PDA

View Full Version : Acceptable DMPCs



Pages : [1] 2

BRC
2009-11-20, 04:24 PM
Picture the situation. Your sitting down for the first game of a new campaign, you've got your rules legal character sheet built to an appropriate level of power, maybe you entered the room with a friend, so you're chatting and joking around, maybe linking your two characters backstories, or discussing some synergistic strategy the two of you are going to try. You sit down and get ready to play some DnD.

The DM enters, sits down, greets his players, and begins to set up. The usual things come out of his bag, a notebook, no doubt filled with excitement, a couple rulebooks, pencils, dice, a DM screen, and a character sheet. Wait, a Character sheet?
"What's the character sheet for?" you ask as you reach for the bowl of goldfish.
"Oh, it's for the DMPC I'll be running this campaign".
You slump back in your seat, the desire for cheesy fish-shaped snacks forgotten. You now know what to expect. You and your friends will spend the campaign tagging along as a supporting cast to some plot-centric pretty-boy who effortlessly wades through foes the rest of the party finds unbeatable and who is in a position to control the decisions the party makes.


Or is it.

Whenever the topic of DMPC's comes up, the general response is to loudly declare "Anything But".

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 that fulfills the role of a party member isn't 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 that participates in combat results in the DM rolling against themselves, which is never a good idea. But are there other functions a DMPC 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 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.

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, and there are other ways to solve the problem, but using this type of DMPC 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.
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 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.

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 04:26 PM
The first guy is a hireling, and does not require a character sheet.

Guy two is best as someone not brought with you, because I don't know of any walking dictionaries that don't fight wandering into war zones.

Either way, I wouldn't call either a DMPC, as neither acts as a PC.

Melamoto
2009-11-20, 04:28 PM
I agree with you on all points. When the DM runs a stupid DMPC, then that's just a power trip. This stops most people from realising that DMPCs, when done right, are very useful and likeable. One example is that in a game I'm running where the group has no healers, I'm running a Cleric who specialises in healing and has almost no other real purpose, although he does draw in a lot of plot hooks.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 04:29 PM
Possible functions for DMPCs:
Corpse.
Blinded, shackled pack mule.
Firewood.
Man who combines the bag of holding with the portable hole.
Sacrificial offering.
Slave in the salt mines.
Fulfilling the prerequisite for Assassin.



The thing is, none of the roles you listed need a DMPC. A simple henchman for the party is quite sufficient.

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 04:34 PM
I think DMPC needs to be removed from the concept of hireling, which I still find superfluos, as there is no such thing as an essential party role, when the DM knows what they are doing.

Telonius
2009-11-20, 04:37 PM
I really don't like running DMPCs. I'd make a very specific exception if I only have a small (read: 3 or fewer) group of beginner players where nobody wants to play a healer. In that case, the DMPC will have taken a vow of "don't do anything offensive," and be Sawbones McHealbot. I'd prefer to grant one of the characters a free Leadership before I even do that; even Gestalt would be preferable. But if the players are inexperienced enough, DMPC is probably the best solution.

Another very specific exception would be a traveling companion for a discrete amount of time. Gary the Guide might accompany a low-level party through the jungle, and maybe point out some velociraptor tracks to prevent the characters from being eaten. But after that adventure, he's done. He'll generally act more like a "helpful NPC" than a DMPC, even though I'll be the one directing his actions.

Gamerlord
2009-11-20, 04:40 PM
5. The ends to a mean: The DMPC may last for one session or many, but the DM has ensured that his time will come when he is no longer needed
Example: Samson the fighter hires the party to go with him to slay the dragon that killed his father. He aids them in the insanely difficult encounters you throw at the party, only to be killed at the beginning of the fight with the dragon via DM fiat.

BRC
2009-11-20, 04:40 PM
The first guy is a hireling, and does not require a character sheet.

Guy two is best as someone not brought with you, because I don't know of any walking dictionaries that don't fight wandering into war zones.

Either way, I wouldn't call either a DMPC, as neither acts as a PC.

Remember how I defined a DMPC in the post, an NPC who regularly accompanies and assists the player characters. In that way, they are both DMPC's.
A DMPC that acts as a PC is doing something that should either be done by a PC, or the adventure should be organized such that it isn't necessary.

As for Bill the Teamster being a Hireling, and therefore not a DMPC. Technically, Bill could be a Hireling, a game mechanic, a mute who does nothing but drive the PC's around.
But, if he stays with the PC's long enough, it will become necessary that he have some sort of character sheet. He'll need several skills. The Party could get ambushed on the road, and they'll need to know Bill's Will save. A hireling he may be, but that's not to say he can't be a complete character.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 04:41 PM
I have personally played in all sorts of parties, including mono-class parties(all rogues, all wizards, etc). Unusual parties may work differently, but there is no one required class at all in 3.5.

Why is a DMPC preferred over a hireling? I mean...if you only want the party to have a healbot, why not just let them hire an inexpensive guy with only healing skills? Why does the DM need this control if he's really, really, honest I swear, not gonna use it for anything else?

BRC
2009-11-20, 04:44 PM
5. The ends to a mean: The DMPC may last for one session or many, but the DM has ensured that his time will come when he is no longer needed
Example: Samson the fighter hires the party to go with him to slay the dragon that killed his father. He aids them in the insanely difficult encounters you throw at the party, only to be killed at the beginning of the fight with the dragon via DM fiat.
Ah, now here is where we disagree. Samson works if he is killed by DM fiat the first time he get's into a fight, but he shouldn't engage in combat. You then get the PC's watching as you roll against yourself, which is a situation you should do everything in your power to avoid.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 04:44 PM
Remember how I defined a DMPC in the post, an NPC who regularly accompanies and assists the player characters. In that way, they are both DMPC's.

This would include such things as a PC's cohort. It would also disclude NPCs that fail to be of assistance. IE, the jerk you can't get rid of.

You can't solve the disagreement over DMPCs by simply changing the definition to something non-standard.

Dimers
2009-11-20, 04:48 PM
Technically, Bill could be a Hireling, a game mechanic, a mute who does nothing but drive the PC's around.
But, if he stays with the PC's long enough, it will become necessary that he have some sort of character sheet. He'll need several skills. The Party could get ambushed on the road, and they'll need to know Bill's Will save. A hireling he may be, but that's not to say he can't be a complete character.

And filling him out a bit will help provide some flavor and verisimilitude to the players' experience of the gameworld.

Yukitsu
2009-11-20, 04:50 PM
Actually, they stat hirelings in the DMG. Going anymore than that other than bits of personality is a bit of a waste, as it's not like you can justify using rolled stats and special class combinations for the guy.

BRC
2009-11-20, 04:51 PM
This would include such things as a PC's cohort. It would also disclude NPCs that fail to be of assistance. IE, the jerk you can't get rid of.

You can't solve the disagreement over DMPCs by simply changing the definition to something non-standard.
I'm not intending to solve the disagreement over DMPC's by changing the definition. But for the purposes of this thread, I'm using the term in a specific way to cover everything from hirelings to, as you pointed out, a player's cohort (Which would only be A DMPC if the DM controlled it). Hireling describes why the NPC is helping the party, not their state.
For example, Bill the Teamster is a hireling because the PC's paid him to drive them around, but that's not the only way Bill could be working for the party. Maybe the PC's saved his life after his village was destroyed. He wants to help them out in the best way he can, which considering his skill set means driving them around.

By that same token, the PC's could hire Max Killmuch, a legendary warrior who happens to work for the PC's on a 10g/Year contract, and basically wins every fight for them. However, since he was hired, he's technically a hireling, so saying Hirelings Good, DMPC's Bad! dosn't work.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 04:54 PM
Actually, they stat hirelings in the DMG. Going anymore than that other than bits of personality is a bit of a waste, as it's not like you can justify using rolled stats and special class combinations for the guy.

You don't have to, but you can have flavorful personality, etc with preset stats, since stats don't force you to follow any given attitude. Likewise, alignment can vary.

I do think, though, that players can spice up hirelings too. After all, the DM isn't the only one who develops flavor and personality for characters, as PCs certainly can have that.

Hirelings also have expanded options available in other books. I can't recall them all off the top of my head, but Arms and Equipment had some.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-11-20, 04:55 PM
I've used a DMPC more as someone to guide characters around in a more structured game, i.e. as part of a military unit where they need to follow orders, and subsequently get killed/disappeared/promoted once he's served his purpose.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 04:56 PM
I'm not intending to solve the disagreement over DMPC's by changing the definition. But for the purposes of this thread, I'm using the term in a specific way to cover everything from hirelings to, as you pointed out, a player's cohort (Which would only be A DMPC if the DM controlled it). Hireling describes why the NPC is helping the party, not their state.

You didn't specify controlling in the definition. You did specify assisting.

By specifying DMPCs as characters that are assisting the party, you are automatically discluding the possibility of DMPCs that hurt the party. In other words, you are precluding disagreement by changing the definition.

Telonius
2009-11-20, 04:57 PM
I have personally played in all sorts of parties, including mono-class parties(all rogues, all wizards, etc). Unusual parties may work differently, but there is no one required class at all in 3.5.

Why is a DMPC preferred over a hireling? I mean...if you only want the party to have a healbot, why not just let them hire an inexpensive guy with only healing skills? Why does the DM need this control if he's really, really, honest I swear, not gonna use it for anything else?

Depends on the situation. If the players are starting out in a rural area, magic-using hirelings might be hard to come by.

As I see it, the best (maybe the only) reason to use a full-fledged DMPC at all is if the players are really just starting out and getting a handle on the rules. It's not an issue of DM control, it's an issue of not overwhelming the players while they're still getting to know what their characters are capable of doing. A statted-out healer under DM control is probably the best way to do this. If one of the players is capable of handling a hireling or a cohort, I'd go with that before DMPC.

Gpope
2009-11-20, 04:57 PM
By that same token, the PC's could hire Max Killmuch, a legendary warrior who happens to work for the PC's on a 10g/Year contract, and basically wins every fight for them. However, since he was hired, he's technically a hireling, so saying Hirelings Good, DMPC's Bad! dosn't work.

If the PC's say "We need a walking deus ex machina, consult the yellow pages and find someone we can hire", he's a hireling.

If the DM says "You need a hireling, have this guy. No, you can't fire him," he's a DMPC.

I think having NPCs periodically tag along with the party is fine and dandy, the problem is when an NPC is inserted by the DM as an integral member of the party (this includes concocting a storyline where the PCs are screwed if they don't drag the NPC along at all times.)

Doug Lampert
2009-11-20, 04:58 PM
As a DM, ask yourself, "Is there any reason I SHOULDN'T just give this allied NPC to one of the players and let him run two characters?" I'm running the whole world here and all the opposition, let someone else run the glorified and overpowered henchman with a bit of general guidance from me.

If that's not reasonable, then the DMPC is probably a bad idea except as a (very) rarely present NPC.

But if it is reasonable, then at least in combat hand the character sheet to a player if you've got anyone willing to run two characters (they'll do a worse job with the character they're not familiar with, but that's fine; I think the DMPC shouldn't be run as optimized as the PCs). If you don't have anyone willing to run two characters then run the DMPC yourself and if your players think they're being overshadowed at least they how they can solve the problem.

4th edition has rules for companion characters in DMG II, I wasn't that impressed by them, but I've had good luck with "monsters" or NPC as allies. The fact that they have only 1 healing surge per tier and far fewer powers puts a real damper on their ability to overshadow the PCs even if they are "more powerful" or higher level.

BRC
2009-11-20, 04:59 PM
You didn't specify controlling in the definition. You did specify assisting.

By specifying DMPCs as characters that are assisting the party, you are automatically discluding the possibility of DMPCs that hurt the party. In other words, you are precluding disagreement by changing the definition.
An NPC that hurts the party is generally considered an Antagonist of some sort.

I specified NPC, which, if I remember correctly, means a character controlled by the DM. At least, that's the way I and the people I talk to use the word.

Gamerlord
2009-11-20, 05:00 PM
Ah, now here is where we disagree. Samson works if he is killed by DM fiat the first time he get's into a fight, but he shouldn't engage in combat. You then get the PC's watching as you roll against yourself, which is a situation you should do everything in your power to avoid.

He helped them, he did not do everything awesome, he died in this manner:

Me: "You enter the next cavern, a long bridge connects to the next area, Samson starts to walk across the bridge, but just then you hear a vicious roar, a black shadow swoops down and grabs Samson, you hear screams and shouting, and then a sickening CRUUUUUUUUUNCH! His sword falls to the ground with a simple clunk, roll initiative."

Not exactly too awesome, the PCs then did some pretty awesome stuff in that battle.

BRC
2009-11-20, 05:07 PM
He helped them, he did not do everything awesome, he died in this manner:

Me: "You enter the next cavern, a long bridge connects too the next area, Samson starts to walk across the bridge, but just then you hear a vicious roar, a black shadow swoops down and grabs Samson, you gear screams and shouting, and then a sickening CRUUUUUUUUUNCH! His sword falls on the ground, roll initiative."

Not exactly too awesome, the PCs then did some pretty awesome stuff in that battle.
Which, if that's the first time he gets into combat, is a perfect way to use such a character. If, however, Samson was responsible for helping the PC's chop their way through the monsters guarding the Dragon's lair, then you have a problem, because during those combats Samson was doing things the PC's should have been doing themselves. The Player's don't want to watch you rolling against yourself, so even if Samson did exactly 0 damage during that fight, his turns still took time, time during which the Players were all just waiting.

RandomNPC
2009-11-20, 05:16 PM
I find the only good DMPC is in small groups when nobody want's to play the cleric. They run around healing people and making heal checks, when things get really hairy maybe they hit something with a mace or heavy crossbow, but only when they need it.

Fhaolan
2009-11-20, 05:18 PM
So NPCs never fight each other, ever? The entire world breaks down into two groups, NPCs that can't fight (the one's that are nominally on the PC's side), and enemy NPCs that all belong to one unified whole that never disagrees with itself...?

90% of my gaming group's actions is to get the NPCs to fight each other. The second a PC actually make an attack roll, the players think they've failed.

Yzzyx
2009-11-20, 05:20 PM
An acceptable DMPC is a DMPC that does not interfere with the fun of the game. Exactly what this is varies by group. The term 'DMPC' is often used with a negative implication, so it is not a good sign if a character is called such rather than simply being an NPC.

Hashmir
2009-11-20, 05:21 PM
I'm starting a solo 4e game with my girlfriend, where most of the party is sort of half-DMPCs. One character is outright "hers," and she is the party face and leader.

The other characters have backstories and personalities defined and controlled by me, but they are specifically designed to A) balance each other out such that the main character always get to make the choice, and B) have personalities while actually talking/doing as little as possible. During combat and skill challenges, she has complete control over the entire party's actions, under the (abstracted) presumption that they do whatever she wants anyway.

