Acceptable DMPCs

[Saph]

Because there really is a specific class of NPC's that aren't hirelings or cohorts, that travel along with the PC's without being "bad npcs" and people like to have terms for specific classes of things.

Why not just make up another term for them, then? "Party NPCs" or "Tagalong NPCs" or something like that. Trying to group them with an existing, differing, term - a term which has a pretty awful reputation, too - sounds to me like a bad idea.


Should I have named the thread "Acceptable NPC's that regularly accompany and assist the party".

Yes, that would have been a better approach.

[Yukitsu]

Really? the post below looks an awful lot to me like you're trying to tell him to use your definition to me.



That's how I read it at least. It's not the only post of yours that read that way to me.

Whether or not you interpret something that is clearly not a PC as a DMPC is up to you.


Relevance: You were claiming that one of the bad features of using DMPCs is that it leads to players being observers rather than active. You gave several examples, stressing how you thought they should be handled in order to make the players active participants.

Again, that was a discussion on a different topic. NPCs fighting other NPCs.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, I'd tend to agree. An NPC that regularly tries to screw with the party and destroy them is going to fit in the BBEG or his minions camp. If that BBEG or his minions are unfair or undefeatable for plot, then that's bad encounter design and should be saved for another day.

There is also the possibility of an entirely unhelpful and/or selfish DMPC who the party is railroaded into accompanying them who is not the BBEG. Yes, this is a rather drastically bad situation, but it can happen(I've seen it myself).

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not asking people to always use my Definition of a DMPC, I'm asking people to, for the purpose of this thread, use it.
Should I have named the thread "Acceptable NPC's that regularly accompany and assist the party".

This would have been a better topic, yes. NPCs are a much broader group than DMPCs, and it would have been interesting to get into a conversation about hirelings and such, and the pros and cons of each.

Unfortunately, I estimate the chances of this thread covering such ground to be approximately 0%.

[Kylarra]

Should I have named the thread "Acceptable NPC's that regularly accompany and assist the party".
Yes, although at this point, it would be best to scrap the whole thread and start a new one with that topic.

[Jayabalard]

There is also the possibility of an entirely unhelpful and/or selfish DMPC who the party is railroaded into accompanying them who is not the BBEG. Yes, this is a rather drastically bad situation, but it can happen(I've seen it myself).Oh certainly... I don't think anyone will deny that they can go spectacularly badly when misused.


Again, that was a discussion on a different topic. NPCs fighting other NPCs.It's part of what I had just asked you about, so I fail to see how it's "a discussion of a different topic".

Really, is all this waffling necessary? All it does is make it look like you've got a really good reason not to give a straight answer (as in, you think people are going to call you out because of how absurd it is).


Why not just make up another term for them, then? "Party NPCs" or "Tagalong NPCs" or something like that. Trying to group them with an existing, differing, term - a term which has a pretty awful reputation, too - sounds to me like a bad idea.Hey, I'm not the one that's making these decisions. I'm just pointing out that this is how language works, where one term picks up more meaning than it was originally intended, sometimes even a radically different meaning, and at a certain point it becomes kind of pointless to resist that sort of change.

[Ormagoden]

Yes, although at this point, it would be best to scrap the whole thread and start a new one with that topic.

forgodsakesno!
not ANOTHER DMPC thread



Hey, I'm not the one that's making these decisions. I'm just pointing out that this is how language works, where one term picks up more meaning than it was originally intended, sometimes even a radically different meaning, and at a certain point it becomes kind of pointless to resist that sort of change.

Thats called morphology or language morphing...pretty cool stuff.

[Fhaolan]

Should they? That depends on the group I suppose, as I've heard alot of "xp sponge" comments, I'm not sure if there is a unified stance on that. As for cohorts, they don't actually get a "share" of the xp, though they tend to get a 1/2 share of the wealth. Instead they get xp based on how much xp their "leader" recieved. If they are 7th and their leader is 9th, they get 7/9ths the xp that their leader recieved, but this is not taken out of the total xp for the encounter, this is drawn from a "virtual" xp pool.

Is that 3.5? In 3.0 cohorts get a half share of XP as well.

[Yukitsu]

Actual cohorts gain levels and EXP based entirely on the progress of the person who leads them from what I recall, so I'd guess they don't.

[Kylarra]

forgodsakesno!
not ANOTHER DMPC threadWell I did suggest scrapping this one first... so it'd be a replacement thread. :smallwink:

[Ormagoden]

It works as such

Leadership

SRD:Leadership
From D&D Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This material is published under the OGL
Leadership [General]
Prerequisite

Character level 6th.
Benefits

Having this feat enables the character to attract loyal companions and devoted followers, subordinates who assist her. See the table below for what sort of cohort and how many followers the character can recruit.
Leadership Modifiers

Several factors can affect a character’s Leadership score, causing it to vary from the base score (character level + Cha modifier). A character’s reputation (from the point of view of the cohort or follower he is trying to attract) raises or lowers his Leadership score:
Leader’s Reputation Modifier
Great renown +2
Fairness and generosity +1
Special power +1
Failure –1
Aloofness –1
Cruelty –2

Other modifiers may apply when the character tries to attract a cohort:
The Leader . . . Modifier
Has a familiar, special mount, or animal companion –2
Recruits a cohort of a different alignment –1
Caused the death of a cohort –21

1. Cumulative per cohort killed.

Followers have different priorities from cohorts. When the character tries to attract a new follower, use any of the following modifiers that apply.
The Leader . . . Modifier
Has a stronghold, base of operations, guildhouse, or the like +2
Moves around a lot –1
Caused the death of other followers –1
Leadership
Score Cohort
Level Number of Followers by Level
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1 or lower — — — — — — —
2 1st — — — — — —
3 2nd — — — — — —
4 3rd — — — — — —
5 3rd — — — — — —
6 4th — — — — — —
7 5th — — — — — —
8 5th — — — — — —
9 6th — — — — — —
10 7th 5 — — — — —
11 7th 6 — — — — —
12 8th 8 — — — — —
13 9th 10 1 — — — —
14 10th 15 1 — — — —
15 10th 20 2 1 — — —
16 11th 25 2 1 — — —
17 12th 30 3 1 1 — —
18 12th 35 3 1 1 — —
19 13th 40 4 2 1 1 —
20 14th 50 5 3 2 1 —
21 15th 60 6 3 2 1 1
22 15th 75 7 4 2 2 1
23 16th 90 9 5 3 2 1
24 17th 110 11 6 3 2 1
25 or higher 17th 135 13 7 4 2 2
Leadership Score

A character’s base Leadership score equals his level plus any Charisma modifier. In order to take into account negative Charisma modifiers, this table allows for very low Leadership scores, but the character must still be 6th level or higher in order to gain the Leadership feat. Outside factors can affect a character’s Leadership score, as detailed above.
Cohort Level

The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level. A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to the leader’s alignment on either the law-vs-chaos or good-vs-evil axis, and the leader takes a Leadership penalty if he recruits a cohort of an alignment different from his own.

Cohorts earn XP as follows:

The cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP.

Divide the cohort’s level by the level of the PC with whom he or she is associated (the character with the Leadership feat who attracted the cohort).

Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to the PC and add that number of experience points to the cohort’s total.

If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than the associated PC’s character level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed attain the next level.
Number of Followers by Level

The character can lead up to the indicated number of characters of each level. Followers are similar to cohorts, except they’re generally low-level NPCs. Because they’re generally five or more levels behind the character they follow, they’re rarely effective in combat.

Followers don’t earn experience and thus don’t gain levels. However, when a character with Leadership attains a new level, the player consults the table above to determine if she has acquired more followers, some of which may be higher level than the existing followers. (You don’t consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however, because cohorts earn experience on their own.)


Back to Main Page → 3.5e Open Game Content → System Reference Document → Feats
[show] Open Game Content (place problems on the discussion page).

[Fhaolan]

It works as such

Huh, yeah it looks like they changed it between 3.0 and 3.5 as that's not matching my 3.0 DMG. Yet another case of something I houserule showing up in 3.5 anyway. :smallsmile:

[Dairun Cates]

Yes, although at this point, it would be best to scrap the whole thread and start a new one with that topic.

Honestly, I have to ask why.

The topic creator very clearly defined the definition for the purposes of the discussion in the first post, and if you're not reading at least that, then I'd have to wonder why you're even responding to it.

The proposed question essentially was "Can a DMPC ever be acceptable by this definition?".

Even if the title doesn't make it entirely clear, the first post does. The people that aren't following that seem to just want a topic to air out their own personal dirty laundry. This isn't a topic about complaining about your GM. This is a topic about theory.

Besides, the proposed topic title comes off as a sarcastic quip at the people that can't be bothered to read the first post all the way through. So, we'd just get a flame war on that.

BACK ON TOPIC...

There's also a lot of knee-jerk reactions on this one towards "DMPCs are never acceptable". Quite frankly, even if your definition is one of negative connotations, it strikes me as a rather small-minded opinion.

A lot of published authors (myself included) take stock in a tiny grammar and style textbook called "Elements of Style". Some people think it's over-rated, but it's gotten a reputation for a good reason. The important thing about it though, is one of the last things in the book. I can't find my copy at the moment, but essentially what it says is that one of the most important rules of writing is knowing when to break the rules. Essentially, once you know the right way to do things and WHY they are done that way, you know enough to know when to break them. No rule is without flaw. There's always exceptions. The same is true of about everything and DEFINITELY GM'ing (since it's essentially interactive writing).

So, to me, to even think of saying "absolutely never" is to either say that the item is so grievous a sin that it shouldn't be considered (like second person narrative in a non choose your own adventure book and even that may one day be proven wrong) or the sign that someone hasn't seriously considered the ramifications of those words.

Are there some things that people would consider DMPC's that would actually work and help some campaigns? Yes.

Are there things that fit under the proposed definition of DMPC that are workable and acceptable? Absolutely.

Oh, and I wish people would stop using phrases like "I suppose it could work for a bunch of new guys" like it's a negative thing, and that the quality of a RPG player is determined by their time playing. It's called social gaming for a reason.

You can't win D&D. Stop trying.

[Saph]

Honestly, I have to ask why.

The topic creator very clearly defined the definition for the purposes of the discussion in the first post, and if you're not reading at least that, then I'd have to wonder why you're even responding to it.

The proposed question essentially was "Can a DMPC ever be acceptable by this definition?".

Even if the title doesn't make it entirely clear, the first post does. The people that aren't following that seem to just want a topic to air out their own personal dirty laundry. This isn't a topic about complaining about your GM. This is a topic about theory.

The entire reason this argument has gone on so long is because BRC's used a term which has a specific meaning (the DM's PC) and tried to redefine it to mean something quite different (a helpful accompanying NPC). So we've gotten pages and pages of people talking at cross purposes to each other. If you deliberately choose to try and redefine a term which has baggage, don't complain when people show up with the aforementioned baggage.

[BRC]

The definition in the OP is my personal definition. When I made the thread, I assumed people would recognize it as a definition. Not The definition, or even the Right one, but enough of one that they could use it in the course of a specific discussion. Apparently I was wrong, and many people felt my definition was so incorrect that it could not ever, even for simple expediencies sake, be applied to the term DMPC. I assumed people would just say "That's not exactly what a DMPC is, but I see where you're coming from" not "YOU ARE WRONG!"

[Dairun Cates]

The entire reason this argument has gone on so long is because BRC's used a term which has a specific meaning (the DM's PC) and tried to redefine it to mean something quite different (a helpful accompanying NPC). So we've gotten pages and pages of people talking at cross purposes to each other. If you deliberately choose to try and redefine a term which has baggage, don't complain when people show up with the aforementioned baggage.

...And my point is that "The DM's PC" is about as vague as a term can get since no one has actually identified the exact terms that make something a PC when the player is not a player. It's like discussing art as a general topic. There's about 15 opinions amongst 10 people.

Defining it and going along with it is the only way to continue a discussion. If you think the definition is completely invalid, simply don't partake in the conversation. If you started jumping up and saying "that's not art. This is the definition for art" in a classroom, you'd get kicked out pretty fast.

The definition given is a legitimate definition of it for the purposes of discussion. It's a bit broad for my tastes, but it's still a legitimate definition. You could define a character by that definition as a DMPC, and he clearly defined that he meant that kind of DMPC.

Arguing semantics honestly doesn't help a discussion, and there's no point to remove a topic just because someone doesn't like your definitions. We're going to get nowhere if we insist on defining everything for a vague definition by everyone's standards.

If you think I'm wrong, give a SOLID and COMPLETE definition of DMPC and get every last person on this topic to agree on it. I'm talking about one that defines every aspect of it in everyone's mind. See how well that goes.

[Yukitsu]

The problem with that thinking is, everytime society does that, a few dozen yobos go into the conversation, and come out thinking it's the norm. I think that's in part how words like "simulationism" came to mean what some people think it means.

[Fawsto]

I am forced to disagree with the position that thinks that DMs should avoid DMPCs.

I am currently playing with a big group of players with a DM that uses a lot of DMPCs. I could list the name and the classes of at least 7 of them that have helped the party more than once each.

I cannot see harm in a DM rolling dice against his monsters.

[Saph]

Defining it and going along with it is the only way to continue a discussion.

Wrong. If you believe a definition is a bad one, pointing this out and suggesting a better and more standard definition is a perfectly legitimate response. Particularly when the discussion is stalemating precisely because the definition used is a nonstandard one.


The definition in the OP is my personal definition. When I made the thread, I assumed people would recognize it as a definition. Not The definition, or even the Right one, but enough of one that they could use it in the course of a specific discussion. Apparently I was wrong, and many people felt my definition was so incorrect that it could not ever, even for simple expediencies sake, be applied to the term DMPC. I assumed people would just say "That's not exactly what a DMPC is, but I see where you're coming from" not "YOU ARE WRONG!"

I think a better way to phrase the question would be "When is it a good idea to have an NPC accompany the party?" There are reasonable arguments both ways.

[BRC]

Wrong. If you believe a definition is a bad one, pointing this out and suggesting a better and more standard definition is a perfectly legitimate response. Particularly when the discussion is stalemating precisely because the definition used is a nonstandard one.



