PC", but merely just not the most outspoken type of "PC". In other words, if you were a DM and a player was playing their character like you describe here, would you take their paper away and declare the character an NPC and force them to make a new character or leave the party? I for one would not and have not.

EDIT: Which brings up a reason why I often include a DM run character in the party. I personally believe players should play whatever they wish and shouldn't feel forced to fulfill a specific role in the party. More aggressive players will do this to the full extent anyway, and will pick whatever they want to play before anyone else. This leaves the more laid back players to often pick up the slack ("fine, I'll play the cleric, just like I always do"). I dislike that, I want everyone to play what they want. So I will often use a character to take up the slack so nobody feels forced into a role.

Now I know the responses to that, either let them tough it out and learn they need those roles filled (which in the end only punishes the laid back players as the aggressive players don't give a crap) or adjust the game to take into the party's dynamics. If I start dropping healing potions all over the place when there is not a healer in the party but these dry up when there is a healer in the party, that breaks the verisimilitude for at least myself. Or if events that were suppose to happen in the span of a few days now take several months (to give players time to heal up natural), that can also ruin the feel of the game. Likewise, if a kobold lair is filled with traps while there is a rogue, but after he dies all the traps suddenly disappear, that also breaks the immersion of the game. So while I am not saying that a game should be adapted to some extent to the dynamics of the group (a party with a good cleric and a paladin might encounter more undead than normal), it shouldn't be a drastic change to the feel of the game.

Yukitsu
2009-11-21, 12:29 PM
I find my groups interact a lot in combat, from requests of someone to flank with to some asking if anyone knows of a weakness to the creature they are fighting to a request for someone to stop the goblin from escaping and set off the alarm to something as simple as a call of "MEDIC!" And of course there tends to be the discussion about what to do with prisoners and unconscious foes (coup-de-grace, heal (check) them and take them as prisoners, or allow the fates to decide and leave them be). And this is just a small sample of the interactions that occur during combat and right before or after.

That's odd. Often in my group, everyone knows where they should be at any given time. Probably because we've been in the same group for a good stint, making such calls unecessary. On the issue of after combat, or before, those don't run on initiative, and can be role played with NPCs just as well as anything else.


As I said, it can actually shorten combat overall despite lengthing individual rounds (see my example above about having to drink a potion during combat). And increasing the number of foes (which almost always a better choice than just amping up a single foe) actually has some nice effects for players. Consider as just one example the fighter with cleave and greater cleave. The more foes there are, the more these feats are an advantage. Facing one or two foes always makes these feats almost entirely worthless.

That may work OK in theory, but having been in both solo campaigns up to 7 person parties, I know it doesn't work in practice. What you may find is more action in a single encounter, but that it takes significantly longer overall. When over 50% is the DM chattering about his actions, (as in, you've extended the time enemy actions take, as well as added the time the players take) it's a bad thing, or at least, it's dull.


Good for you for being the one to pick a suboptimal choice, something I myself often do when I am a player. Still you have to admit there is only a finite number of skill points available to each character, thus more characters allow a wider range of skills to be developed in a meaningful fashion (one rank in a skill often isn't going to do much for you).

Being able to hit DC 15 with a wide range of knowledges is actually one of the reasons my group never needs Mr. Exposition. Even if we didn't, it's not as though we can't make note of it and ask Mr. Exposition in town. Or use magic to ask him from afar.


I have had several players that tend to be wall-flowers. They are quite willing to stand in the background much of the time and let the more outgoing/aggressive players step up and take charge. That doesn't make their characters any less of a PC. Not all PCs have to be blustering blowhards. These players also are quite willing to take on roles, skills, feats that have limited usefulness but in very specific situations can greatly aid the party. So a DM playing a party character such as that is not necessarily not playing as a "PC", but merely just not the most outspoken type of "PC". In other words, if you were a DM and a player was playing their character like you describe here, would you take their paper away and declare the character an NPC and force them to make a new character or leave the party? I for one would not and have not.

I'm not talking about PCs that aren't stars of the show. I'm talking about PCs that aren't in combat because they are guarding the wagon train, not conversing with NPCs and are occassionally throwing some obscure bone to the otherwise clueless PCs. They aren't really playing the game, in that, well, they aren't doing anything in the game, when you look at many of the examples of benign "DMPCs" that are being given. Most examples aren't PCs.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-21, 08:51 PM
Not necessarily correct. Let's consider combat. A player that doesn't have to leave melee to heal but instead has another character come and heal them can save them actions. Something like 2-3 rounds (1 round to withdraw, 1 round to retrieve and drink a potion, and 1 round to move back into melee). So while it is true that an additional character will increase the length of each round marginally, it might significantly reduce the total number of rounds.

This entirely ignores the earlier assumption of the pro-DMPC group that encounters will be scaled up to compensate for the additional PC in the group.

If you scale the encounters up, you end up with longer combats. If you don't, the PCs are getting less xp and loot.

Which is it?


Again, not necessarily true. Many groups composing of adults that respect each other's opinions can run a very inclusive game where everyone gets a say on how the rules work. Many groups have one or more individual players (not the DM) that are actually called upon to make certain rule calls because those players know the rules better. The idea that the DM is the god and makes all the final calls is a throwback to the time when the rules were not very well detailed. Of course the assumption is that if players are given free rein they will start "cheating" (monty hauling and such). Most groups of mature players will not do this, though as it is ultimately not entertaining.

Yes, not every DM makes all rules calls. However, in general, that IS in the GM's job description, and is a good general description of the vast majority of games.

There is no assumption that every player is a cheater. That's irrelevant to my points.


So if a group is running a module that one of the players might have played in or run before, then that player can not be allowed to play? No DMPCs, no significant others, and now no experienced players. Seems as if only newb strangers can appropriately game with one another.

In general, it's better not to play modules that part of your group has played, and part of the group has not. Something fresh and new is generally better and more fun.

This has nothing to do with "only strangers can appropriately game with one another".


So individual PCs don't interact with one another and only interact with NPCs not in the party? If they do interact with each other, then a party character run by the DM would not be "playing with himself", but instead playing with the other players' characters. Yes there may be situations where the party character run by the DM will interact with other NPCs, but then if there is more than one NPC "on stage" at a time this bound to happen anyway.

We're discussing combat here. Combat is six seconds per round, so player interaction is limited. Even the DMG recommends limiting the amount of talking allowed as a free action.


As for draining xp, not necessarily if the encounters are properly balanced for the new party size. "DMPC"s that craft items can also save the party gp and they can cover skills and/or feats that the party does not have but still would find valuable (does anybody have knowledge (geography)?). And the backstabbing issue is a problem with type of game your particular DM wishes to run. It could just as likely happen if the DM had another player they trusted to betray the party for them.

See? Contradicting the earlier assumption that an additional player will shorten combats. If the encounters are balanced for the larger party size, that won't happen.

Also, if you just give the party DMPCs to cover their weak points, that entirely negates the downside to having weak points. Players that plan to cover all the bases should be rewarded appropriately within the mechanics. Players that thought it would be hilarious to go into battle with next to no hit points and no cleric...well, either they will need to be creative, or certain bad things are likely to happen. In such a group, they may also find those consequences hilarious. Throwing in a DMPC just makes the party boring and generic.


Yes, there are other ways a DM can be a bad DM other than using DMPCs. This thread is not about every single flaw a DM can have. Just because other errors are possible doesn't mean it's ok to ignore existing ones.