All in all, I think it's working pretty well. This might not be an example of a DMPC per se, but I think it shares a lot of the same potential pitfalls.

Gamerlord
2009-11-20, 05:23 PM
Which, if that's the first time he gets into combat, is a perfect way to use such a character. If, however, Samson was responsible for helping the PC's chop their way through the monsters guarding the Dragon's lair, then you have a problem, because during those combats Samson was doing things the PC's should have been doing themselves. The Player's don't want to watch you rolling against yourself, so even if Samson did exactly 0 damage during that fight, his turns still took time, time during which the Players were all just waiting.

"Samson attacks the elite kobold warrior, dealing a grievous blow to it"

[sarcasm]Oh my, that took sooooooooo much time away from my players![sarcasm]

Hashmir
2009-11-20, 05:29 PM
Which, if that's the first time he gets into combat, is a perfect way to use such a character. If, however, Samson was responsible for helping the PC's chop their way through the monsters guarding the Dragon's lair, then you have a problem, because during those combats Samson was doing things the PC's should have been doing themselves. The Player's don't want to watch you rolling against yourself, so even if Samson did exactly 0 damage during that fight, his turns still took time, time during which the Players were all just waiting.

I see where you're coming from, but what about situations like 4e's "man with the canaries" form of Bahamut? He's specifically designed to join the party and buff them so they can fight encounters 10 levels higher than usual.

Of course, the key here is that he buffs the party, rather than doing their fighting for them. But he's still taking actions every turn, so obviously combat participation can't always be a bad thing.

BRC
2009-11-20, 05:31 PM
So NPCs never fight each other, ever? The entire world breaks down into two groups, NPCs that can't fight (the one's that are nominally on the PC's side), and enemy NPCs that all belong to one unified whole that never disagrees with itself...?

90% of my gaming group's actions is to get the NPCs to fight each other. The second a PC actually make an attack roll, the players think they've failed.
NPC's do fight each other, just not where the DM has to roll for it while the PC's are waiting around.

As for your second point, then you're running a very different style of game than I do, and I applaud you for it.

@ Gamerkid if that's all that happened, then no it's not a problem. But even simple rolls can cause problems, My 5 3rd level PC's versus 3 CR2 monsters somehow seem to eat up loads of time. So yeah, I'd be careful. If your PC's arn't minding his involvement, then it's a non-issue, so go right ahead. Personally, I'd shy away from that, but that's just me.

Okay, I need to start getting homework done.

Gamerlord
2009-11-20, 05:33 PM
They didn't mind, in fact, they greatly enjoyed that fact he was in, as for that night the druid was suffering a very strange bout of bad luck in the die rolls.

Fhaolan
2009-11-20, 05:40 PM
As for your second point, then you're running a very different style of game than I do, and I applaud you for it.


It comes of having a bunch of players who have plenty of RL experience with combat either in the military or simply surviving in some regions of the world. They understand that D&D combat isn't as deadly as RL combat, but they want to play the game *as if* it is in order to maintain their suspension of disbelief. Their characters aren't cowards, but they firmly believe in the maxim: 'It's not my job to die for my country. It's my job to make sure the enemy dies for theirs.'

Blue Warlock
2009-11-20, 05:45 PM
So NPCs never fight each other, ever? The entire world breaks down into two groups, NPCs that can't fight (the one's that are nominally on the PC's side), and enemy NPCs that all belong to one unified whole that never disagrees with itself...?

90% of my gaming group's actions is to get the NPCs to fight each other. The second a PC actually make an attack roll, the players think they've failed.

Wait, do you actually role it all out in front of the PCs though? If so it kinda seems downright masturbatory, not saying that your players wouldn't want to watch because some people could be into that. Just saying that generally people don't like to see one guy rolling dice against himself for an hour.

EDIT: Bah, ninjas

BRC
2009-11-20, 05:45 PM
It comes of having a bunch of players who have plenty of RL experience with combat either in the military or simply surviving in some regions of the world. They understand that D&D combat isn't as deadly as RL combat, but they want to play the game *as if* it is in order to maintain their suspension of disbelief. Their characters aren't cowards, but they firmly believe in the maxim: 'It's not my job to die for my country. It's my job to make sure the enemy dies for theirs.'

Which is, in my opinion, very awesome, however, the purpose of your game has now shifted from "Killing the bad guys" to "Getting other people to kill the bad guys for us". This means that having NPC's kill each other isn't any worse than having a wizard cast Fireball, since the accomplishment was not in the killing itself, but in getting the other NPC's to fight on behalf of the PC's. In your case, a bad DMPC would be one that joins the party and convinces people to fight on their behalf.

Edit: I believe it was Terry Pratchett who said "It's good to fight an enemy who wants to die for his country, it means that you and he have the same outcome in mind".

Fhaolan
2009-11-20, 06:05 PM
Wait, do you actually role it all out in front of the PCs though? If so it kinda seems downright masturbatory, not saying that your players wouldn't want to watch because some people could be into that. Just saying that generally people don't like to see one guy rolling dice against himself for an hour.


It depends on the situation a lot.

If it's different groups of enemy NPCs fighting each other, the PCs try to not be on scene when it happens. Too easy to get drawn into the fight, which would be counter-productive. In which case I usually spend a couple of minutes making a few rolls to add a bit of random chance into the mix, and then make a note of what happened.

If the PCs have to be present, or simply want to be present, I usually split the NPCs up into groups that the players run through the combat. Basically into manageable chunks. Yes, that does mean the players can be running both sides of the combat, even doing individual fights between their PCs and whatever opponents come accross them.

I can do that because I, as DM *can trust my players* to treat it as an elaborate game of chess. Yes, they want their PCs to win, but they won't cheat to do so. In the same way, I hope, my players can trust me as DM to do the same.

It all comes down to trust really. I trust the other members of my gaming group to not screw with me, and they can trust me the same way. If you don't have this level of trust in your groups... I'm sorry?

Karoht
2009-11-20, 06:40 PM
I once had a DMPC, kind of.
He was a Knight, who had sworn an Oath to visit his daughter's grave and say goodbye, so long as he lived long enough to kill a certain demon. He swore this in battle, and some god or another decided to pay attention. The Knight fought on, tirelessly, long beyond his perceived limitations. What he didn't realize was, he was at negative x hit points, long beyond death. He defeated the demon but did not truly kill it you see. The demon merely teleported back to it's home realm. To truly kill it, he would have to do something to prevent the teleportation. Well, after the combat ended, he didn't die. He was still alive, sort of. He wasn't dead, he wasn't undead. He returned to visit the grave to say goodbye, and nothing happened.
His brother, a master of the undead, built a crypt for him, and put him to sleep in the crypt, with the plan that he would eventually find a way for his brother to pass on. Realizing that his mortal coil was soon at an end as well, he turned himself into a Lich to buy himself more time, and by this point immortality was rather tempting. After 1000 years, he had still come no closer to solving the issue. He could not find the demon's name, nor was he even aware of the oath. All he could discern was, a strange but weak magical aura surrounding the Knight's sword, and an amulet that was on his person during the battle, which had belonged to his daugher. The Lich placed those items in the crypt as well.
Eventually, the Knight's body had decayed and rotted away. All that remained was his spirit, somehow bound to the amulet and sword. He wasn't a ghost, but wasn't a full bodied person any longer either.
The area of the crypt had turned into a thick swamp. Eventually, some bandits had used the crypt as shelter for an evening, and naturally found the amulet. They took it. The party eventually encountered these bandits, and took the amulet from them. One of the party members realized that he could talk to the Knight via this amulet some how. Eventually, they returned to the crypt, and took the sword with them as well. Both objects were useless mastercrafted trinkets really. However, during one particularly nasty battle with a lesser demon in a cult-run mining operation, they discovered that they could call him forth for short periods of time.

Yes, we used this Knight as a DMPC. He had a character sheet, he went up levels, he gained feats and abilities and class features. He had skills, a few homebrew unique abilities, and was integral to the story.
But, because he was on the player's leash as it were, they never once felt that he was a DMPC in the negative sense. Rather, they felt he was a serious addition to the story and overall direction of the game. They felt like they were on a quest, and he was just another element of that quest.
It may have helped that everything to do with the Knight was actually side quest material, but we did use the guy to help tie up some loose ends. When at a crossroads of what to do, only once did the party turn and say 'what does the Knight want to do?' I actually didn't have an answer I could give them. So I just said that he didn't respond. He was also used to tell some lore, particularly as certain story elements involved his brother (no, his brother was in fact NOT the big bad), and the events that lead up to and including the battle against the demon. Eventually, the players managed to find the true name of the demon, and had just set up a meeting with him, when the campaign had to be put on hold due to real-life reasons.

Basically, the big difference here was, I treated this guy like any other NPC, though he could still be called a DMPC in most respects. I just made sure he wasn't the star of the show, but was still relevant and useful from time to time. He never ever exerted any decisions on the party. He might suggest, but hey, he was just a talking amulet. Who's going to take that opinion seriously?
I also made the players, even the non-good aligned ones, care about him. That helped. He had a sad story (sort of), everyone thought he was undead which was unfair, and the demon that they needed to kill to help him was of some signifigance, but not enough to overshadow the main plot.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 06:46 PM
So NPCs never fight each other, ever? The entire world breaks down into two groups, NPCs that can't fight (the one's that are nominally on the PC's side), and enemy NPCs that all belong to one unified whole that never disagrees with itself...?

90% of my gaming group's actions is to get the NPCs to fight each other. The second a PC actually make an attack roll, the players think they've failed.

There is nothing particularly wrong with NPCs fighting each other. Games heavy on diplomacy and intrigue can be a blast. However, as a general rule, players should be the participants, not the spectators.

Thus, if they deceived group x to go fight group y, skip ahead to the general results. Sitting there and rolling away against yourself while they watch, doing nothing, gets lame pretty quickly.

Rhuadin
2009-11-20, 07:09 PM
Gpope got it right. The difference between a hireling who tags along with the party and a GMPC who tags along with the party is that the players don't actually want the GMPC there but can't get rid of him or her. Thus it is less fun.

In my opinion, the best way to have a DMPC be 'acceptable' is that the first time a PC tries to get rid of it, that you let it go. Don't get attached to it or it's role in the plot or whatever grandiose plans you've carved out for it (if this has happened then it's certainly a DMPC). If the players want to fire your DMPC let them. If they don't... they consider it acceptable. Done deal.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-20, 07:16 PM
Possible functions for DMPCs:
Corpse.
Blinded, shackled pack mule.
Firewood.
Man who combines the bag of holding with the portable hole.
Sacrificial offering.
Slave in the salt mines.
Fulfilling the prerequisite for Assassin.



The thing is, none of the roles you listed need a DMPC. A simple henchman for the party is quite sufficient.

.....
I think I love you for that list :smallredface:

Anyways, A "good DMPC" sits out of combat, sits back and watches the horses and shuts up during the RP. Anything else makes it kill bait.

And I will kill them. Oh yes, I have a taste for it now and I wants more...

Gamerlord
2009-11-20, 07:17 PM
A good DMPC assists the players when they need help or they want it, if they're a fighter, they don't just "sit out" the battle.

Darcand
2009-11-20, 07:25 PM
If the PC's say "We need a walking deus ex machina, consult the yellow pages and find someone we can hire", he's a hireling.

If the DM says "You need a hireling, have this guy. No, you can't fire him," he's a DMPC.

I think having NPCs periodically tag along with the party is fine and dandy, the problem is when an NPC is inserted by the DM as an integral member of the party (this includes concocting a storyline where the PCs are screwed if they don't drag the NPC along at all times.)

This may very well be the best defination of a DMPC I have ever heard.

BRC also said it very well that the issue with DMPCs is that no matter how balanced you've tried to make them at some point you will be there rolling dice against yourself while your players sit around, bored.

Even just as an out of combat healbot they often waste game time, and if the party didn't bring a healer it's the DM's responsability to either adjust the difficulty levels down to account for that, or to make them wish they had, not do it for them.

All that said, I have seen a DMPC that worked pretty well. He was a bard. All he did was function as a translator, play the goblin wardrum to buff us during combat, and (I admit) he patched us up after fights with a Wand O' CLW. As soon as we hit town he'd take off and find us a room at the inn, then dig up whatever information the place had to offer on whatever we were doing. He was actually a pretty great time saver.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-11-20, 07:45 PM
Picture the situation. Your sitting down for the first game of a new campaign, you've got your rules legal character sheet built to an appropriate level of power, maybe you entered the room with a friend, so you're chatting and joking around, maybe linking your two characters backstories, or discussing some synergistic strategy the two of you are going to try. You sit down and get ready to play some DnD.

The DM enters, sits down, greets his players, and begins to set up. The usual things come out of his bag, a notebook, no doubt filled with excitement, a couple rulebooks, pencils, dice, a DM screen, and a character sheet. Wait, a Character sheet?
"What's the character sheet for?" you ask as you reach for the bowl of goldfish.
"Oh, it's for the DMPC I'll be running this campaign".
You slump back in your seat, the desire for cheesy fish-shaped snacks forgotten. You now know what to expect. You and your friends will spend the campaign tagging along as a supporting cast to some plot-centric pretty-boy who effortlessly wades through foes the rest of the party finds unbeatable and who is in a position to control the decisions the party makes.

I've played, and played with, a few DMPCs over the years and none of them were as bad as all that. The worst I can say of the typical DMPC is that s/he's not strictly necessary, and therefore adds an unnecessary turn to the initiative count, but I can't fault a DM just for wanting to play a character whose ultimate role isn't 'die' or 'applaud the PCs.'

valadil
2009-11-20, 10:13 PM
The only good DMPCs I've seen have been the ones that didn't start out that way. The PCs recruited a friendly NPC and then the DM took over that character. This invitation made the DMPC acceptable. I could see this happening a lot with hireling clerics. Even still, it's possible for this kind of DMPC to overstep his bounds.

The one other way that I'd use a DMPC is as a storytelling device. I'd introduce a character who looks like a DMPC, and then do stuff to him. Probably kill him off. The key thing to note here is that the DMPC would last for about one session - just long enough to establish that he's a DMPC - and then he's gone.

Ormur
2009-11-20, 10:59 PM
My three man group of players lacks a healbot so I allowed one of them to take the leadership feat and whip up a healer cohort, it also happens to fit his character perfectly. I'll let him run it like he wants with me to step in if he does something I'd believe out of character (like letting the cohort sacrifice himself needlessly while the PC watched and enjoyed his tea). I could also run myself as basically doing everything the PC wanted him to. I'll have no stake in this character. You wouldn't even need a cohort, just a hireling except he'd probably be less loyal meaning more involvement from me.

There's no need for me to stat up a DMPC cleric/healer/something just because they don't have a healer. They can also buy potions and wands and a lot of the time NPC clerics have healed them because they helped the community or served the clerics' master.