I think a better way to phrase the question would be "When is it a good idea to have an NPC accompany the party?" There are reasonable arguments both ways.

Yes that is another way, it may even be a better way. But was my phrasing so unreasonable as to render te discussion impossible.

[Kylarra]

Yes that is another way, it may even be a better way. But was my phrasing so unreasonable as to render te discussion impossible.Well given the way the last few pages went, I would venture to say "yes".

[Dairun Cates]

Yes that is another way, it may even be a better way. But was my phrasing so unreasonable as to render te discussion impossible.

Not really. No. Despite it being 4 straight pages of this, it's been primarily the same 4 people each time. Like I said, it's a slightly broad definition, but it's still lightyear's better than the "It's a DM's PC, don't you know what that means" statement that keeps coming.

Honestly, I wouldn't start a new thread. You're going to get the same complaint with a different phrasing on the next one. Let people argue the semantics and just keep going with it.


Wrong. If you believe a definition is a bad one, pointing this out and suggesting a better and more standard definition is a perfectly legitimate response. Particularly when the discussion is stalemating precisely because the definition used is a nonstandard one.

I'm still waiting for this miracle definition that's so much better that everyone keeps talking about. You can talk about it all you want, but I'd like to hear the ACTUAL definition beyond "A DM's PC". One that covers EVERY aspect of it.

[Yukitsu]

I'd ask why you think "A DM's PC" doesn't cover everything about a DMPC. At this point, the only question that remains, is "what's a PC."

[Dairun Cates]

I'd ask why you think "A DM's PC" doesn't cover everything about a DMPC. At this point, the only question that remains, is "what's a PC."

A PC is a character played by a PLAYER. The DM is NOT a player. So the concept is inherently contradictory.

The problem here, as I've stated before, is how are you defining the EXACT MOMENT a DM becomes a player for the character to gain the title PC. In essence, what is the exact difference between an NPC and a DMPC. Clearly define that line for me with absolutely no flaws in your logic. You can't do that with three words.

No one has managed ANYTHING close to that yet despite constantly saying this definition is insufficient. That's like defining "art" as "beauty" and nothing more.

I see absolutely no reason to start a new thread unless you can prove that your definition is the definitive one.

[Yukitsu]

I fail to see how that is relevant to the acronym explicitly meaning "The DM's PC" nor should I. When I define the word "hot" I don't need to draw some exact arbitrary line as to where that temperature is, nor do I have to defend the decision. However, there comes a point in context where it becomes clear that something is not hot. Case in point are "DMPCs" that are not controlled by the DM, nor do they act in any way like a player character, in that they don't do anything.

[pres_man]

So, a VOP druid is clearly weak and ill equipped to handle challenges then?

Wealth is only one aspect of power.

VOP druid is your proof that there is no difference between the capabilities of typical NPCs and typical PCs due to differences in wealth. VOP druid. See, now I thought you were trying to have a serious conversation and then you pull this out. VOP druid. You got me, hook, line, and sinker. I can see you now you've been just pulling my chain the whole time. VOP druid. Good one. :smalltongue:


Pres_man and Yukitsu seem to both be players that have had really bad experiences with DMPCs. I feel that this really tilts both of their arguments towards the "Kill it with fire" doctrine on DMPCs.

Man, if you find me anti-DMPC, you must really be PRO-DMPC. :smallwink: I think you got some names mixed up along the way.


Please ignore Pres_mans earlier definition.

Hey now! People are complaining about a clear precise definition, I give one, and you're telling people to ignore it. If you don't want to use it, that is fine, but let others decide to reject it or not.

For those that missed it, here it is again.

DMPC
1: A character that if run by another player instead of the DM would be considered a PC; a special kind of NPC ally
2: derogatory: any NPC that a DM plays poorly and disrupts the game with

You notice that most words actually have more than one definition. The way you tell which definition is being used is by the context. For example the word jackass has the following definitions:

1 : donkey; especially : a male donkey
2 : a stupid person : fool

Now if someone says, "Climb on that jackass and I'll lead you down the canyon." They are probably not talking about the jerk who butted in front of you in line.

Likewise, if you use my definition and say, "What should I keep in mind about doing a good job with my DMPC." The context should be pretty clear that they are using the first definition and not the second definition. If they are saying, "The DMPC teleported in and attacked the party. And was immune to everything we could do and knew about all or powers and screwed with us, and then mind controled us to make us go dig up a bunch of dead bodies for him and then made us wipe his poop in our hair and then he laughed and teleported away." They are probably not using the first definition from the context of that statement.

[Dairun Cates]

I fail to see how that is relevant to the acronym explicitly meaning "The DM's PC" nor should I. When I define the word "hot" I don't need to draw some exact arbitrary line as to where that temperature is, nor do I have to defend the decision. However, there comes a point in context where it becomes clear that something is not hot. Case in point are "DMPCs" that are not controlled by the DM, nor do they act in any way like a player character, in that they don't do anything.

You keep saying that the definition ISN'T a DMPC though, and I can give plenty of examples where an "NPC that assists the party frequently" would be considered a DMPC. So, it's been proven that it can indeed be A DEFINITION of the term by that fact alone.

For all definitions, we have proven that the definition can be "hot" in some people's eyes.

The insistence is that this is NOT SUFFICIENT though. It's not "hot enough". If you insist that the definition is insufficient, then the burden of proof is on the person that created the accusations.

Ie. In this case, you say the definition is insufficient. It is YOUR responsibility to provide a better definition or you have contributed absolutely nothing to this conversation and have seeked to only disrupt it. No one has done this yet, and even now, you just insist that you shouldn't need to explain yourself.

Provide a SUFFICIENT definition. If you can't, then you have no grounds to complain about the topic.

Here. I'll give you a template.

DMPC (n.)- 1. *text here* 2. *possible secondary definition here*

The current one is...

DMPC (n.)- 1. An NPC that assists the PC's frequently.

Now write a definition that WON'T cause the same number of arguments and actually explains the object to a point where it can be discussed without any confusion on the term. Provide a precise definition that YOU will not argue over that actually explains the term to the point that others won't argue over it.

If that sounds hard, it is, but it's the SAME standard you've held the topic creator to.

EDIT: And Pres_man. It's a decent definition, but I fail to see how it clearly defines the term. The problem here is the phrase "would be considered a PC". This is entirely subjective. We need an objective standard. What's the point when this happens? When does a DM become a PC? What's the standard for it? What is the difference between a DMPC and a fleshed out NPC? These are logical points that have not been accounted for. While the topic creator's definition leaves out a couple of cases and not EVERYTHING in that definition is absolutely a DMPC, anything in there COULD be considered one. It has, effectively, done a better job at defining the term in clear terms than any other definition here.

[Yukitsu]

You keep saying that the definition ISN'T a DMPC though, and I can give plenty of examples where an "NPC that assists the party frequently" would be considered a DMPC. So, it's been proven that it can indeed be A DEFINITION of the term by that fact alone.

Saying that something falls into a category does not mean it defines the category. For instance, apples don't describe the category of fruit, even though an apple is a fruit. I'd also argue that if they are a DMPC, then they aren't an NPC.