It might work out for some but I always get uncomfortable if my NPC's start having conversations between themselves, when I'm just talking to myself. It means I'm either hogging the spotlight or that my players are too bored with the plot to weigh in, with the former probably leading to the latter. It may not be completely realistic for the PC's always being at the center of attention but that's why people play RPG's.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-20, 11:28 PM
The only good DMPCs I've seen have been the ones that didn't start out that way. The PCs recruited a friendly NPC and then the DM took over that character. This invitation made the DMPC acceptable. I could see this happening a lot with hireling clerics. Even still, it's possible for this kind of DMPC to overstep his bounds.


If it's player driven, that's generally ok, yeah. I mean, the biggest problem is players being saddled with something they don't really want. If the players opt to hire/diplomacy/etc a guy to come along with them of their own free will, it's their decision. Just make sure they remain the ones in charge of if he continues to do so, and it shouldn't be a problem.

Kelb_Panthera
2009-11-20, 11:31 PM
As far as I'm concerned, a good DMPC is an interesting and entertaining character that contributes meaningfully to encounters, combat or otherwise, without overshadowing the other players or stealing the spotlight. He should never be plot-integral and should be immediately dispensed with if the players think it's a problem. It's a hell of a balancing act, but DMPC's aren't inherently problematic. Doing it right isn't usually worth the trouble, since the DM has to run the whole world anyway, but if it doesn't cause a problem it can be entertaining.

pres_man
2009-11-21, 02:59 AM
I have always found that buffers-healbots make good DM run party members. That is because they rarely engage the foes and actually enhance the abilities of the party members and thus are seen as a boon. I mean if your party is going to plane shift to the 5th ring of hell, are you seriously going to say no to a bard that has offered to come along and buff the group?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-21, 03:47 AM
I have always found that buffers-healbots make good DM run party members. That is because they rarely engage the foes and actually enhance the abilities of the party members and thus are seen as a boon. I mean if your party is going to plane shift to the 5th ring of hell, are you seriously going to say no to a bard that has offered to come along and buff the group?

Well, there's the following checklist.

Can I trust him?
Does he want loot?
Does he have good loot?
Will he take a portion of the xp?
Is he gullible?

Note that not all of these will preclude him coming with, some merely will hamper his ability to return.

AB
2009-11-21, 03:52 AM
DMPCs are good for exactly two situations.

1.) Story reasons. The DMPC guides the PCs, exposes the story, gives hints, maybe pays the PCs, actually gives quests... always a bit of railroading here, but sometimes its quite useful.

2.) Fills out a party role. System is set for 5 Players, but you only have 4? DMPC. No one wants to play the Healer? DMPC. This works best if the DMPC doesn`t fill the role of the spotlight seeker (Face, Damage Dealer), but a more passive, supporting role (buffer, healer, hacker, rigger, maybe tank).

Mostly, however, DMPCs tend to be

3.) The Star. Being there both for story reasons ("Your leader") AND filling a party role, or, mostly, more than one role ("Stronger than the fighter, more spells than the wizard"), the game becomes the epic tale of DMPC the great and his crew, because the DMPC decides every fight, and is present in every story-relevant scene out of combat, strongly suggesting the party to decide in his way and/or simply giving them orders.


The ideal DMPC is a useful NPC with a funny or interesting personality who acts when needed. The typical DMPC is a annoying gamebreaker with a uninteresting, yet very prominent personality ("My DM-Charakter now tells you his backstory, which begins in the years before the great war he fought against the gods..."), who acts when the players should act.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-21, 07:17 AM
A good question to ask about a GMPC is, is the GM willing to kill him/her. If the answer is a "Yes", chances are it's not one as the GM knows that they will have to be let go, perhaps even turned into a Red Shirt.

I see RPG as more like a story, with the PCs as the protagonists and everyone else as secondary characters, if you bear that in mind you can't go wrong. This is why NPCs are so often utility characters, though DMPCs can begin that way until the DM realises just how cool they are.

Gamerlord
2009-11-21, 07:39 AM
A good question to ask about a GMPC is, is the GM willing to kill him/her. If the answer is a "Yes", chances are it's not one as the GM knows that they will have to be let go, perhaps even turned into a Red Shirt.



EXACTLY what happened to samson in the final battle, besides, the PCs weren't outraged much about his presence, after all, he's the guy who hired them, they could have said "No thanks, we'll find another job", but they didn't, probably because I didn't play him as the star.

Acanous
2009-11-21, 09:22 AM
Intelligent items make for good DMPC's.

That's about it, really. That talking sword, the singing shield... yeah. Those are good DMPCs because to give the player complete control over such items is to write off the drawbacks therof.

onthetown
2009-11-21, 09:35 AM
If you put your players in charge, then DMPCs work.

I was wondering what all the fuss about DMPCs was and why people seemed to hate them, and then I saw that everybody seemed to have been dragged along like the first scenario in the opening post. Our DM puts us in charge, and his DMPCs are just there to fill out the party and help even out the power as we get to higher levels. They never have metagame knowledge, but they'll help make Gather Information and Knowledge checks if we're really struggling. The point is, we're always leading the party, and he's always following.

That said, I can see where they can get annoying sometimes. Like if they kill-steal.

pres_man
2009-11-21, 10:05 AM
Well, there's the following checklist.

Can I trust him?
Does he want loot?
Does he have good loot?
Will he take a portion of the xp?
Is he gullible?

Note that not all of these will preclude him coming with, some merely will hamper his ability to return.

I definitely can see such a checklist made for someone playing a CE character, of course the checklist wouldn't just be for DM run characters but also for any other characters.

Still, if a DM accurately balances out encounters to take into account the larger sized party, then a DM run character that gets a share of the loot and xp doesn't actually take anything away from the other players.


A good question to ask about a GMPC is, is the GM willing to kill him/her. If the answer is a "Yes", chances are it's not one as the GM knows that they will have to be let go, perhaps even turned into a Red Shirt.

Interesting point, but let me give you a counter-point. What if a non-DM player is willing to kill of his/her character if the situation calls for it? Does that then make their character an NPC or "red shirt"? Because many players don't get all "Blackleaf, no!" when their character dies and in fact some are quite willing to kill off their character is it is reasonable to do so (for example, a paladin sacrificing their life so that their companions could escape).

Zorg
2009-11-21, 12:13 PM
3.) The Star. Being there both for story reasons ("Your leader") AND filling a party role, or, mostly, more than one role ("Stronger than the fighter, more spells than the wizard"), the game becomes the epic tale of DMPC the great and his crew, because the DMPC decides every fight, and is present in every story-relevant scene out of combat, strongly suggesting the party to decide in his way and/or simply giving them orders.

This. DMPCs are never acceptable. Well rounded, well thought out and written NPCs are never an issue.


If you put your players in charge, then DMPCs work.

If the player is in charge it's a second PC for them. A DMPC is a Dungeon Master's Player Character - as in another player character in the group, but run by the DM (and usually with the DM's 'powers' of plot control at their disposal).

NPCs are characters not controlled by the player, how fleshed out they are is up to the GM. I like even the most minor role to have a name and a little bit of history, but that's how my group rolls. If we hire a guy to guide us we're going to talk to him, if we go to a bar we'll chat to the patrons etc. If we have a healer come along they'll have a history and personality. It may become as well developed as the PC's, it may not, but it will be determined by how important it is to the plot and the story (and how interested the PCs are). There's no point shoving characters at the PCs that they neither care about or need.

John Campbell
2009-11-21, 12:24 PM
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.
Thing is, this isn't (necessarily) a DMPC. It's an NPC party member. Those need to be used carefully, but there are circumstances in which they're, if not a good solution, at least the best solution. If there's some vital party role that none of the PCs want to fill, then, sure, send along an NPC to fill it. If the plot requires that an NPC accompany them, okay, sure. It's best that they stay as background as possible - the PCs are supposed to be the protagonists, not the audience - but having them there isn't intrinsically terribly problematic, and may be the best solution to other problems.

It only becomes a DMPC when the DM is playing the NPC party member as if it were his own personal PC. Other NPCs are "he" or "she"; the DMPC is "I". There's never any excuse for this. It means that the DM is trying to horn in on the players' role, which a) means that he's not giving the attention he should be to performing his own role, b) means that he's pushing the players out of the spotlight, and c) doesn't really work anyway, because running an RPG for yourself is half-assed at best.

IME, it also usually means that the DM is not trying to help build the story of the PCs, but rather is trying to tell the story of his DMPC, so all aboard the railroad! We'll be taking the scenic route past plot things happening to the DMPC while you watch in awe. Watch in awe, dammit!

If you ever get the temptation to run a DMPC, smack yourself in the face and then go write a novel. You won't be ruining everyone else's gaming night that way. And if the story you're trying to tell is actually any good, then, hey, you might get a decent novel out of it.

And most of the debate in these threads has appeared to come from some people declaring their righteous hatred of DMPCs, and then other people interpreting "DMPC" to mean "any NPC that accompanies or assists the party", or even, "any NPC whatsoever", and being all "why so h8? :(" and refusing to accept any clarification of the matter.


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.
This is not a DMPC. This is not even an NPC party member. This is a hireling. There's absolutely nothing wrong with hirelings. Bill the Teamster is not going to be hogging any spotlights. He's not even going to be there most of the time.


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.

[..]

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.
These are also (probably) not DMPCs. They're approaching "NPC party member", but they're not quite there. They're filling holes in the party's capabilities that none of the PCs apparently want to fill, and staying out of the way of the players doing what the players want to do.

Landre could easily become a problem if he doesn't stay out of the way of the players doing what the players want to do (within reason - if he's their employer, it's reasonable to expect that they'll work towards his goals, but he shouldn't be trying to control how they go about it), or if he slips over the line from "walking encyclopedia" to "oracle of the One True Way to solve the plot". And the latter isn't necessarily problematic, with the right players. Some players like solving plot puzzles for themselves; others prefer to just be told that they need to take the macguffin to the place and throw it in the thingie, and then they can defeat the dude in the cool armor. I'm the former kind; I get really annoyed by NPCs leading me by the hand through the plot, but I recognize that not everyone does.

Korivan
2009-11-21, 02:50 PM
The only time I run anything close to a DMPC are support characters for small groups. The examples that come to mind is that I'm running a 2-3 person party, and no-one played a cleric or mage. I just had them (DMPC) act as a non-combatant that would use magic to defend themselves and slay opponents that ventured too close. Mostly, they were just there to pop a few buffs, heal, mabye make a wall or something to tilt the battle if needed...whatever really.

Is there better ways to play clerics and mages then as a band-aids and minor buff bots? Absolutly. But then the party would be seconed strings. Thats not fun, I've been on that side. I can recall in 2nd edition that a guy, that thankfully we don't play with anymore. Anyways, his DMPC was a Wizard 30/ Cleric 30/ Fighter 30 (level 90 character!!!), that had access to ALL spells and 25 in all stats, with magical gear to make an army blush. No thanks, I'll pass.

boomwolf
2009-11-21, 04:05 PM
My uses for DMPC's:

1) "Save me", they need to be kept alive, but it does not mean they cannot contribute to the party. (or in one case, annoy it. because he was THAT crappy swordsmen yet overconfident in his combat skills the players kept saving his ass.)

2)"Support", a healer/buffer sort mostly, the guy who fills in for missing roles that are required. mostly they get hired by the same guy that hired you. if they are in a combat mode, they are ALWAYS under party level. (a 5th level party gets a 3rd level fighter as a melee DMPC)
Usually does the things nobody else wants to do.

3)"Just for now", a temporary character that decided to help you for now, for whatever reason. usually a well-established NPC, might be stronger then the PC's but if so he must avoid spotlight, or having a behavior that prevents him from doing more then the PC's. (cheap on spells, refuses to fight other then 1 on 1 and other "dumb" actions.)
NEVER allow him to have a behavior that might be unacceptable form PCs, or the other way around.

Aranath
2009-11-21, 05:30 PM
In my group, the role of DMing falls to me because I have the most experience with DnD, but i'd much rather play. However, for the sake of being able to have a game going at all, I agree to be the DM.

I should point out that I am usually opposed to DMs running a character in their group (for all the reasons listed previously), but i've found myself rolling one for this group due to the fact that we don't have many players (3, not including myself) on a regular basis, and no one wanted to play the party tank. So I rolled up a paladin.

I have several times asked the group if they'd prefer my paladin to die/get lost/disappear so they don't feel like i'm cheapening their gaming sessions, but every time the group tells me they don't mind and they like having my character there to absorb the hits, deal the damage, and offer some backup healing to the party cleric. Still, whenever my pally kills an enemy, I feel guilty.

My character was made with the same rules as everyone else's, i've deliberately passed on a few items that he could have used in order for the PCs to have them, and I try to refrain from him making any decisions in the group conversations pertaining with what to do/where to go next. So what do you guys think, is a DMPC like this acceptable, or should I just bite the bullet and get rid of him?

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-21, 06:58 PM
Interesting point, but let me give you a counter-point. What if a non-DM player is willing to kill of his/her character if the situation calls for it? Does that then make their character an NPC or "red shirt"? Because many players don't get all "Blackleaf, no!" when their character dies and in fact some are quite willing to kill off their character is it is reasonable to do so (for example, a paladin sacrificing their life so that their companions could escape).

A player willing to kill their character off really has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as a GM I do like players to have some sort of emotional connection with the character. It makes good roleplaying as long as it's not too much, like Blackleaf.
Usually, players who are willing to kill their character off are:
a) Sick of this one and want to play another
b) Have to leave the gaming group for some reason and want to go out with a bang.
c) Consumate storyteller roleplayers who don't mind a bit of drama at their own expense

PCs should never be as expendible as NPCS (unless you're playing Paranoia or something similar) and it's a mistake to think them as such. The PCs are what the GM uses to tell the story, they are games protagonists whether he likes it or not.

Of course, anarchic players who just want to die again and again are a simple flatout "No" in a serious campaign.

This is an interesting topic, maybe we should have another thread for it.

Shardan
2009-11-22, 02:48 AM
I have had good and bad encounters with DMPC's

Good: small amount of support action in battle, and important NPC actions outside of battle. (PC's rescued a tribe member who traveled with them. lower level, but new all the local tribes so helped the PC's socially with the tribes and with path finding.

Bad: The DMPC is the center of all story and the PC's are just there to see him be awesome. The PC's we're escorted from plot point to plot point and really needed to do nothing more than show up. Actually, the PC's we're pretty much advised to stay the hell quiet while the DM played with himself.. err.. with the DMPC:smallbiggrin:

Nero24200
2009-11-22, 07:08 AM
In general, I've had to deal with alot of DMPC's, and the novalty of them wears off pretty quickly in my experience.

It pretty much reaches a point where I can tell various plot-points just by the DM having a char-sheet for certain characters. For instance, I know that if the DM is using a DMPC, theres no risk whatsoever of the NPC betraying our group. Also, generally, if theres a pretty sensitive social encounter, we'll sometimes find that we (the PC's) don't actually have much chance to do anything while the DMPC makes sure we don't "screw up" (even if the DMPC in question just happens to be a Cha 8 socially inept character). Whats more, the DMs usally pull out crazy stuff to make sure the DMPC is okay, even if they really shouldn't.

I'll be honest, I think a DMPC is only acceptable under a few circumstances
- It's a PC's cohort (since, being lower level, he/she is garantueed not to really steal the show and it's one of the players making the character, not the DM).
- It's a game with new/not alot of players, even then, that has it's own conditions. A healing/buffing focused DMPC isn't bad when aiding the single PC for that game, but the defensive warrior in a party that already has a defensive warrior quickly becomes redundent, and annoying for that particualar player (and I've experienced this. It becomes annoying when you play a cat-folk wizard specialising in transmutations and suddenly meet *gasp* another cat-folk wizard specialising in transmutations)

pres_man
2009-11-22, 11:53 AM
This is crossposted from the other DMPC thread, but I wanted to give my game philosphy reason for supporting the idea that a DMPC could be done well.

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.

Mordar
2009-11-22, 07:32 PM
Hi all -

I understand the fear of the "DMPC" versus an NPC the DM runs to help fill out the party or provide as a narrator-knowledge dispensary.

What I don't get is the idea that players would be "sitting around, bored" if the DMPC/NPC engaged in combat and took their turn trying to hurt the bad guys (or heal the good). Are gamers these days so shallow that they're "sitting around, bored" when the other PCs are having thier turn? If that's the case, maybe some other activity is more appropriate for them...for cripes sake, D&D is supposed to be social, not "all me, all the time". I'd much prefer a fourth character in the group than having DM Fiat have to save the group for lack of a "full team" (because even good DMs can have their group hit a run of bad luck and need a save...and adding an additional character reduces the chances of all the characters hitting the skids at the same time).

Now, if the DM is running 5 characters and there are 3 players, I can understand it becoming tiresome...but just one? Not so much.

- M

Volos
2009-11-22, 08:30 PM
My DMPCs are usually healers, the way I run it my players never seem to mind. I've asked them directly and they seem to enjoy the help the cleric gives them. At first they were upset with the XP being slit five ways, but after they realized that they can adventure for twice as long as normal and kill three times as much ****, they stopped minded. Besides... if they rely on the cleric too much, I'll just have her kidnapped and make an adventure hook out of it.

taltamir
2009-11-22, 08:50 PM
it seems like some DMs say: "and now your cohort goes on to have an epic fight with the BBEG which I will describe in detail and that is way beyond your level, you can mop up the henchmen"
While other DMs do: "And now your cohorts say: we will distract his henchmen, you get the BBEG"

It isn't about cohort/NPC/BBEG, it is about whether the DM lets the players shine, or forces them to just sit on the sidelines and watch him play with himself.

Xey42
2009-11-22, 10:32 PM
In my experience, good DMPC's are creations of the players interacting with the game world. An NPC made so important by the PC's that he needs to be statted out.

Similar to the scholar made by the OP, a NPC librarian in my campaign has become a focal point of knowledge for a group of PC's that don't have a point in any knowledge skill among them. There are solutions to their problems that their skills can handle, but as we're all nerds here, when the immediate solution didn't present itself, "Lets head to the library!" was a very reasonable idea.

A small quirk, to make him interesting, let him be helpful, end of story. Then the PC's decide later to go back to him, as a tool to help them solve another problem. Still sligtly interesting and helpful. Then the BBEG's minions attack or something, as the PC's flee from the city they decide.. "lets save the librarian, we liked him" and now he becomes a DMPC because he'll be traveling with the PC's and will be dealing with encounters as they do (though probably through full defensive actions and hiding) for a short time.

Hes evolved into a DMPC and this kind of thing has always worked for me, never had a problem

taltamir
2009-11-23, 12:02 AM
In my experience, good DMPC's are creations of the players interacting with the game world. An NPC made so important by the PC's that he needs to be statted out.

Heh, my current group came across an artifact sword (we knew what it was)... among its powers, it ignores almost any type of AC. Basically AC against it is 10+dodge.
Out of the random gaggle of NPCs following us only two survived to that point. A sword and board warrior (literally "town guard" from the MM) and a (shaman i think) town guards... we gave the sword and board one the artifact sword... the DM's jaw just dropped when we did that. He actually had to fully stat him afterwards and the guy has been with us for the remainder of the adventure.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 12:18 AM
This is crossposted from the other DMPC thread, but I wanted to give my game philosphy reason for supporting the idea that a DMPC could be done well.

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.

All of this is based on the assumption that all roles NEED to be filled. Why does this assumption keep popping up without bothering to justify it?

Do you really think there is no way to deal with traps other than a rogue? Yknow...there is the factotum, a wide range of spells available to all arcane casters, and of course, the ten foot pole.

BRC
2009-11-23, 12:29 AM
Personally, with the exception of very inexperienced groups, the idea of any roll needing to be filled by a party member. Even then, the only role that would need to be filled would be party healer. A creative DM with a good enough party can usually provide some way to heal people up.
Any other role the DM can design adventures to not need. Don't have a Face, the adventures shouldn't need people skills. Don't have a trapcracker, don't throw them up against Traps.

Fhaolan
2009-11-23, 12:42 AM
Any other role the DM can design adventures to not need. Don't have a Face, the adventures shouldn't need people skills. Don't have a trapcracker, don't throw them up against Traps.

Which of course implies that the DM has 100% control over the game, which isn't always true. If the DM is running a sandbox game where the PCs can go wherever the player's heart desires, this can break down a bit. Especially if the players are stubornly putting their characters in situations that they are not well suited for, and expecting the DM to pull them out of the fire every time. Yes, I've run into that one before: "How dare you allow us to fail!" they screamed, "Your sole contribution to the game is to make sure we have fun! If we didn't need a DM...."

Asshat players are just as common as asshat DMs, unfortunately. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 12:46 AM
Asshat players need to face the consequences of their actions, not be bailed out by the DM going to increasingly difficult lengths to save them from themselves.

If you have no healing characters, didn't bother to make any other provisions for healing and decide to throw yourselves into situations that will cause great amounts of damage to you...it's your fault, and if you die as a result, hopefully you'll learn something about either the value of caution or preparedness.

BRC
2009-11-23, 12:52 AM
Which of course implies that the DM has 100% control over the game, which isn't always true. If the DM is running a sandbox game where the PCs can go wherever the player's heart desires, this can break down a bit. Especially if the players are stubornly putting their characters in situations that they are not well suited for, and expecting the DM to pull them out of the fire every time. Yes, I've run into that one before: "How dare you allow us to fail!" they screamed, "Your sole contribution to the game is to make sure we have fun! If we didn't need a DM...."

Asshat players are just as common as asshat DMs, unfortunately. :smallsmile:
In that case the correct answer is to let the Characters suffer the consequences of their actions.

Dienekes
2009-11-23, 01:01 AM
Heh, my current group came across an artifact sword (we knew what it was)... among its powers, it ignores almost any type of AC. Basically AC against it is 10+dodge.
Out of the random gaggle of NPCs following us only two survived to that point. A sword and board warrior (literally "town guard" from the MM) and a (shaman i think) town guards... we gave the sword and board one the artifact sword... the DM's jaw just dropped when we did that. He actually had to fully stat him afterwards and the guy has been with us for the remainder of the adventure.

Hey, you have Nolan.

For my first campaign, my players were trying to get the duchess and some civilians out of a town that was being conquered. The only guard that was left alive (mostly because the dice favored him for 1 battle) was Nolan. I played him as sort of an honorable but blunt type with a very extreme sense of justice. And I thought I'd give him a cool exit. But the guy refused to die, and the players kept helping him along. By the time they got to the next city to drop off the civilians they grew so attached to the character that they asked him to join their adventuring group. Surprised the hell out of me.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 01:09 AM
As I said, I understand the game philosphy of "screw the players if they don't play what and how they are suppose to". It is just not a game philosphy I buy into. Getting too caught up in punishing players for not playing the right way, just means that those players that are the most willing to compromise will be the ones forced to play characters they really don't want to.

BRC
2009-11-23, 01:20 AM
As I said, I understand the game philosphy of "screw the players if they don't play what and how they are suppose to". It is just not a game philosphy I buy into. Getting too caught up in punishing players for not playing the right way, just means that those players that are the most willing to compromise will be the ones forced to play characters they really don't want to.
Well, there is a difference between "Not playing the way the DM wants you too" and "Attacking the high priest of pelor with your low level good aligned party with the assumption that the DM will make it all better".

pres_man
2009-11-23, 01:31 AM
Well, there is a difference between "Not playing the way the DM wants you too" and "Attacking the high priest of pelor with your low level good aligned party with the assumption that the DM will make it all better".

There certainly is, and there are many other points along that spectrum.

BRC
2009-11-23, 01:34 AM
There certainly is, and there are many other points along that spectrum.

Indeed, and the art of DMing is finding the proper point along said spectrum.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 01:38 AM
Indeed, and the art of DMing is finding the proper point along said spectrum.

There may be several "proper points" depending on where your groups game philosphies lie.

BRC
2009-11-23, 01:42 AM
There may be several "proper points" depending on where your groups game philosphies lie.
Well, in DnD, as in Life, there are few rules that apply to every situation, and alot of rules that boil down to "Well...It depends."

Fhaolan
2009-11-23, 03:29 AM
Well, in DnD, as in Life, there are few rules that apply to every situation, and alot of rules that boil down to "Well...It depends."

Which is all I'm really arguing for anyway, that not everything is absolute 'This is the way to do it.'

While a DM does control the game to some extend, a good DM does not take control away from the players. The DM also needs to be having fun as well, as s/he isn't there solely to provide a service for the rest of the players (an attitude I have found disturbingly common recently.) In the same way that the players must have fun, and aren't there solely to marvel at the might of the DM (expressed through a DMPC or one of the many *other* means at the DM's disposal.)

DMPCs can be defined two different ways, and it appears that both versions are being advocated as 'the common definition' by their supporters/detractors. I had heard the term before these threads (15 years ago or so), but it was a subset of NPC, being any NPC with PC-like level of background/ability/personality detail. Which used to be a lot more common years ago, in 1st and 2nd edition (and even more in Classic or Original), when characters were a lot easier/faster to generate, and you could pretty much take any 5th level Fighter and slap a name on it because they were almost interchangable mechanically anyway. The use of this term to mean 'asshat uber-mary sues' and 'XP sponges' was new to me, which is why I objected to the label.

I can see how people hate those things. However, if DMPC now means those things alone, then the use of the term has changed on me. From some of the responses on this thread, I think it changed on several people.

Superglucose
2009-11-23, 03:36 AM
DMPCs are not all bad. It's just that when they're bad, they're REALLY bad.

Ashiel
2009-11-23, 08:41 AM
DM-PCs can be good, but it's really about responsibility really. DMs have to be responsible enough to avoid pitfalls such as meta-gaming or stealing the show from the players. In some cases, DM-PCs can be useful tools for story telling or plot hooks, but you definitely don't want to overdo it by making everything seem to involve the DM-PC, because it really shouldn't.

I've run several successful DM-PCs over the years. Most of them with fairly detailed personalities, and many of them were brutally effective at combat. One such NPC was the half-black dragon "princess" who wanted to see the world with the party (who agreed) and she became a party member for a long time, and one of the players got the idea to cook up a romance 'tween the two. She was even killed later on (vorpal weapon used by an assassin who was after the party members), and after the fight the players' immediately announced that they were going to go find someone to raise her ASAP.

Dealing with DMPCs is a tricky business. As with any NPC you should retain a deep level of impartiality. You definitely do not want to show favoritism towards any NPC, and this goes for DMPCs as well. All to often you see and hear of DMs who think of the DMPC as their own character and end up writing adventures, bad guys, treasure, and so forth tailored to their DMPC. This never ends well.

So at the end of the day, I'd say it comes down to responsibility. If you want an example of what I think a good DM-PC is like, you may try checking out this blog one of the players in one of my OpenRPG games set up:
Forgotten Dreams (http://forgotdreams.blogspot.com/2008/02/chapter-1-highway-banditry.html)
The DM-PC in this game is Riv'era, the half-elven enchantress who is rescued by the party (small group, Anton and Rhys) at the end of the first session. She ends up traveling with them for some time, and develops a bit with the players. They really seemed to enjoy her in the group, and popular enough that she got her own pictures in the gallery (drawn by my friend who played Rhys, and more of his awesome artwork can be found on his blog: Here (http://ghaelelicious.blogspot.com/)).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 09:14 AM
As I said, I understand the game philosphy of "screw the players if they don't play what and how they are suppose to". It is just not a game philosphy I buy into. Getting too caught up in punishing players for not playing the right way, just means that those players that are the most willing to compromise will be the ones forced to play characters they really don't want to.

The given example was specifically "asshat players" who "are stubornly putting their characters in situations that they are not well suited for, and expecting the DM to pull them out of the fire every time".

I think it's pretty clear what side of the line that example falls on, and it's not something that can or should be magically fixed via use of DMPCs.

BRC
2009-11-23, 09:31 AM
I've run several successful DM-PCs over the years. Most of them with fairly detailed personalities, and many of them were brutally effective at combat. One such NPC was the half-black dragon "princess" who wanted to see the world with the party (who agreed) and she became a party member for a long time, and one of the players got the idea to cook up a romance 'tween the two. She was even killed later on (vorpal weapon used by an assassin who was after the party members), and after the fight the players' immediately announced that they were going to go find someone to raise her ASAP.

Half black dragon Princess, sounds oddly similar to a bad DMPC Story I heard once. Mind you, IIRC that was a one-shot at a con, so it's not the same one.


With that said, Whenever my group got their hands on some short-term allies, we would hand control of them over to one of the players, usually the one with the simplest character.The reason I'm advocating against combat-DMPC's so much is that such DMPC's are a slippery slope, even if the DM is well meaning. Usually, the DM is the one in the group most familiar with the rules, best at optimization, and most forgiving with their own cheese, meaning that, especially in inexperienced groups, it's very easy for a DM to pull out a character that overshadows the rest of the group in combat.

As for controlling the party, it's very difficult,especially when you have investment in your character and the adventure you designed (And every DM who so much as cracks open the Monster Manual before adventures has some investment), to avoid metagaming. If you are doing the role of a PC, it's hard to stay out of the mindset of a player (Namely, help the party), which makes it difficult to pretend you don't know there are goblin snipers hiding in the trees. The reason my "Acceptable" DMPC's are all not serving party roles is to avoid this mindset.