For all definitions, we have proven that the definition can be "hot" in some people's eyes.

The insistence is that this is NOT SUFFICIENT though. It's not "hot enough". If you insist that the definition is insufficient, then the burden of proof is on the person that created the accusations.

That's not really what the analogy is. If you define something that has a fuzzy logic aspect, there is never an onus to clearly define the specifics, and demanding that one do so is not exactly polite.

That aside, I'm not stating that the definition is "hot" or not, I'm stating that if you look only at the acronym, the examples are "cold" in that they are neither the DM's, nor are they PCs.


Ie. In this case, you say the definition is insufficient. It is YOUR responsibility to provide a better definition or you have contributed absolutely nothing to this conversation and have seeked to only disrupt it. No one has done this yet, and even now, you just insist that you shouldn't need to explain yourself.

I don't have to draw some firm line as you seem to believe. There is no specific point where someone can say "here is where an NPC becomes a DMPC", nor would that be a rational means to approach this. However, if an example is clearly against either the DM, or PC portion, then it rationally is not a DMPC.


Provide a SUFFICIENT definition. If you can't, then you have no grounds to complain about the topic.

Here. I'll give you a template.

DMPC (n.)- 1. *text here* 2. *possible secondary definition here*

The current one is...

DMPC (n.)- 1. An NPC that assists the PC's frequently.

OK. DMPC (n.) A player character controlled by the DM.

Defining a player character is at this point important, much like dictionary definitions have words in the definitions that are then defined. However, there is no solid definition to a player character, though it is possible to exclude specific extreme cases.


Now write a definition that WON'T cause the same number of arguments and actually explains the object to a point where it can be discussed without any confusion on the term. Provide a precise definition that YOU will not argue over that actually explains the term to the point that others won't argue over it.

If Webster can't do that, I'm going to view your request as impossible.


If that sounds hard, it is, but it's the SAME standard you've held the topic creator to.

My definition of a DMPC is perfectly fine. What's contendable is the definition of a PC.


EDIT: And Pres_man. It's a decent definition, but I fail to see how it clearly defines the term. The problem here is the phrase "would be considered a PC". This is entirely subjective. We need an objective standard. What's the point when this happens? When does a DM become a PC? What's the standard for it? What is the difference between a DMPC and a fleshed out NPC? These are logical points that have not been accounted for. While the topic creator's definition leaves out a couple of cases and not EVERYTHING in that definition is absolutely a DMPC, anything in there COULD be considered one. It has, effectively, done a better job at defining the term in clear terms than any other definition here.

Again, you're asking someone to define what temperature hot is. There should not be a specific point as a standard. Just a spectrum where the beginning and end are obvious, but not the center.

[pres_man]

EDIT: And Pres_man. It's a decent definition, but I fail to see how it clearly defines the term. The problem here is the phrase "would be considered a PC". This is entirely subjective. We need an objective standard. What's the point when this happens? When does a DM become a PC? What's the standard for it? What is the difference between a DMPC and a fleshed out NPC? These are logical points that have not been accounted for. While the topic creator's definition leaves out a couple of cases and not EVERYTHING in that definition is absolutely a DMPC, anything in there COULD be considered one. It has, effectively, done a better job at defining the term in clear terms than any other definition here.

Yes, I can see how there might be some confusion there, especially how the term PC has been thrown around here. My thinking, and I'm not exactly how to state it into the definition, is when I say "would be considered a PC", by that I mean in all fashions. Roleplaying, character creation rules available, appropriate character level, share of rewards (xp and gp), appropriate behavior as a party member, a party member, other stuff that I can't think of at the moment.

Basically if there was some way not to be able to determine who was actually playing the character (say it was a PbP game or something), that everyone would consider the character a standard PC in the party. As I said, I am not exactly how to condense that into the definition. It would seem obvious to me, but I certainly understand (especially given some of the comments we've seen) that it might not be so for everyone.

What I'm trying to say I guess is if you didn't know who was playing it, would you consider it a PC.

So when someone says, "I hate it when a DMPC hogs all the spotlight and forces the entire party to follow them around and watch how cool they are." My question is, "Is that typical behavior for a PC in the party?" If not, then you are not considering it a PC and thus it would not fit the first definition I gave.

When someone says, "I hate it when the DMPC teleports in, mind controls everyone to streak through town square, and then teleports off laughing." My question again is, "Is that typical behavior for a PC?" And again if the answer is no, then obvious you don't consider that character a PC and thus not the first definition.

And finally if someone says, "Yeah the DMPC stayed back watching the horses and scratching his crotch while we went in got all the loots and we tossed him a couple of coppers afterwards." I ask, "Is that typical behavior of a PC?" If not, then that is also not a DMPC according to the first definition I gave.

So I guess I agree with most of the others that say what was described in the OP is more of hirelings, followers, or cohorts and not DMPCs, because they are not acting like PCs (so don't fit my first definition) but are not disrupting the game (so don't fit my second definition). Of course we could add a third definition, but the general consensus seems to be outside of this particular thread with its unique definition, that is not generally accepted.

I would add, that it is entirely possible for a character to satisfy both of my definitions of the term DMPC. A character could be acting like a typical PC AND also disrupting the game, especially if the person acting as the DM has a habit of playing disruptive characters when he is not DMing.

Sometimes I feel like these conversations are like discussing rainbows with Cartman. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPkBq1sUZLE) :smallamused:

[Vitruviansquid]

Here's my take on the issue using various definitions that I believe are held as valid by significant amounts of people.

If anyone's curious as to which basic RPG I'm using for my assumptions, it's actually Savage Worlds, which is not a setting in and of itself, but a ruleset that can include multiple settings (I once wrote a campaign that takes place in the Knights of Cydonia music video, just to show that the rules are, in fact, flexible enough to allow this.)

My OPINIONS are based on my experiences with my regular party that mostly come from video gamer backgrounds and tend to be heavy on rollplaying and light on roleplaying. As college students, they also have this incredibly annoying insistence on realism :smallannoyed:. In either case, these are my opinions based on my personal experiences that may or may not serve as a useful and enlightening tidbit for the rest of you.

1. Definition of DMPC as, if the players are Alice, Bob, Carol, and Darius, the DMPC is the DM's Eliza. That is to say, it's the DM's character that functions as a member of the party who fights monsters, solves puzzles, embark on quests, has a character sheet and receives loot/xp.

Answer: No. I would hesitate to say this is true for everyone, but if I was personally DM'ing, and I've written up the most clever and horrifying traps I could think of, it would simply be too tempting for me to put Eliza in that one space where the traps wouldn't hit simply because I knew they were there. My players would hate that because that would be a party member who got preferential treatment and whose player - the guy at the table - is acting at cross purposes: he is both Eliza's ally and opponent. On the flip side, I don't want her to be the butt monkey who trips EVERY single trap because I'm studiously trying to avoid having her perceived as having preferential treatment. That would just be silly. Besides, the DMPC is inherently an "Other" to the group. She can never be a full member of the group with all the privileges it entails (such as other group members being concerned for your safety :smalltongue:) because she isn't a Player, with a capital P. She's rolled up by the same guy who rolls up the goblins you kill and describes the cliffs you're climbing.