That said, as always, alot of this depends. A DM who is very good at building characters to specific power levels can make a DMPC that compliments the party without overpowering, a DM who is good at roleplaying can switch between being a player with no knowledge of the adventure, and being a DM smoothly enough to avoid accidental metagaming, but it's tricky, and often not worth the risk.

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 09:32 AM
I still disbelieve DMPCs.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 09:41 AM
The given example was specifically "asshat players" who "are stubornly putting their characters in situations that they are not well suited for, and expecting the DM to pull them out of the fire every time".

I think it's pretty clear what side of the line that example falls on, and it's not something that can or should be magically fixed via use of DMPCs.

My comment that you quoted here was a response to your earlier comment about my earlier post, not about the asshat players. I would have assumed that was obvious from the context of my statement, but perhaps not.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-11-23, 09:45 AM
My first DnD game had the DM put one of his previously played character as a party member.

He was a cowardly bard, one level behind the group, controlled by the GM. The GM made sure he didn't stole the spotlight, but he was an essential part of the group. He helped the group with support in combat, a tad of healing, and Lore-support.

And since it was a previously-played character of the DM's, I'd say it was as DMPC as you can have.

In short, you need:

1- Not overpowered
2- The DM has fun playing the character, not the character sheet (more to roleplay than to rollplay)
3- Have a unique role
4- Pleasant to think about when you make up your elaborate plans. Let me tell you one day about us killing a whole King's court and getting away with a 10-minute headstart because we managed to pull off "It was a play". The Bard actually bought our lie and was kinda confused about why we had to run away. :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 11:06 AM
Dunno if this counts as a DMPC, but last night, the party faced off against a former PC turned opponent(I guess...this part wasn't really clear until I ignored other members of the party and started level draining him.)

This PC seperated from our party at level 5. Our party was half level 7, half level 8. He had somehow become level 17. Kender Sorcerer. The kender part should tell you everything you need to know about why he was no longer with the party.

He had the following abilities: Apparently, he could cast through a wall of force. Silent Teleport without error, with an unwilling other person. Very high will save to avoid, no grapple/touch needed. Not a full round action. Change us all to look like him as an immediate action. No save. Did it three times before the druid got tired of shifting back.

Basically, he was just screwing with us. Earlier, with his familiar following us around(a cat that could outgrapple the druid...wtf?), and pickpocketing us, etc. Casting wierd spells at random. The party was trying to figure out WTF the DM was trying to get us to do(when asked afterwards, he shrugged and said he was just screwing with us), thus the OOC asking me not to nuke him. After he teleported out with the shadowdancer to a jail cell, I ignored their plea's and readied a fell drain PW:Pain for his return. Due to our parties FD interpretation(questionable, but DM started the negative level pain vs me, so I consider using it back to be fair play), every tick drops the target a level.

DM gets pissed and tries to turn me to stone. Due to the mission requirements and the lack of another caster in the party, this would mean death. I get lucky and roll a 28 to save. Rest of party stands by mostly uselessly, getting in only the occasional melee hit(albeit, this is mostly due to me being the only one with significant save cheese, ranging from a +10 to a +19), while I continue trading PW pains for SoDs. After a couple, he contingent-teleports away. DM was, apparently, unaware that level drain is permanent if the save is failed after 24hrs, until I pointed out that he needs to make 8 saves.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll meet him again despite all of this, so I've got to prepare something nastier. I did level, but still, fighting level 17s with arbitrary abilities via level 4 spells(I was one of the level 7s until after the fight.) is rather ridiculous.

He's somehow tied to another DMPC that acts exactly the same way, too. Joy.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 11:10 AM
My comment that you quoted here was a response to your earlier comment about my earlier post, not about the asshat players. I would have assumed that was obvious from the context of my statement, but perhaps not.

I ask you for justification of your assumption that "all party roles need to be filled in D&D", and you respond discussing, essentially, DM railroading? That's a bit of a stretch there, and certainly didn't answer the request for a justification.

Indon
2009-11-23, 11:37 AM
Ah, now here is where we disagree. Samson works if he is killed by DM fiat the first time he get's into a fight, but he shouldn't engage in combat. You then get the PC's watching as you roll against yourself, which is a situation you should do everything in your power to avoid.

Why's that?

Being able to watch the world interacting with itself can promote versimiltude in your campaign, which is an integral part of immersion.

Oh, certainly, you can have too much of it, but what's wrong with having it to begin with?

As an example, say the players come across two monsters duking it out, and the winner will act towards the PC's as appropriate. Do you not ever run this scenario? Do you not bother to have the monsters attack each other with the rules and just fiat the fight? Why?

I can tell you why you might not want to - when NPCs engage in distinctly different mechanics from players, it makes the PC-NPC abstraction more visible. That is to say, it can damage suspension of belief.

This naturally extends to DMPCs, in fact: Your DMPCs should engage the game using the same rules as the players whenever possible, allowing the DMPC character to share in the players' successes, failures, and so on.

Other than that, a lot of the "good DMPC" guidelines here boil down to the same niche protection issue which you should also mind with your players: It's often not good to make a DMPC who does something your players do. It's often good to make your DMPCs do things your players can not do.

To summarize much of the good DMPC creation points:
-Run DMPCs consistently with PCs whenever possible, not as NPCs.
-Ensure DMPC abilities do not violate character niche protection.

On a related point, I think it's silly to define the DMPC as something which automatically must be bad, rather than giving the concept a consistent definition. Not only does it lead to endless arguments, but it adds noise to what would otherwise be a short and informative thread.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 11:42 AM
I ask you for justification of your assumption that "all party roles need to be filled in D&D", and you respond discussing, essentially, DM railroading? That's a bit of a stretch there, and certainly didn't answer the request for a justification.

DM railroading, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point.

Going back to you "request" for the assumption that "all party roles need to be filled".
I said there were two responses to my position, and you have given them both.

(1) Screw the players over if they don't play right. This is the default method where players learn to play "right" by having everything blow up in their face because they didn't pick the correct set of abilities/classes. The classic examples are still having tons of traps when there is no rogue present in the party or lots of hit point/ability damage with no access to any kind of healing without a cleric in the party. As I said, this mentality just leads to the players most willing to compromise being (socially) forced to play characters that they don't want to.

(2) Fundementally change the dynamics of the setting/campaign to fit the current party make up. When there is no cleric, tons of potions fall from the sky and NPC clerics are quite willing to help for little to no cost. When there is a cleric, suddenly a healing potion can't be found anywhere and NPC clerics have better things to do. When there is no rogue, there is maybe one trap in an entire kobold lair, when there is a rogue, every other door/room is trapped.

As I said, my game philosphy is that (1) is a bad idea because it punishes some players (those most willing to compromise) while rewards the aggressive players by allowing them to still play what they want. And (2) is a bad idea under my game philosphy because it radical changes the feel of the setting based on the current dynamics of the group which can shift from session to session (depending on how well people roll or act). Thus while it is not absolutely necessary that all party roles are filled, the other choices under my game philosphy are worse. You may have a different philosphy that you work under and thus you may see (1) or (2) as desireable.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 11:46 AM
Why's that?

Being able to watch the world interacting with itself can promote versimiltude in your campaign, which is an integral part of immersion.

Oh, certainly, you can have too much of it, but what's wrong with having it to begin with?

As an example, say the players come across two monsters duking it out, and the winner will act towards the PC's as appropriate. Do you not ever run this scenario? Do you not bother to have the monsters attack each other with the rules and just fiat the fight? Why?

I don't want to sit there for 2 hours watching the DM playing with himself.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 11:47 AM
I don't want to sit there for 2 hours watching the DM playing with himself.

How about 30 seconds?

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 11:48 AM
The situation described above is not one that will take 30 seconds, as fiat was ruled out. Unless one is CR 20 and the other is CR 1, in which case, the result is the same as saying "CR 20 wins" without using the rules.

Indon
2009-11-23, 11:48 AM
I don't want to sit there for 2 hours watching the DM playing with himself.


Oh, certainly, you can have too much of it, but what's wrong with having it to begin with?

Sooooo...?

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 11:49 AM
2 hours is an average combat for me. If you're doing that at all, that's how long it will take.

Duke of URL
2009-11-23, 11:52 AM
In a PbP game I ran (which died out, but not because of the DMPC), I took over the character of a player who went AWOL. Since she was the party's healer, and there was no ready source for hirelings, I couldn't just write her out (like I did with other characters that departed the game who had some kind of "backup" role remaining in the party).

I played her as straight as possible - she didn't offer any information or advice out of combat, and only acted tactically in combat (typically, with sanctuary and buffing/healing party members). In RP situations, she played just like any other NPC, just one that happened to be traveling with the others.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 11:53 AM
DM railroading, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point.

Going back to you "request" for the assumption that "all party roles need to be filled".
I said there were two responses to my position, and you have given them both.

(1) Screw the players over if they don't play right. This is the default method where players learn to play "right" by having everything blow up in their face because they didn't pick the correct set of abilities/classes. The classic examples are still having tons of traps when there is no rogue present in the party or lots of hit point/ability damage with no access to any kind of healing without a cleric in the party. As I said, this mentality just leads to the players most willing to compromise being (socially) forced to play characters that they don't want to.

(2) Fundementally change the dynamics of the setting/campaign to fit the current party make up. When there is no cleric, tons of potions fall from the sky and NPC clerics are quite willing to help for little to no cost. When there is a cleric, suddenly a healing potion can't be found anywhere and NPC clerics have better things to do. When there is no rogue, there is maybe one trap in an entire kobold lair, when there is a rogue, every other door/room is trapped.

As I said, my game philosphy is that (1) is a bad idea because it punishes some players (those most willing to compromise) while rewards the aggressive players by allowing them to still play what they want. And (2) is a bad idea under my game philosphy because it radical changes the feel of the setting based on the current dynamics of the group which can shift from session to session (depending on how well people roll or act). Thus while it is not absolutely necessary that all party roles are filled, the other choices under my game philosphy are worse. You may have a different philosphy that you work under and thus you may see (1) or (2) as desireable.

Those are responses TO the assumption that the party needs all roles filled.

I don't agree with that basic assumption. Thus, your choice is nothing more than a false dichotomy.

I presented a list of options available for dealing with traps for the non-rogue party. A caster with 2-3 spells and a 10 ft pole can pretty much replace a rogue without issue. Even a melee character with no special skills for dealing with traps(see: My neverending dungeon character, who's gone through what, a dozen traps so far via use of a ladder) can avoid traps through use of caution and a bit of common sense.

So, no, no rogue is not at all the same as not having any way to deal with traps. Until you actually show that a given niche being filled is essential to the party, your choice is irrelevant.

So, what classes are irreplacable? What niche is there that requires the DMPC to fill in? Why is it not possible for the players to fix it themselves?

Superglucose
2009-11-23, 11:55 AM
2 hours is an average combat for me. If you're doing that at all, that's how long it will take.
And of course the PCs couldn't be involved in this combat at all, because it's not like they're combat characters.

You're right, watching the GM throw dice at himself for 2 hours sucks. However, watching the GM throw dice at himself for two or three rolls ever handful of rounds.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 11:58 AM
Is equivalently boring. Just on a more broken up level. It is just as unecessary as having the players wait two hours for him to finish playing with himself. Less irritating because it's broken up still means combats will either take longer, or have less EXP and treasure for the effort.

And those aren't even DMPCs, they're just monsters that for some reason, take up your time. A DMPC would be doing this every fight.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 12:08 PM
Those are responses TO the assumption that the party needs all roles filled.

I don't agree with that basic assumption. Thus, your choice is nothing more than a false dichotomy.

I presented a list of options available for dealing with traps for the non-rogue party. A caster with 2-3 spells and a 10 ft pole can pretty much replace a rogue without issue. Even a melee character with no special skills for dealing with traps(see: My neverending dungeon character, who's gone through what, a dozen traps so far via use of a ladder) can avoid traps through use of caution and a bit of common sense.

So, no, no rogue is not at all the same as not having any way to deal with traps. Until you actually show that a given niche being filled is essential to the party, your choice is irrelevant.

So, what classes are irreplacable? What niche is there that requires the DMPC to fill in? Why is it not possible for the players to fix it themselves?

As I said, you have a different game philosphy from myself, thus of course our assumptions are going to be different.

As for getting around issues, well all you are really showing is that spellcasters are more powerful than others. This is a commonly understood fact. Yes, especially at higher levels rogues and fighters are pretty much a drain on spellcasters, since spellcasters can pretty much do everything those too can do. Still though, you are still forcing a player into a role they don't necessarily want. By forcing the wizard to become the "magic rogue", now their character concept is being forced to change. You haven't avoided the role, you just forced it onto another character.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 12:10 PM
Is equivalently boring. Just on a more broken up level. It is just as unecessary as having the players wait two hours for him to finish playing with himself. Less irritating because it's broken up still means combats will either take longer, or have less EXP and treasure for the effort.

And those aren't even DMPCs, they're just monsters that for some reason, take up your time. A DMPC would be doing this every fight.

So PCs can never use spells like dominate person or confusion, because those could be used to make an DM "play with himself", and that sucks.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 12:11 PM
No, as that NPC is under the control of the PC, who may issue commands to him as a free action. The DM should not control things that are dominated, and the PC should roll the confusion results.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-11-23, 12:17 PM
I have seen Dmpc's done right multiple times. i have also seen the side effect of dmpc's not done right.

there is absolutley no problem with a dmpc if the dmpc is done right.
i am in a game that started with 2 people but we wanted a more classic party. the Dm threw in a dmpc and we had a three man party that worked just great. the DMPC was a spy esq sort of character who'd been assigned to help us do sneaky things and gather information. as neither player had any sneakyness whatsoever.

A good dmpc is typically in an undersized party and takes care of a need for the party that they cant do which can typically be summed up in a few descriptive sentances, then the party can use whatever dmpc did and move on with the story. they are typically little more than a glorified henchmen and occasionaly a good way to guide a plothook or steer a party away from something stupid.

a bad NPC is the kind that have half a session of look it how awsome they are arent they the coolest ever check out that armor class. these are typically a result of a dm who didnt really want to dm all that much and would have liked to play but got stuck dming, or a dm who really just wants to tell HIS story and not the story the players created. these are bad.

and on rare occasion there is the round robin dm where various episodes of one grand story are dmed by various players. in which case the dm will usually have a dmpc since last episode it was just a pc not a dmpc. . . the wise dm will let their character fall to the backround for these kinds of things and gear the episode they run to the other players.

Mike_G
2009-11-23, 12:17 PM
All of this is based on the assumption that all roles NEED to be filled. Why does this assumption keep popping up without bothering to justify it?

Do you really think there is no way to deal with traps other than a rogue? Yknow...there is the factotum, a wide range of spells available to all arcane casters, and of course, the ten foot pole.

Sometimes, some roles do need to be filled.

Party composition changes. Some people use store bought adventures that assume the standard four. Some times it just makes sense for the enemy to use traps, or casters or do enough attrition damage that a healer really is, if not absolutely necessary, a good way to avoid the six month dungeon crawl as the party has to go back to the village and spend a week in traction after every fight.

I was DMing a game I wrote for our usual party. Before the first session, our Wizard player wanted to try out a Swordsage, because he thought it would be interesting, and our Rogue player basically said "I'm sick of doing the skillmonkey thing. I want to bust heads for a change. Here's my Babrbarian." The party was (honest) a Fighter, a Monk, a Swordsage and a Barbarian.

Now, I could have rewritten the whole thing, but I have a life outside of DMing, and a rewrite that big would have basically been starting over. I did beef up the melee encounters and tone down the traps and places they needed a caster, but this was a far different party from what I'd expected.

What I did do was send my own Beguiler along. He served as Trapmonkey, buffer, and Healer (via UMD) I refrained from using him as the Face even though I could have, and he avoids combat anyway, so he was a good Swiss Army NPC for the party to use. Now, I could have gone Mary Sue and played him to the hilt, but I just kind of sent him along as backup. The PC's knew him IC from other games where I'd been a player, so there was no friction.

In a similar vein, we had a long running party NPC Cleric, since all us AD&D veterans didn't want to "get stuck" playing the Cleric when we first picked up 3e. He was a Band-Aid box out of central casting, took the Healing and Good Domains, played backup and served as Buffer/Healer/Second tier fighter (yes, he fought worse than the Fighter, since he loaded up on Cures, Protections and Restores, not self buffs). We even named him Kormun (after "Corpsman," a Navy Medic)

The party loved him. Our Rogue even had an IC love affair with him.

I realize that this is the Internet, and all opinions should be absolute and forcefully stated, but like Fhaolan, I think this can work for some groups some of the time, so long as the party is enjoying the game.

Gpope
2009-11-23, 12:18 PM
And those aren't even DMPCs, they're just monsters that for some reason, take up your time.

As opposed to monsters that sit there and do nothing while the players continually roll dice at it? I guess I've never really noticed this direct correlation between "getting to roll dice" and "fun." Maybe I should just take out my dice and start rolling. It must be a real blast.

The DM rolls all kind of dice that affect the players' well-being, I'm not really sure how the occasional roll from an NPC participating in battle is materially worse.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 12:21 PM
As opposed to monsters that sit there and do nothing while the players continually roll dice at it? I guess I've never really noticed this direct correlation between "getting to roll dice" and "fun." Maybe I should just take out my dice and start rolling. It must be a real blast.

The DM rolls all kind of dice that affect the players' well-being, I'm not really sure how the occasional roll from an NPC participating in battle is materially worse.

What was described is a case of NPCs rolling dice against another NPC. Which means those die rolls had no effect whatsoever on the players.

Gpope
2009-11-23, 12:24 PM
What was described is a case of NPCs rolling dice against another NPC. Which means those die rolls had no effect whatsoever on the players.

Lackey von Hireling hits the guard for 10 damage. The players are now fighting a guard with 10 less hitpoints than before. How does that not affect the players?

Indon
2009-11-23, 12:25 PM
Is equivalently boring. Just on a more broken up level. It is just as unecessary as having the players wait two hours for him to finish playing with himself. Less irritating because it's broken up still means combats will either take longer, or have less EXP and treasure for the effort.

And those aren't even DMPCs, they're just monsters that for some reason, take up your time. A DMPC would be doing this every fight.

So you're saying that it's always boring for the players to observe the world, rather than constantly, directly interact with it?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 12:30 PM
As I said, you have a different game philosphy from myself, thus of course our assumptions are going to be different.

As for getting around issues, well all you are really showing is that spellcasters are more powerful than others. This is a commonly understood fact. Yes, especially at higher levels rogues and fighters are pretty much a drain on spellcasters, since spellcasters can pretty much do everything those too can do. Still though, you are still forcing a player into a role they don't necessarily want. By forcing the wizard to become the "magic rogue", now their character concept is being forced to change. You haven't avoided the role, you just forced it onto another character.

Taking two spells is not a forced character concept change. Unless they have a strong belief against opening locks or some such, it's not a roleplay issue at all. If they DO have such a strong belief against opening locks, why do they have such a need to open locks, hmm?

This isn't just about "spellcasters are powerful". I specifically stated that melee characters can negate traps and such as well. Why did you ignore this to go off on an anti-caster tangent?



As for healing, there are a wild number of ways for a non-cleric party to get healing. Potions, wands, scrolls, magic items. The idea that they will HAVE to return to town and rest long enough to heal naturally is one that implies you are playing something not even vaguely close to standard D&D. IE, there is no party hole here unless you change the rules to make it so.



And no, a DM is not controlling a PC-dominated monster. He may be rolling the dice, but the actions are player directed. Huge difference. As pointed out, it's not all about rolling dice. The DM sometimes rolls dice for characters as well, and doing so isn't necessarily controlling the players. It's simply a way to resolve the choices that THEY make.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 12:33 PM
Lackey von Hireling hits the guard for 10 damage. The players are now fighting a guard with 10 less hitpoints than before. How does that not affect the players?

Mostly because I don't often see fights end due to hit point damage. I'm in a group that optimizes to a larger degree than is the standard.

Even if I weren't, I'd rather fight the full health thing, and not spend time watching.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 12:38 PM
So you're saying that it's always boring for the players to observe the world, rather than constantly, directly interact with it?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c40/Lathian/comic_lotr1b.jpg

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Andras
2009-11-23, 12:40 PM
The only time I would ever run a DMPC proper would be to pull something nasty with the general expectations of such. Like, leading the group into a dungeon under the leadership of some much higher leveled DMPC only to have him get suddenly killed off along with quite a few of their supplies. Past that, most of the other roles aren't worth being actual DMPCs, but rather NPCs.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 12:45 PM
I'm in a group that optimizes to a larger degree than is the standard.So you're saying that, by definition, anything in your gaming experience is not applicable to the vast majority of gamers. In that case, it's probably best to not try and generalize your play experience as the normal case then, eh?


Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.I don't see what that image has to do with what he said in the slightest; it's the players having an interactive moment and ignoring a bunch of historical backstory. The players are not observing the world without interaction; they're not observing at all in this particlar case. If you're trying to make some sort of point, and aren't willing to explain yourself, you're going to need to find a better image to do your arguing.

Indon
2009-11-23, 12:45 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

I think that it can be enriching to demonstrate to your players that they are interacting in a self-consistent world, allowing them to concieve of it as independent of their interaction with it and getting a better understanding of your campaign world as a place.

Certainly, there are players to whom this would not apply, but I feel such players to be a minority.

Edit:


I don't see what that image has to do with what he said in the slightest; it's the players having an interactive moment and ignoring a bunch of historical backstory. The players are not observing the world without interaction; they're not observing at all in this particlar case. If you're trying to make some sort of point, and aren't willing to explain yourself, you're going to need to find a better image to do your arguing.

Actually, I can't see the image at all, so he's going to need to use words outright.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 12:47 PM
Taking two spells is not a forced character concept change. yes, having to take 2 specific spells that break the theme/background of a particular character can indeed be forcing a specific character concept on someone. It isn't necessarily always the case, but it can be.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 12:48 PM
Just because a world is self consistent doesn't mean the DM should be tossing it in the players faces. If they want evidence that it is, or want to know more about it, they can look for it. If they don't want such evidence, the DM shouldn't spend much time on it.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 12:50 PM
Actually, I can't see the image at all, so he's going to need to use words outright.it's the 2nd page from the DM of the Rings, with the hobbits arguing about stuff while the DM is giving backstory... it really has nothing to do with the players being put in an observation role.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 12:50 PM
So you're saying that, by definition, anything in your gaming experience is not applicable to the vast majority of gamers. In that case, it's probably best to not try and generalize your play experience as the normal case then, eh?

I said even given the option, I'd rather be doing something, rather than watch the DM play with himself, even if I'm not spamming save or dies.


I don't see what that image has to do with what he said in the slightest; it's the players having an interactive moment and ignoring a bunch of historical backstory. The players are not observing the world without interaction; they're not observing at all in this particlar case. If you're trying to make some sort of point, and aren't willing to explain yourself, you're going to need to find a better image to do your arguing.

It's the players sitting there getting their daily dose of the world as it is, without any input or relevancy. Same as sitting there watching two thugs hit eachother for whatever arbitrary reason.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 01:01 PM
I said even given the option, I'd rather be doing something, rather than watch the DM play with himself, even if I'm not spamming save or dies.Yes, but you also said that your gaming group is pretty far out of the norm; I'm pointing out that the fact that you're trying to generalize your play experience as if it's something universal is not really reasonable.


It's the players sitting there getting their daily dose of the world as it is, without any input or relevancy.I'd say it's all of that backstory that's being discussed is pretty relevant, they're just ignoring it.


Same as sitting there watching two thugs hit eachother for whatever arbitrary reason.As far as I can tell, that's not actually what Indon was suggesting at all. In his examples, the players have the option to involve themselves to whatever degree they want to; he's points out how it's important not to overdo it, and why some people are going to want it to happen in their games.

You're taking the hard stance that it's "it's always boring for the players to observe the world, rather than constantly, directly interact with it?" he said it, but you responded with "Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying." So it seems pretty clear that you're claiming that this is something that applies across the board to all people, not just to you personally. If you mean something different, by all means, say so.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 01:06 PM
Yeah, I am saying exactly that. At times, it may be necessary, though still boring, but in the case of a DMPC, it's constant, as they're a part of the party.

As well, the situation described in specific was one monster defeating another, not a general fight that the players intervene in.

Indon
2009-11-23, 01:10 PM
It's the players sitting there getting their daily dose of the world as it is, without any input or relevancy. Same as sitting there watching two thugs hit eachother for whatever arbitrary reason.

No, actually, for storytelling purposes they're very much different. Pretty much a perfect example of the "Show, don't tell" concept, in fact.

Actions going on in the game world are pretty much by definition more immersive than an infodump is.


As well, the situation described in specific was one monster defeating another, not a general fight that the players intervene in.

No, it was two monsters fighting each other. That's a situation, not a cutscene. The players may well want not to interact ("Hey, the Dire Bear's probably going to win. Let's just get ready for when it drops the last wolf."), or they may want to interact ("Hey, I want to awaken one of those wolves. Let's go help take down the bear and I'll do the, er, talking.").

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 01:15 PM
A, misinterpreted the statement of one beating the other. In that instance, while it's still not a DMPC, it would be OK, and any non-interaction would be on the players side of the table, not the DMs.

Artanis
2009-11-23, 01:17 PM
OK, Yukitsu, I just want to be sure I'm up to speed on this.

You're saying that your party is significantly different from the norm. Further, you personally find one specific situation to be boring. Thus, every remotely similar situation is boring for every player in every party?

Because that's pretty much what it sounds like.

Edit:

----------------------------

To the OP, the party I'm currently in has an acceptable DMPC because she serves as, essentially, a benchwarmer. She fills in when one of the players is missing or late, then gets swapped out when that player shows up. It works out pretty well since she's a Warden and the players most likely to be late are the ones playing our Defenders.

Indon
2009-11-23, 01:19 PM
A, misinterpreted the statement of one beating the other. In that instance, while it's still not a DMPC, it would be OK, and any non-interaction would be on the players side of the table, not the DMs.

Even if the players interfere, the NPCs might still continue attacking each other (say, for instance, if the players miss and fail to offer a more credible threat than the other NPC).

The way you're expressing your position, it's somehow wrong for an NPC to make an attack according to the game's rules against another NPC, even if it's perfectly appropriate for the story and would aid immersion to not just handwave it.

Is that seriously what you're saying?

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 01:22 PM
@Artanis & @Indon - That's what I'm getting as well.


Yeah, I am saying exactly that.
Assuming that you're responding to "So it seems pretty clear that you're claiming that this is something that applies across the board to all people, not just to you personally." here... Then it's quite easy to show that you're wrong, as a single counter example is sufficient to show how your statement is false; since those counter examples have already been stated in this thread, I'm really not sure how you're expecting people to take your argument seriously.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 01:33 PM
Even if the players interfere, the NPCs might still continue attacking each other (say, for instance, if the players miss and fail to offer a more credible threat than the other NPC).

The way you're expressing your position, it's somehow wrong for an NPC to make an attack according to the game's rules against another NPC, even if it's perfectly appropriate for the story and would aid immersion to not just handwave it.

Is that seriously what you're saying?

No, I said it's boring, not wrong. Sitting around watching people throw dice is boring. If the players get into the combat, that's at worst, one combat where the combat is dragged out a bit by additional players, or one combat where the EXP is divided into smaller segments. That may be OK so long as the players are working to interact with that situation. A DMPC however, is that in every combat, which is bad.

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-23, 01:33 PM
In my own experience, I've NEVER had an acceptable DMPC, no matter the DM's intention. The typical excuse is "I'm DMing! I deserve to run a character because I'm the one doing all the work!". It's never something the players asked for, mostly just something the DM injects without any real continuity. The only time it ever made 'story' sense, they constantly conspired with one or two of the PCs, while the remaining members of the group sat around waiting for things to move along (though by far the worst is in a game where the DM and one of the PCs are dating... the DM would make a DMPC, and she'd have them intertwined with the boyfriend's PC, in a way that made the rest of the group feel like they were experiencing a crummy fantasy novel...)

As far as using a DMPC to 'fill in party gaps', in all the games I've run, I've never run a DMPC to fill in a hole, and the games were all successful. The PCs just found ways around any poblem (the party pooled resources to get the bard a wand of cure wounds, or the rogue used 'Use Magic Device' for high level curing scrolls, etc...) When I'd have an NPC tag along, it was always at the request of the players (stuff like: we're going to hire a healer at the next town). The only interaction they'd do (other than small talk between the group) was to roll skills they would know (like knowledge (religion)) if the PCs asked for that stuff in game.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 01:39 PM
Even if the players interfere, the NPCs might still continue attacking each other (say, for instance, if the players miss and fail to offer a more credible threat than the other NPC).

The way you're expressing your position, it's somehow wrong for an NPC to make an attack according to the game's rules against another NPC, even if it's perfectly appropriate for the story and would aid immersion to not just handwave it.

Is that seriously what you're saying?

If it happens once, thats one thing. NPCs can reasonably fight each other. If I expose a thief who tries to steal from me in front of the town guards, I will consider it completely normal for them to go after him.

However, if the same NPC is always following you around, and always doing the fighting, then yes, that would be boring.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 01:44 PM
yes, having to take 2 specific spells that break the theme/background of a particular character can indeed be forcing a specific character concept on someone. It isn't necessarily always the case, but it can be.

You don't have to take any specific spells. There are a number of different ways casters can negate locks. If you're a stealthy, subtle type, you can use things like knock. If you prefer to blast the door in, that's fine too.