Now, as to the opinion that a DMPC could fulfill a niche in the party that nobody else wants to fill, like being the healbot, I tend to disagree with it based on the belief that there should also be plenty of in-game work-arounds or the DM can simply re-write the particulars of the campaign to accomodate the party. If all else fails you can just ask a player to roll a second character and play two at the table.

2. As the first definition, except that the DMPC is both a party member and a piece of the game world that the players are not. For example, if the party is composed of Sam, Merry, and Pippin from Lord of the Rings and the DMPC is Frodo, who is both a party member and a special part of the narrative as the ring-bearer. Alternately, it could be a DMPC that had special knowledge of the game world that the players need in order to advance the campaign. Basically, a railroad conductor.

Answer: Yes, depending. This is a tricky one, I would say. There are ways to do this that are completely obnoxious and ways to do this that are good and positive. There are players who would be violently opposed to this notion and players who wouldn't mind it at all. I think the first and foremost factor that determines whether this can be pulled off is whether the players still have their own agency (or the illusion of it) or are they carried off the DMPC's rails. Let's say you have a DMPC who is a knight carrying the only sword known to be able to slay a particular lich, the main villain of the campaign (Obviously, the ideal situation is to simply give the Lichslaying weapon to a player character, but I digress. We're talking about DMPC's). I can guess already that players don't want to be "Those guys who helped Sir Lichpuncher the Good kill the Lich." But what if the players were sent by Lady Lichpuncher to dissuade her husband from undertaking a suicidal quest? In both scenarios, Sir Lichpuncher is a DMPC of the definition, yet in the former, the players are likely to think of it as being a railroad in the worst possible way, and a shut-out from any meaningful RP. In the latter situation, the players are more likely to think of themselves as agents, able to interact with the world. Even if Sir Lichpuncher is absolutely adamant about pursuing his quest, the players aren't "Lichpuncher's grunts who kinda helped" but the "reluctant heroes who kept a damned fool from getting himself killed." I want to stress again that the most important factor in this situation is whether the players BELIEVE they have agency of their own.

Where Sir Lichpuncher is the DMPC like Frodo, who was both a party member and a special part of the plot, the other case is the DMPC who possesses special knowledge that the players do not. I'm tempted to say that this is completely bad. Why? Because, in the same vein as the DMPC in definition 1, this DMPC is basically a party member with special preferential treatment. He's the first party member to grab a brazier when the party encounters fire-vulnerable enemies or the first one to discard his gun when the DM rules that black powder firearms don't work in the rain. Even worse, he's standing next to the player who's completely specialized his character in black powder guns and has no other means of attack. And yet let me stress again that this definition only applies if the DMPC is also supposed to be a full member of the party. If the DMPC is actually like a Navi (from Ocarina of Time) who does little other than give players tactical advice and knowledge of the world, it's probably permissible, if irritating to players who are less tolerant of railroad.

3. DMPC is an entity in the game world who the DM has a personal stake in. A self-insertion of the DM even if he/she isn't in the party and a character that the DM identifies with as much as the players identify with their characters.

Answer: No. I like to think of being DM as being a sort of writer. A writer who has chosen to handicap himself by giving independence to his characters through the players at the table, or maybe a writer of a massively branched "choose your own adventure" book. In any case, this type of DMPC is undesirable in the same way that any character like this is undesirable. It's terrible writing. The players are allowed to have this type of identification with their PC's because they're limited by dice rolls, a DM, and the rulebooks that tell you clearly what your PC can and can't do. Since a DM can bypass all of these, what he ends up with is Mary Sue and Edward Cullen. And nobody wants that.

4. If you've ever played Heroes of Might and Magic IV (and if you haven't, don't), the Life campaign begins "I have been the squire of Lord Lysander..." We'll take the squire to mean the PC's and Lord Lysander to be the DMPC. Basically, this definition of DMPC is a character that is a superior agent than the player characters. Perhaps he can tell the players what to do because he outranks them, perhaps he is the ruler of the kingdom and can affect the world in the "grand scheme" while the players are a bunch of mercenaries, and perhaps he is a comrade or enemy of the players that do not act as the party, but do far more for the in-game objective than the players can.

Answer: Absolutely okay. On some basic level, the players must be agonists. In order for the game to be interactive, the players need to feel that their actions can change the game world. While this kind of DMPC would seem to inherently violate the players' interactivity, it doesn't actually. Picture this scenario:

The players are Knights serving a king who, being in a position to give players orders, would be considered the DMPC. The king is quite mad and gives the players an order they disagree with: burn a defenseless village which he suspects of harboring rebels, even though there is no sane proof that such rebellion exists.

The players' agency is not actually taken away from them in this situation. There are multiple ways the players could handle this situation:

A. The players disobey the king and become fugitives. Even turning into chivalrous rogues themselves. The players have effectively chosen their own fates regardless of what the superior agent, the DMPC, has attempted to choose for them.

B. the players obey the king and burn the village, however, while they are there, they encounter an opportunity to save one harmless five year old child and discreetly spirit her away to one of their estates to raise like a daughter in penance for the horrible deeds they were forced to commit. Here, the players have retained a privately meaningful agency on a small scale even if the DMPC has overridden their agency on the large scale.

C. The players burn the village and slaughter everyone, as their king commanded. The players haven't found agency of their own, but instead, they get great character development. What kinds of trauma is going to accompany the knights on their next quest as a result of this quest? What kind of attitude will the knights have towards their own kingdom? How could this be exploited to give the players agency and motivation in another situation?


Having said all this, let me give a probably-related anecdote of one of my DMPC's (I really thought of him more as an NPC at the time, but he quickly evolved past that). Perhaps this will contain some grain of wisdom relevant to this topic and perhaps not. In any case, I'm not forcing you to read it :smalltongue:.

I've been running a Savage Worlds campaign based on Beowulf. The basic premise of the game is that the players are Huscarls, the elite warriors, of one King Healdane of Brimholm. The players began adventuring by themselves for awhile, when they were sent as messengers to some kingdom by the King. They had hilarious misadventures along the way (yes, by "hilarious, I mean the type where people die).

Eventually, I set up an arc where the players are to accompany King Healdane on a full scale invasion of a feudal kingdom called Hwitfield. At this point, I also introduce a pair of unkillable mercenary warriors (their invincibility is actually based on taboos. One is invulnerable unless he breaks his taboo by accepting a gift from a woman. The other is invulnerable unless he denies a gift from a woman).

It's all fine and dandy up to a point where the the players find that the unkillable mercenaries have double crossed King Healdane. The players rush into the King's camp to find him cornered and in a desperate battle against the mercenaries.

Here it gets a little wacky. I wanted to imply to the players that the mercenaries were unkillable by making King Healdane an insane engine of destruction and yet have his weapons be ineffective against the mercenaries. Hopefully, this will inform the players that the mercenaries cannot be killed and have them retreat to find more information, eventually leading to the puzzle element where they have to find and exploit the mercenaries' weaknesses.

But, of course, the players had to go ahead and successfully rescue the King anyways. :smallmad:

So I had a situation where the players are actually voluntarily accepting into their party the worst kind of DMPC. He's got a superior agency over the players, being their king. He's got sky-high statistics that none of the players can, within the rules of the game, approach (he dual wields 2-handed weapons and has larger than max stats for humans). There was a fight that the King participated in where, instead of rolling dice, I simply say that the King "rips a man apart like a phonebook." Being... a little savvy to what RPG players tend to hate, I decided to kill off the King.

In private, I told this to one of my players over lunch, "Yeah, the King's probably going to die. I don't want him to take over the story. He's overpowered, I think he's served his purpose and he's just a bad idea. Besides, once he's dead, there'll be a sweet revenge story."

Next session, the players have absolutely freaked out. They LOVE King Healdane. They're just about ready to riot (hyperbole, of course) if the King gets killed off-screen. Ever since then, I've been trying to formulate situations where the King would be split from the party or occupied doing other things so he wouldn't steal the spotlight from the players.

So perhaps there's no hard and fast rule where "if there's a DMPC, and if it's within so and so parameters, it's bad." It's all up to the players and the DMPC itself.

[Fhaolan]

Hrmmm. Spent some time thinking on this one. Try this on for size:

DMPC: A subset of NPCs for which the nominally unbiased DM has an unreasonable or unexplained emotional attachment to. Possible sources for: It could be a former PC from when the DM was a Player, a specially created goad to spur a response from the regular PCs, or an outlet for overenthusiastic exposition. While these sources can also produce normal NPCs, it is the unreasonable emotional attachment that promotes them to DMPC. Identification of: The NPC cannot be seriously harmed or challenged, the NPC invalidates the presence of the PCs, and/or the NPC is inexplicably present at pivotal times during the game.

This isn't the definition that used to be common where and when I started playing, but it appears to be similar to the definition that Yukitsu, Tyndmyr, and Saph are familiar with, given their statements so far in the thread. I've been doing this long enough to know that these definitions shift over time, so I'm not that surprised that my original definition has been lost in time.

For reference, my original definition was that there were three levels of NPC: non-classed NPC (farmer, minion, hireling), classed NPC (sergeant of the guard, henchman), and DMPC (King Leopold, Sergassian the Evil Vizier, Princess Jessica from whom the Dragon needed rescuing, etc.) The difference was in the level of detail. A DMPC could be turned over to a player to use as a PC if and when needed. And that was it. It appears that bad DMs have abused the DMPC concept so much that it has become the other definition above.

Which is the nature of language, for terms to shift about as time goes on. I actually caught a history professor a couple of years back using the term 'long sword' as meaning a one-handed sword, rather than as the specific two-handed weapon it normally applies to in academic circles. He got roasted by his peers, but it shows how insidious these shifts in meaning are.

[Indon]

However, not all gaming groups are quite so strict in their player/DM roles. Some have players taking on DM tasks, and visa-versa.

Oh, true. I'm going to be playing in a campaign next month, in fact, in which I not only designed a culture, but I'm designing the mechanics associated with that culture (a distinct supernatural ability system).


A PC is a character played by a PLAYER. The DM is NOT a player. So the concept is inherently contradictory.

DMPC (n.)- 1. A character that the DM plays as if the DM was a player. DMPCs frequently occupy roles comparable to PCs in the group, though on occasion are more or less prominent.


Anyway, to reiterate the topical statements (that I have previously made, anyway) about DMPCs:

-DMPCs should engage in the same niche-protection that PCs do with each other.
-DMPCs should not exploit their NPC status to their PC advantage.

I'd go a step further and reiterate a more general statement:

-DMPCs benefit from both being played as a good NPC and a good PC, and being played as either a bad NPC or a bad PC reflects poorly on them.

As a result, this thread would represent a difficult discussion even without all the definition-noise, as it regards both ideal PC behavior and ideal NPC behavior. What makes a good PC a good PC, and what makes a good NPC a good NPC?

[dsmiles]

*kicks the dead horse*

[Tyndmyr]

...And my point is that "The DM's PC" is about as vague as a term can get since no one has actually identified the exact terms that make something a PC when the player is not a player. It's like discussing art as a general topic. There's about 15 opinions amongst 10 people.

Hell, half the people haven't even made it to "The DM's PC". Until that's accepted, don't expect unanimous agreement on the details.


Defining it and going along with it is the only way to continue a discussion. If you think the definition is completely invalid, simply don't partake in the conversation. If you started jumping up and saying "that's not art. This is the definition for art" in a classroom, you'd get kicked out pretty fast.

Oddly enough, this is not a classroom. Thus, some of us feel that classroom rules are not relevant here.


The definition given is a legitimate definition of it for the purposes of discussion. It's a bit broad for my tastes, but it's still a legitimate definition. You could define a character by that definition as a DMPC, and he clearly defined that he meant that kind of DMPC.

It is not at all an accepted definition. Thus the many pages of many people disagreeing. If you use a definition that isn't even close to an accepted definition, there will be disagreement.


Arguing semantics honestly doesn't help a discussion, and there's no point to remove a topic just because someone doesn't like your definitions. We're going to get nowhere if we insist on defining everything for a vague definition by everyone's standards.

Semantics, in this case, is the foundation of the discussion. You cannot have a reasonable conversation about if X is acceptable until you have decent agreement on what exactly X is.


If you think I'm wrong, give a SOLID and COMPLETE definition of DMPC and get every last person on this topic to agree on it. I'm talking about one that defines every aspect of it in everyone's mind. See how well that goes.

All you require is complete agreement by everyone else on everything? Good luck with that.

[Tyndmyr]

VOP druid is your proof that there is no difference between the capabilities of typical NPCs and typical PCs due to differences in wealth. VOP druid. See, now I thought you were trying to have a serious conversation and then you pull this out. VOP druid. You got me, hook, line, and sinker. I can see you now you've been just pulling my chain the whole time. VOP druid. Good one. :smalltongue:


Did you run out of actual arguments? You were claiming that wealth was power. I pointed out that no, it is, at most, only a portion of the power.

And yes, you could technically hire a VoP druid. Are most DMs going to allow that? Probably not. But if you wanted a VoP druid NPC, and the DM allowed it, you can do that within the rules.

Do you have any actual objections, or are you going to stick with vague derision?

[Toliudar]

Am I the only one who, having sifted through these threads, has vowed never to use the term "DMPC" again? I think I'll stick with NPC from now on. I know what that is.

[Ormagoden]

Hey now! People are complaining about a clear precise definition, I give one, and you're telling people to ignore it. If you don't want to use it, that is fine, but let others decide to reject it or not.


What did you think of my definition?
Does it make it clear in the proper context (this thread)?
Do you think I'm off some (alot) with it?

[Saph]

DMPC: A subset of NPCs for which the nominally unbiased DM has an unreasonable or unexplained emotional attachment to. Possible sources for: It could be a former PC from when the DM was a Player, a specially created goad to spur a response from the regular PCs, or an outlet for overenthusiastic exposition. While these sources can also produce normal NPCs, it is the unreasonable emotional attachment that promotes them to DMPC. Identification of: The NPC cannot be seriously harmed or challenged, the NPC invalidates the presence of the PCs, and/or the NPC is inexplicably present at pivotal times during the game.