The point is that there are a number of ways to circumvent this required role available, and that ignoring all of them on the basis that they go against your character concept, then going into situations that routinely require them is hard to justify, and nobody has actually tried to present such a situation. They just keep claiming "it exists".

Indon
2009-11-23, 01:47 PM
No, I said it's boring, not wrong. Sitting around watching people throw dice is boring. If the players get into the combat, that's at worst, one combat where the combat is dragged out a bit by additional players, or one combat where the EXP is divided into smaller segments. That may be OK so long as the players are working to interact with that situation. A DMPC however, is that in every combat, which is bad.

So you're saying that a DMPC is not interesting because the players do not interact with them?


However, if the same NPC is always following you around, and always doing the fighting, then yes, that would be boring.

An NPC who fights doesn't mean the NPC is 'always doing the fighting'. That implies that the PC's aren't fighting at all.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 01:50 PM
An NPC who fights doesn't mean the NPC is 'always doing the fighting'. That implies that the PC's aren't fighting at all.

It doesn't matter if the PCs are also fighting, if he is routinely taking part in combat, he is routinely slowing combat down, and increasing the ratio of DM actions to PC actions. From a PC standpoint, this is boring, since roleplaying is about interaction, and making decisions.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 01:52 PM
No, I'm saying that they lengthen combat by a fifth, or take up a fifth of the resources, or break versimiliatude. That and watching as the DM fiddles with it is boring. If you had combats where the DMPC is doing everything and you're also not interacting with the encounter, well, you're well beyond the point that I think any reasonable person would defend that DMPC.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 01:53 PM
You don't have to take any specific spells. There are a number of different ways casters can negate locks. If you're a stealthy, subtle type, you can use things like knock. If you prefer to blast the door in, that's fine too.And if you're neither?

Ormagoden
2009-11-23, 01:55 PM
Isn't this the same as the last DMPC post?
Its the same arguments in a diffrent post...
Captain we need a merge!

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 01:58 PM
And if you're neither?

How bout you actually post the concepts of a party that would somehow be unable to deal with rogue-stuff, and thus, need a DMPC?

You haven't proven a need for anything yet.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 02:00 PM
the party pooled resources to get the bard a wand of cure wounds, or the rogue used 'Use Magic Device' for high level curing scrolls, etc...Neither of these are options in a world where magic items are *extremely* rare, but faith based healers are only *slightly* rare... which is one of the situations where I've played where we had a good dmpc along with the party. Brother Maynard (hey, we were young) as I recall, who was not much of a combatant, but did contribute to the fight from time to time.


How bout you actually post the concepts of a party that would somehow be unable to deal with rogue-stuff, and thus, need a DMPC?I don't really see what that has to do with your claim that filling the rogue's niche in a party can always be done without having to change character concepts, which is, as I recall, the only thing I disagreed with you about.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 02:02 PM
Neither of these are options in a world where magic items are *extremely* rare, but faith based healers are only *slightly* rare... which is one of the situations where I've played where we had a good dmpc along with the party. Brother Maynard (hey, we were young) as I recall, who was not much of a combatant, but did contribute to the fight from time to time.

Oddly enough, no such world exists in the D&D rules. So, yes, if you break the rules to create a problem, a problem exists.

By standard D&D rules, if faith based healers are widely available, then the items they routinely can create should be too.


Incidentally, even if a healer is desired, why must the healer be a DMPC, as opposed to a hireling directed by the party?

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 02:16 PM
Oddly enough, no such world exists in the D&D rules. So, yes, if you break the rules to create a problem, a problem exists.This might come as a shock, but many people play in games that don't use the "standard D&D world" that you may be used to.

Also, you might want to note that the thread is not about something that is specific to 3e, or even to D&D in general; before you make sweeping generalizations based on a particular edition's rules, you might want to consider that the rules that you're talking about probably don't apply to other editions or games, and have nothing to do with whether the DMPCs are, in and of themselves, a good or a bad thing.


Incidentally, even if a healer is desired, why must the healer be a DMPC, as opposed to a hireling directed by the party?Who claimed that it must be? Certainly not me, I'm only talking about what can be, and offering an example of a very different play experience than SpikeFightwicky. I don't think anyone in the thread is suggesting that there is any situation where you MUST use a DMPC, just situations where it works well, and doesn't harm anything.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 02:17 PM
Odd that the non-standard was used as an argument against my position, despite its lesser relevance given the overall argument.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 02:18 PM
Odd that the non-standard was used as an argument against my position, despite its lesser relevance given the overall argument.I'm not making a claim that my experience is the general case... you are.

I notice that you didn't address Artanis' question; care to comment?

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 02:21 PM
And I've pointed out that the conversation regarding that non-standard situation has nothing to do with DMPCs.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 02:22 PM
This might come as a shock, but many people play in games that don't use the "standard D&D world" that you may be used to.

Also, you might want to note that the thread is not about something that is specific to 3e, or even to D&D in general; before you make sweeping generalizations based on a particular edition's rules, you might want to consider that the rules that you're talking about probably don't apply to other editions or games, and have nothing to do with whether the DMPCs are, in and of themselves, a good or a bad thing.

Who claimed that it must be? Certainly not me, I'm only talking about what can be, and offering an example of a very different play experience than SpikeFightwicky. I don't think anyone in the thread is suggesting that there is any situation where you MUST use a DMPC, just situations where it works well, and doesn't harm anything.

We have been discussing DMPCs within the context of D&D rules, have we not? Almost entirely D&D 3.5, with other editions of D&D mixed in here and there.

It's not just "the standard D&D world", but every published D&D world. There is no world with plentiful casters, but a lack of the magical items those casters would create. Doing so would result in an obvious disconnect that could only be solved by removing or greatly changing magic item creation rules.

If you claim that use of non-hp means of ending fights are "non standard", then surely you must agree that inventing a campaign world where magic works differently is "non-standard".


As for the "must use DMPC", I'd be satisfied for you showing that there is a situation in which the DMPC is the BEST option. If no such situation exists, then there is no reason for DMPCs to exist.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 02:28 PM
We have been discussing DMPCs within the context of D&D rules, have we not? Almost entirely D&D 3.5, with other editions of D&D mixed in here and there. No, a couple of people have specifically referenced what system they're talking about; personally, I've been specifically talking about experience based on play in 1e AD&D for the most part. I've avoided referencing specific scenarios in other systems because it's possible that many of the people in this thread haven't played anything other than D&D


It's not just "the standard D&D world", but every published D&D world.I think you might be surprised on that one, there have been a lot of published D&D worlds over the last 30 years.


There is no world with plentiful castersIf you'll note, I said "*slightly* rare" ... Plentiful != *slightly* rare.


If you claim that use of non-hp means of ending fights are "non standard", then surely you must agree that inventing a campaign world where magic works differently is "non-standard".Uh, what?

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 02:29 PM
The party does not have the appropriate class to handle the current situation: priceless.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 02:30 PM
And I've pointed out that the conversation regarding that non-standard situation has nothing to do with DMPCs.I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I've read your statement several times but I'm not making any sense of it.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 02:33 PM
No, a couple of people have specifically referenced what system they're talking about; personally, I've been specifically talking about experience based on play in 1e AD&D.

AD&D = another edition of D&D. See above.


I think you might be surprised on that one, there have been a lot of published D&D worlds over the last 30 years.

Then if this is such an easy task, bust out the official world which has casters about, but not magic items.


If you'll note, I said "*slightly* rare" ... Plentiful != *slightly* rare.

A vast discrepancy in rareness between the two. The same discrepancy that is apparently significant enough for you to say "no, you can't have scrolls, but have a caster instead".


Uh, what?

If you're nitpicking away at yukitsu's statement that it's pretty normal to end fights without burning through every last xp as "non standard", then the fact that you're advancing a non-standard world as part of your justification should be equally suspect reasoning, no?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 02:35 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I've read your statement several times but I'm not making any sense of it.

It appears he's saying that you're nitpicking at any random bit of what anyone against DMPCs says, no matter how irrelevant it is to the main topic.

I believe he phrased it as he did in an effort to be polite.

Comet
2009-11-23, 02:40 PM
Is a DMPC just a NPC that is present in-game throughout most of the gaming session?
Isn't that just... I don't know... a frequently used NPC? What makes it a DMPC? Does it have it's own character sheet?

I think the meaning of DMPC is, in itself, negative. If the GM wants to have a PC for himself, he's intruding on the player's territory. Why not just get rid of the GM alltogether and play an all-players game?

Prominent NPCs, however, are not in any way wrong. If the GM thinks a character is cool enough to participate in the story on a regular basis then there's no harm in it.

Indon
2009-11-23, 02:41 PM
It doesn't matter if the PCs are also fighting, if he is routinely taking part in combat, he is routinely slowing combat down, and increasing the ratio of DM actions to PC actions. From a PC standpoint, this is boring, since roleplaying is about interaction, and making decisions.

By this argument, it seems that even PC actions are boring, because time spent by each PC during their action prevents that time being spent on the others.


No, I'm saying that they lengthen combat by a fifth, or take up a fifth of the resources, or break versimiliatude. That and watching as the DM fiddles with it is boring. If you had combats where the DMPC is doing everything and you're also not interacting with the encounter, well, you're well beyond the point that I think any reasonable person would defend that DMPC.

If combat is boring and undesirable to lengthen, then I daresay that group needs less combat more than it needs less NPCs.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 02:49 PM
Combat is fine. Combat is only boring when it's long and drawn out, instead of dangerous and fast paced.

Since the way people deal with DMPCs seems to be making the combats harder by adding more enemies, it will take longer, but not be more dangerous and it will certainly be less fast paced.

Alternatively, people don't recommend adding more, but in this case, it's fights that are easy, and where you have to split EXP 5 ways instead of 4, and where you all get less loot.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 02:51 PM
By this argument, it seems that even PC actions are boring, because time spent by each PC during their action prevents that time being spent on the others.

PC actions can in fact be boring. Too many PCs can also lead to slow, drawn out combats. This is why in practice, essentially every RPG has a normal group size. Ever try doing 3.5 combats with a dozen PCs and an equal number of mobs?

Likewise, if a PC is a spotlight hog, this is generally boring for the other players.


If combat is boring and undesirable to lengthen, then I daresay that group needs less combat more than it needs less NPCs.

He never said combat was boring. He said waiting was boring.

Players want to do things. Combat, roleplaying...whatever it may be, they came to the table to participate, not just watch. A DM who hogs the spotlight via DMPCs isn't really different than a PC who is allowed to do the same. Both are undesirable for the other participants.

Saph
2009-11-23, 02:58 PM
At the risk of repeating what's already been gone over:

A DMPC is the Dungeon Master's Player Character.
An NPC is a Non Player Character.

There's no such thing as a good DMPC, because DMPC is a deliberately perjorative term. If you make an NPC who accompanies the party but gets no preferential treatment and isn't forced upon the players and is liked by them, you haven't created a "good DMPC", you've created a good NPC.

The examples BRC gave in his first post are all NPCs. Bill the Teamster has an NPC class, does NPC jobs, and generally acts like an NPC in every way. He's not an "acceptable DMPC" because he's not a DMPC in the first place!

So I have to agree with what's been pointed out earlier in the thread: the people who say DMPCs can be good are mostly coming up with examples of things that aren't DMPCs.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 02:59 PM
AD&D = another edition of D&D. See above.Sorry, I still don't see your point with this.


Then if this is such an easy task, bust out the official world which has casters about, but not magic items.I didn't say (or even really suggest as far as I can tell) that finding these is an easy task. Just that there are a lot of published game worlds, and that you'd be surprised what people have come up with.


A vast discrepancy in rareness between the two. The same discrepancy that is apparently significant enough for you to say "no, you can't have scrolls, but have a caster instead". They were both rare, so it wasn't really a vast discrepancy in rareness. The point is, we could find a single holy man who could heal us much easier than finding a steady stream of magic items to do the same job, and it made FAR more sense to do so in that game.


If you're nitpicking away at yukitsu's statement that it's pretty normal to end fights without burning through every last xp as "non standard", then the fact that you're advancing a non-standard world as part of your justification should be equally suspect reasoning, no?I didn't say anything about him using non-hp methods to end fights being nonstandard; he said he is "in a group that optimizes to a larger degree than is the standard" ... in his own words, he's in a non standard group. And on top of that, he's claiming that his experience is the experience of all players everywhere.

I, on the other hand, am just talking about my play experience, and showing how I've had some good experiences with DMPCs. I'm not making any claim that my experience is the norm, or that everyone does/should feel this way, or anything like that. I think I've been pretty clear on that.

It's a pretty standard way of debunking someone when they make a "For All X" argument the way that he is doing... all you have to do is show "There exists a Not X" in order to show their statement as false.

Indon
2009-11-23, 02:59 PM
Combat is fine. Combat is only boring when it's long and drawn out, instead of dangerous and fast paced.

Since the way people deal with DMPCs seems to be making the combats harder by adding more enemies, it will take longer, but not be more dangerous and it will certainly be less fast paced.

Alternatively, people don't recommend adding more, but in this case, it's fights that are easy, and where you have to split EXP 5 ways instead of 4, and where you all get less loot.

So, you make a DMPC better by compensating with outright harder opponents, rather than just more of them?


PC actions can in fact be boring. Too many PCs can also lead to slow, drawn out combats. This is why in practice, essentially every RPG has a normal group size. Ever try doing 3.5 combats with a dozen PCs and an equal number of mobs?

So, why is the optimal group size generally greater than one?


Players want to do things. Combat, roleplaying...whatever it may be, they came to the table to participate, not just watch. A DM who hogs the spotlight via DMPCs isn't really different than a PC who is allowed to do the same. Both are undesirable for the other participants.

So a DMPC can be played badly in the same ways a PC can?

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 03:02 PM
So, you make a DMPC better by compensating with outright harder opponents, rather than just more of them?

No, that's not better in terms of play, as a harder opponent is simply more likely to kill everything, or die immediately from a bad roll.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:11 PM
There's no such thing as a good DMPC, because DMPC is a deliberately perjorative term. If you make an NPC who accompanies the party but gets no preferential treatment and isn't forced upon the players and is liked by them, you haven't created a "good DMPC", you've created a good NPC.I dunno, I've seen the term used plenty of times as a non-perjorative term. The simple case: If that NPC also happens to be a PC that the DM plays in a different (or even the same, where you rotate DM's) game, then it is, by definition, the dungeon master's player character.

Edit: Just to be clear, I do generally agree with Saph on this, but there are exceptions

there's a fairly nice example of that below by Fhaolan




It appears he's saying that you're nitpicking at any random bit of what anyone against DMPCs says, no matter how irrelevant it is to the main topic.No, I'm pretty much nitpicking on a single bit: Yukitsu's claim that his feelings of "what is boring" is representative of all players everywhere, especially since he is, in pretty much his own words, playing in a non-standard group.