That's a good definition, I think. It's definitely where the antagonism towards DMPCs comes from. I'd say you're right in putting the focus on the emotional attachment - that's what makes them so infuriating to players, because as players, there's very little you can do about it.

[Fhaolan]

That's a good definition, I think. It's definitely where the antagonism towards DMPCs comes from. I'd say you're right in putting the focus on the emotional attachment - that's what makes them so infuriating to players, because as players, there's very little you can do about it.

Unfortunately, it's one of those terms that because it's an acronym it implies that the full phrase 'Dungeon Master's Player Character' is sufficiently descriptive for a definition, but it isn't really. The term is not defined in any central repository such as the rulebooks for the game, over the 30+ years of modern RPGs it has shown up with different definitions at different times, and it appears to be currently charged with context not immediately obvious to, or experienced by, all gamers. As such it cannot be assumed to mean the same thing to all people.

[Nero24200]

I'd say that your example is a pretty textbook example of "not done right" and your group had a lot of problems that had nothing to do with the DMPC (The apathy that you were talking about when you had 5 players instead of 3)

It was just an example. I don't have a problem playing with large groups, but it does mean less time for individual characters, which is a bit of a nessicery evil. On the other hand, DMPC's aren't needed for a large group, so why add something that'll just slow combat down a little when theres no need?

[Mikeavelli]

First of all, guys, you've got way too much time on your hands. You've already got it:


A PC is a character played by a PLAYER. The DM is NOT a player. So the concept is inherently contradictory.


This.

This is what a DMPC is, a PC controlled by the DM.

People tend to hate DMPC's because they're an example of what shouldn't be happening. They're contradictory to the game and normally poorly thought out mary\marty sues.

Going beyond this and trying for a very specific definition that ensures DMPC means the exact same thing to everyone involved is just an exercise in masochism and wankery.

[Tyndmyr]

I can actually see more justification for NPCs in solo campaigns...because the game was designed for a party(talking about any flavor of D&D and most typical RPGs). The details of how you do those NPCs can make a big difference, of course, but the point is that you're filling a pre-existing need.

There's a huge difference between adding something to improve the campaign and changing the campaign to shoehorn in a "fix".

If you have a standard sized party or more, adding DMPCs will add problems. Sure, you can layer on fixes to fixes, but it's far easier and more simple to just not create the problems in the first place.

I fully sympathize with much larger parties suddenly seeming boring. It can be an adjustment. I'm playing in one seven pc pathfinder game, and it can drag at times. Normally, I suggest not going above six without using some method of splitting the party, and depending on how many noobs you have, combats can drag at parties of 5-6 as well.

[pres_man]

Did you run out of actual arguments? You were claiming that wealth was power. I pointed out that no, it is, at most, only a portion of the power.

And yes, you could technically hire a VoP druid. Are most DMs going to allow that? Probably not. But if you wanted a VoP druid NPC, and the DM allowed it, you can do that within the rules.

Do you have any actual objections, or are you going to stick with vague derision?

Look I know you are trying to give me some slack so you can dig the hook in bigger, I get it you got me hook, line, and sinker. You obviously are not serious with this part of the discussion. I mean bring up VoP as a proof that wealth is not an issue when it has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that to get the benefits of the VoP with items you'd actually have to have a higher than standard wealth for a PC. Thus you are getting more than the benefits of items, just without the items. It is like saying if you have a permeant enlarge person on you that is not an issue of wealth purchasing power because you are not wearing a ring which gives enlarge person permanently. You are playing a shell game here. That is how I know you aren't really serious. So good one, but we know that doesn't prove that wealth isn't a fundamental issue for power. I mean if you said just a broke, penniless, and equipmentless druid, that might be an issue, but VoP druid, lol, yeah ok.

[dsmiles]

Die, horse, die!!!!!!

*whew*

We just can't seem to kill this one...:smallannoyed:

[Tyndmyr]

What? VoP is better in low wealth campaigns, since it provides static bonuses.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

And yes, a penniless druid is still powerful.

[pres_man]

What did you think of my definition?
Does it make it clear in the proper context (this thread)?
Do you think I'm off some (alot) with it?

Did you mean this one:

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

Well again, I would say that most PCs would fit that bill (at least I would hope they'd have B, F, J, and K), thus I think it fits my first definition.

As for other definitions, I would say anything talks about how a DM "feels" about the character is going to be too vague. Players may interpret certain actions to think a DM is feeling some attachment to a character when in fact he may not be. For example look at Vitruviansquid's pair of unkillable mercenary warriors. Some players would view that as Vitruviansquid as being overly attached to those characters, that is why he is not allowing them to be killed, when in fact it is for story reasons. Perception and reality are not always the same.

[Tyndmyr]

No, that definition is needlessly specific, and falls victim to no-true scotsman by entirely precluding essentially any form of bad DMPC explicitly.

Hell, not even all PCs fulfill all of those.

Imagine telling a player that his character isn't a PC any more because his level ended up ahead/behind the party.

[Karoht]

Dead horse is Dead

PS-I typically despise people who argue more about the definition of words, than what the actual topic is about. Present company is tolerable, but only so. :smallsmile:

Suggestion: Get WotC to create a definition of DMPC and include it in the next edition of PhB. Perhaps a whole article on their feelings regarding DMPC's. Then again, WotC has issues with the dictionary as is, on the best of days...

[BRC]

Personally, if we're coming up with a definition for a DMPC, I feel it should be a neutral term, not defined by being a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. For example, "A Character that has all the traits of a Player Character, except in that they are controlled by the DM".

Of course, then you get into "What traits define a Player Character besides being controlled by a Player", which is another headache altogether.

[pres_man]

You know what I always find really funny. It is when people who think a topic should fall away continue to post in it to refresh it back to the top of the topics. If you want it to go away, the best way to get that to happen is to stop posting in it. LoL :smallbiggrin:


However, I started to wonder, are there types of DMPC's (here defined as an NPC that regularly accompanies and assists the party) that can work. Obviously, a DMPC [NPC] that fulfills the role of a party member isn't [usually] a good idea except in the smallest of parties. It's usually much better to fill the role in other ways when possible, and any DMPC [NPC] that participates in combat results in the DM rolling against themselves, which is never [usually not] a good idea. But are there other functions a DMPC [NPC] can fulfill.

1) Boring Jobs: A role that needs to be filled. that none of the players can, or want to fill. Now, this isn't a combat role, preferably it's some simple menial task that's basically reliant on one skill rather than a complete character. If the character does find themselves in combat, they should stick to Aid-another checks or getting out of the way and taking a full defense action. Such a DMPC [NPC] can appear spontaneously due to player decisions rather than being planned.
Example: Bill the Teamster: What, you can't expect a group of adventurers to walk everywhere. With this in mind they acquire the services of Bill the Teamster, who drives them around in a wagon or carriage. He's got ranks in Handle Animal, Ride, Pilot, and Craft (wood) to fix up the wagon. While the PC's are storming the Lich's lair, Bill will wait outside, ready to help them flee if a quick getaway is required.

There are generally very few problems with an NPC of that form. One issue to consider though, is if Bill is too weak then it is likely he is going to get offed eventually just by happenstance. Either accidentally getting caught in an area effect, attack by a wandering owlbear (or other monster), or captured and eating by a foe of the PCs. So just keep in mind that if the PCs find themselves wasting too much energy on keeping Bill safe and/or alive, he perhaps should retire in some nice safe village. Note: the party doesn't actually have to see Bill doing anything, but it should be obvious if Bill is not incapable and can take care of himself. Say the party comes out of a dungeon and finds Bill sitting on a wolf skin. "Where did that come from?" "Had a little trouble with a goblin and his wolf, but nothing I couldn't handled." as Bill takes a drink from his goblin skull mug.


2) Exposition: It's almost a given that, in DM-designed settings, the DM will know more than the characters will, especially if the DM is like me and is making up fluff as he goes along. The Player's probably don't feel like memorizing every detail of the world you designed in case some of it becomes useful, and some of it will be too esoteric for the PC's characters to have heard about. Which is where this guy comes in, usually a scholar of some sort, the Exposition is loaded with Knowledge skills and not much else. If the PC's need somebody to read the ancient runes, or tell them the proper way to ask a favor from a Dragon, this guy can prove useful. This isn't an essential DMPC [NPC], and there are other ways to solve the problem, but using this type of DMPC [NPC] isn't that intrusive.
Example: Professor Jonathan Landre, a scholar who spent most of his life in one form of university or another, and now seeks some real-world experience. Maybe he hired the PC's as bodyguards, or he's just tagging along. In combat, his first instinct will be to dive for cover and take full defense actions until the noise stops.

Again, no real issues with this type of NPC. Just make sure that the character is synergizing with the skills of the party. If a party member is making certain types of knowledges a big part of their concept then at low levels this NPC can be seen as a teacher, perhaps giving the character access to source material during downtime, and the character can assist the NPC. At higher levels the roles should get reversed with the character bring back information to share with the NPC and the NPC assisting the character with information checks. Though again, if he is traveling with the party they may feel like they are wasting alot of time and energy protecting him. Avoid the feeling of deadweight.


3) Nonstandard Mechanic: So the DM has an awesome idea for a game mechanic, but for one reason or another, a PC isn't going to use it. Maybe none of them want to, or it's not developed enough for him to trust them with it. So the DM gives it to a DMPC [NPC] where he can control how it's used. Now, for the same reason described above, this mechanic should not be combat based, but it can have out-of-combat purposes.
Example: Doc Brown. The party lacks a healer of any sort, but they're tough enough to survive through encounters without healing. However, they want some patching up afterwards. With this in mind, the DM gives the party Doc Brown, who uses a different healing method. A combination of healing magic and first aid/surgery that let's him heal the party but takes too long to be used in-combat. In battle, Doc Brown does everything in his power to get out of the way of both sides, only emerging afterwords to patch the PC's up if necessary.

Interesting, I see this as kind of expansion of the second type of NPC you listed. There isn't a whole lot of difference between Doc Brown and the party heading back to town to get treated by NPCs there and coming back, again they may be wasting alot of energy keeping Doc Brown alive and well. Of course if it works well (and/or balanced), then of course PCs might well be expected to want those abilities.

[Ormur]

If you go with a DMPC being the DM's PC then it means the DM would presumably have some stake in the character, not wanting him dead, wanting him to shine too, just like players. It's not an inherently bad thing, it could be managed well if the players like him but it still seems to invite all sorts of trouble. The DM really has power of life and death over the PC, knows the plot, designs the encounters etc. The possibilities of abuse are plentiful, forcing the players to accompany the DMPC, giving him awesome moments in battle and so forth.

Of course it's always up for debate when an NPC becomes a DMPC but at the bare minimum the DM's like playing the DMPC's and they travel with the party. For comparison imagine if you were in a party of four players with a DM. What if the DM always told one player everything he knew, what kind of encounters you'd be facing, what the BBEG's biggest weakness is, the layout of the dungeon etc. That particular player can resist abusing that knowledge but it's still very likely the will, even unconsciously.

[Karoht]

You know what I always find really funny. It is when people who think a topic should fall away continue to post in it to refresh it back to the top of the topics. If you want it to go away, the best way to get that to happen is to stop posting in it. LoL :smallbiggrin:

...says the man making a semantical arguement over the definition of what constitutes DMPC's, which is not what the topic is actually about...

[pres_man]

I will accept that some DMs have problems with out of game knowledge effecting in game actions, but I am not willing to accept that the problem is a truism. Lots of players have also acted as DMs in the past and will in the future. These player-DMs often have a great knowledge of the various creatures, their strengths and their weaknesses, and yet somehow these player-DMs are still able to be not cheating metagamers in various games when they are not DMing.

Also often players who have never DMed will be thrust into situations where they have to decide to act in a way that is not in the best interest of the character, but is in the best interest of playing the character. Such as for example, let's say a member of the party enters a chamber and sees a basilisk and before he can warn the others fails his save and is stoned. Do the other characters enter the room with their eyes closed already? The players sitting at the table know about the basilisk, but do their characters.

These types of things occur in games all the time. If you can't trust the people you game with to be able to separate in-game knowledge and out-of-game knowledge, then you should just admit to yourself that you are playing a tactics game and toss the whole illusion to the side. When we played HeroQuest, we didn't act like we didn't know what the other players were doing even if they were on the other side of the board. If that is how you roleplay, then I wonder how much of the "role" you are actually playing.


...says the man making a semantical arguement over the definition of what constitutes DMPC's, which is not what the topic is actually about...

Thanks for bumping it again. LoL. Sorry, I was participating in the discussion that was at hand. The original discussion seemed to have drifted off. You will notice though, that the post you responded to here, actually addressed the original topic.

[Vitruviansquid]

I can see your point, pres_man, but the issue isn't so much whether the DM will play the DMPC with unfair or un-roleplaying knowledge. The issue is that the players will believe he is regardless of how he actually plays the DMPC. This will foster the DM vs. players attitude that most groups try to avoid (I tell my players the DM is always on their side, even as I'm roasting them :smallbiggrin:)

And neither is this absolute. I can't say for sure that every group with a DMPC is going to feel the DMPC gets preferential treatment. However, in my personal experience and my knowledge of how people tend to react to these situations, my opinion is that the DMPC under that definition should rarely, if ever be employed.

[pres_man]

I can see your point, pres_man, but the issue isn't so much whether the DM will play the DMPC with unfair or un-roleplaying knowledge. The issue is that the players will believe he is regardless of how he actually plays the DMPC. This will foster the DM vs. players attitude that most groups try to avoid (I tell my players the DM is always on their side, even as I'm roasting them :smallbiggrin:)

And neither is this absolute. I can't say for sure that every group with a DMPC is going to feel the DMPC gets preferential treatment. However, in my personal experience and my knowledge of how people tend to react to these situations, my opinion is that the DMPC under that definition should rarely, if ever be employed.

And as I said, your example of the undefeatable mercenaries could leave many players with a sour taste in their mouth, one that smacks of DMPCism (derogatory definition). Still I imagine that does not occur in your group because they have faith and trust in you. Sadly that seems a rare thing these days to too many.