A distant second was your claim that you changing spells to cover the rogue's niche could always be done without forcing a change to the character concept.

It's not particularity random: there's something very specific in common between both cases that has nothing to do with DMPC's at all. Based on my arguments, that point of commonality should be rather obvious.

Fhaolan
2009-11-23, 03:11 PM
I think the meaning of DMPC is, in itself, negative. If the GM wants to have a PC for himself, he's intruding on the player's territory.


Which is how a lot of people look at it. There's the DM's territory and the Player's territory and they *MUST NOT CROSS* on pain of being set on fire, apparantly. :smallsmile:

However, not all gaming groups are quite so strict in their player/DM roles. Some have players taking on DM tasks, and visa-versa. For example, in the campaign I run, one of the players has a Centaur Sorceress PC. She's actually detailed out the culture, habits and habitat of the Centaurs instead of me. She's drawn up maps of the regions they roam, created the major NPCs of that race, etc. and has a few adventure scenarios that she's given me some plot hooks for to drop into the game whenever appropriate. Whenever the PCs wander into the region she's detailed, she takes over as DM, her PC acts like an NPC, and I take over one of the current NPCs so I can continue playing (and find out what the heck she's come up with.) The other players can do this as well, if they feel like it, and one other is in the process of doing something similar with a series of islands off the coast (he hasn't gotten to the point of giving me plot hooks yet, so we're all studiously ignoring the islands to give him a chance to complete whatever he's up to.)

The point I'm *trying* to make is that there are no absolutes in RPGs. Just because your gaming group does things a certain way doesn't mean everyone must do it the same way. That just because you find something boring doesn't mean everyone else does. I've got one player who told me the other week that the part of the game she most enjoys is listening to the players spin yarns about something that their character did either in-game or 'before the party met'. As well as discovering the wierd fragments of backstory and history that I have for my campaign world that I drop on occasion, and trying to piece together a coherent whole from it. The combat, skill rolls, etc. is incidental to her, and in fact she finds that part of the game relatively boring. As she said "If I wanted to play a wargame, I'd pull out my copy of Tactics II."


Why not just get rid of the GM alltogether and play an all-players game?


It's very, very strange to experience that the first couple of times. Many game systems have the players work co-operatively to run the world/NPCs, with rules as to when specific players can take control of the various 'scenes'.

Mike_G
2009-11-23, 03:14 PM
Which is how a lot of people look at it. There's the DM's territory and the Player's territory and they *MUST NOT CROSS* on pain of being set on fire, apparantly. :smallsmile:

However, not all gaming groups are quite so strict in their player/DM roles. Some have players taking on DM tasks, and visa-versa. For example, in the campaign I run, one of the players has a Centaur Sorceress PC. She's actually detailed out the culture, habits and habitat of the Centaurs instead of me. She's drawn up maps of the regions they roam, created the major NPCs of that race, etc. and has a few adventure scenarios that she's given me some plot hooks for to drop into the game whenever appropriate. Whenever the PCs wander into the region she's detailed, she takes over as DM, her PC acts like an NPC, and I take over one of the current NPCs so I can continue playing (and find out what the heck she's come up with.) The other players can do this as well, if they feel like it, and one other is in the process of doing something similar with a series of islands off the coast (he hasn't gotten to the point of giving me plot hooks yet, so we're all studiously ignoring the islands to give him a chance to complete whatever he's up to.)

The point I'm *trying* to make is that there are no absolutes in RPGs. Just because your gaming group does things a certain way doesn't mean everyone must do it the same way. That just because you find something boring doesn't mean everyone else does.



So.

Any openings in your group?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 03:16 PM
Sorry, I still don't see your point with this.

Summary time:

ME: We've been mostly talking bout 3.5. Some ppl talked about other editions of D&D.

You: nuh-uh, I play AD&D!

Me: AD&D = other edition of D&D.

You: ???


I didn't say (or even really suggest as far as I can tell) that finding these is an easy task. Just that there are a lot of published game worlds, and that you'd be surprised what people have come up with.

So...no official game world, then. Check. It's a very non-standard assumption, then. You've caused a problem via your rules changes, thus causing you to bring in this "fix". Not really relevant to the broad topic.


They were both rare, so it wasn't really a vast discrepancy in rareness. The point is, we could find a single holy man who could heal us much easier than finding a steady stream of magic items to do the same job, and it made FAR more sense to do so in that game.

If there isn't a vast discrepancy in the caster/item ratio compared to normal(ie, normal for any standard setting), this would not be true.


I didn't say anything about him using non-hp methods to end fights being nonstandard; he said he is "in a group that optimizes to a larger degree than is the standard" ... in his own words, he's in a non standard group. And on top of that, he's claiming that his experience is the experience of all players everywhere.

I don't recall him actually claiming his experience is the experience of all players everywhere. I believe only you said that.


I, on the other hand, am just talking about my play experience, and showing how I've had some good experiences with DMPCs. I'm not making any claim that my experience is the norm, or that everyone does/should feel this way, or anything like that. I think I've been pretty clear on that.

You are implicitly saying that "X is good/fine because of my experiences". This is really no different than those who think it is bad because of their experiences. You need to justify your side just as much as they do.


It's a pretty standard way of debunking someone when they make a "For All X" argument the way that he is doing... all you have to do is show "There exists a Not X" in order to show their statement as false.

Note that I'm still waiting on a "not x" example for the critical party role.

Also, there was never a "for all" statement. Nobody ever claimed that mobs never died by running out of hit points, merely that it was possible for them to die in other ways. You're debunking a strawman.



Indon,

If you compensate for DMPCs by reducing the number of mobs, you force fights to be much more formulaic, and run into action economy issues. In short, the mobs need to scale up at a rate much higher than linearly to remain competitive. This causes a number of issues, such as increasing the likelihood of players being one-hit killed. This isn't desirable...you're not introducing the DMPC to help the game, you're changing the game to shoehorn in your DMPC. As a DM, this is not what your goals should be.

Optimal group size is greater than one because players wish to be social. This has nothing to do with balance. Just because everyone wants to be social doesn't make it desirable for one person to dominate the conversation/game.

As for the DMPCs can be broken in all the ways PCs can. Yes. Of course they can. This does not imply that PCs can be broken in all the ways DMPCs can. The two statements are not logically equivalent.

Saph
2009-11-23, 03:16 PM
I dunno, I've seen the term used plenty of times as a non-perjorative term. The simple case: If that NPC also happens to be a PC that the DM plays in a different (or even the same, where you rotate DM's) game, then it is, by definition, the dungeon master's player character.

Could be, I guess. But I tend to use the simple definition for these things - if it's played by a player, it's a PC. If it's played by the DM, it's an NPC. If it's played by the DM because the DM also wants to be a player, it's the unholy abomination known as a DMPC.

If a PC gets run by the DM briefly, then their classification changes to NPC, along with their status. This is, needless to say, a very risky move, and one of the reasons I don't let my own characters get NPCed if at all possible. I've seen too many ex-PCs get shoved into the mouths of monsters by their ex-comrades.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:23 PM
Summary time:

ME: We've been mostly talking bout 3.5. Some ppl talked about other editions of D&D.

You: No, you've been talking about 3.5; most everyone else in the thread has not actually identified what game they're talking about. I've been talking about 1eAD&D and other systems.

Me: AD&D = other edition of D&D.

You: I don't understand what your point is. you said that the first time. You're not addressing the fact that making generalizations that are specific to 3.5e D&D when we're not talking about a subject that is specific to 3.5 D&D, or even D&D in general.Fixed that for you.


So...no official game world, then. Check. It's a very non-standard assumption, then. You've caused a problem via your rules changes, thus causing you to bring in this "fix". Not really relevant to the broad topic.It's quite relevant; remember, we're not talking about something specific to 3.5e, we're talking about the broad subject of DMPCs, which is equally applicable in 3.5e D&D, 1e AD&D, or homebrewed game worlds regardless of the edition or game system.


If there isn't a vast discrepancy in the caster/item ratio compared to normal(ie, normal for any standard setting)Official 3.5e D&D settings, this would not be true.Really, you're talking specifically about 3.5e D&D here; it's kind of an absurd argument in a discussion about something that isn't specific to that particular edition or game.


I don't recall him actually claiming his experience is the experience of all players everywhere. I believe only you said that. I asked if that's what he meant, and he agreed. Twice Three times. He pointedly ignored someone else directly asking him the same thing, because it shows how absurd his position is.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 03:24 PM
I also have repeatedly pointed out that it has nothing to do with DMPCs, and thus I don't care to point out why it's true.

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 03:29 PM
Players (to DM): "We need a DMPC, we have no healer."
DM (to players): "Fail!"

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:29 PM
I also have repeatedly pointed out that it has nothing to do with DMPCs, and thus I don't care to point out why it's true.Yelling "pay no attention to the man behind the screen" is not particularly convincing.


Players (to DM): "We need a DMPC, we have no healer."
DM (to players): "Fail!"Sounds like a very childish group of people (and a rather terrible DM). I might just be basing that analysis on using a meme to communicate though.

If noone wants to play a healer, there's no reason to force them to "play the game correctly" ... the DM and the players should talk things over and find another way to make the game work.

JeenLeen
2009-11-23, 03:30 PM
I've always enjoyed DMPCs, but when we've run them, they were always on the same level as the party and the DM tried not to give his character any preferential treatment.

For our early games, we used one because we were a gaming group of three: DM and two players. That is too small to be fun, and makes it hard if those two people's personalities don't go together well.

In later games, we had three players and a DM. Near the end, we had a DMPC because none of the players wanted to be the rogue or the healer. (High-level D&D, where you could prepare enough Heals to make in-combat healing effective, but not yet so high level that Heals weren't worthwhile.)

The DM rolled up a Ninja 1 (with Able Learning)/Cloistered Cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor/Combat Medic. He was a 'Clericzilla' with DMM: Greater Visage of the Diety and such, but he put his DMM to buffs and was mainly a healbot with occassional damaging spells. He never overshadowed the PCs because the DM made him such so as to not overshadow the PCs.

I can see from most people's examples how the DMPC is annoying, but it can work, at least in a small group where the party wants a roll filled but doesn't want to play it.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 03:30 PM
So basically, the basis of your argument is that I have to justify statements that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Sure.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:33 PM
So basically, the basis of your argument is that I have to justify statements that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Sure.Not at all: if you're going to base your argument on the claim that all players everywhere are going to be bored by the same things that bore you, you need to justify that statement, especially since there are quite a few counterexamples being presented.

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 03:34 PM
In my above example, I just force my players to come up with an alternate method of healing. Potions, wands, whatever, but I won't inject a DMPC into the campaign to compensate for their inability to have a balanced party.

Fhaolan
2009-11-23, 03:36 PM
So.

Any openings in your group?

*laugh* Oddly enough, we've just got a permanent-player opening because one player moved to North Carolina to follow her career path. Unfortunately, we've also got a backlist of about... give me a sec, I need to find the list... ouch, it's up to 9 people now who have open invitations to show up as guest players, plus 3 people that are paired in some way with some of them.

The person on that list we've invited to join to fill Tracy's spot as a full-time player was to join up with us in November, but he's struggling with some exams he needs to pass to get his nursing certifications, so it might be the new year before he officially joins up.

EDIT: Unfortunately, Tracy (the one that's moved) is also the one who liked listening to all the stories. So while that example *was* true, I now realize it may not be precisely true at this exact moment in time. Just a clarification in case it becomes a problem. :smallsmile:

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 03:36 PM
Not at all: if you're going to base your argument on the claim that all players everywhere are going to be bored by the same things that bore you, you need to justify that statement, especially since there are quite a few counterexamples being presented.

The particular statement that you have lured the context away from, is that people are bored watching people roll dice, which no one has really contested. The initial statement that you found contestable was that people find it boring observing, which is a distinct argument.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 03:37 PM
At the risk of repeating what's already been gone over:

A DMPC is the Dungeon Master's Player Character.
An NPC is a Non Player Character.

There's no such thing as a good DMPC, because DMPC is a deliberately perjorative term. If you make an NPC who accompanies the party but gets no preferential treatment and isn't forced upon the players and is liked by them, you haven't created a "good DMPC", you've created a good NPC.

Thus your definition of a PC is:
a) a character given preferential treatement
b) a character forced upon other players
c) a character that is not liked by other players
Interesting.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:37 PM
their inability to have a balanced party.This makes it seem like you have a really hostile relationship with your players; I personally don't know anyone who would enjoy playing in a game run with that sort of atmosphere.

Saph
2009-11-23, 03:40 PM
Thus your definition of a PC is:
a) a character given preferential treatement
b) a character forced upon other players
c) a character that is not liked by other players
Interesting.

You fail logic forever. :P

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 03:40 PM
No, we just like to openly antagonize each other in (to us) highly amusing ways. We're all in the military and are pretty much as close of friends as moving every couple of years will allow. If the players asked for a DMPC to heal them, and I said "no," we would all (literally) "ROFLMAO." Don't ask me why, we just have a very strange collective sense of humor.

hamishspence
2009-11-23, 03:42 PM
If the DM has a lot invested in the NPC- and, they are "part of the party" rather than a hireling, or somebody temporarily associated with them, it may be a DMPC, even if it is played well.

If the DMPC is more powerful than the players, and tends to overshadow them, it can cause resentment.

But if the "extra party member" doesn't claim too much of the spotlight, it may be acceptable, to some parties.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:43 PM
No, we just like to openly antagonize eachActually, that's pretty much what I figured, and what I meant by "atmosphere"

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 03:44 PM
You know. Just to weigh in on this. I agree on the terms that the "a DMPC is an unwanted pet NPC by the GM" is an insufficient definition.

As has been evidenced by some people giving examples of "GMPC's" that were beloved NPCs and Yukitsu's stance that any NPC in any combat that's not an opponent is just slowing things down, there's a HUGE disparity in what works for what players. Quite frankly. It's either needs a standard definition or needs to be flatly banned as a term from any kind of intelligent discourse because the current definition only serves as some kind of flamebait to say that "your GM is wrong. End of story".

However, this thread has pretty much proved that what some people believe is a DMPC can just as easily be considered just a well fleshed-out NPC by other groups. Also, the very term itself does not insinuate any negative connotations except to the one's that use it. We're not calling it the "Dungeon Master's Show-stealing Marty Stu Deus Ex Machina". We're literally just calling it a "Dungeon Master Player Character".

It's not uncommon in my own campaigns to have NPCs show up to help the party in combat and social situations. They're not my own personal pets, but rather just people that either the players have befriended or have rivalries with (or in some cases, happen to be their own parents).

They have extended backstories. They have names. They have character sheets so I can keep track of their stats. They occasionally show up to turn the tides of a seemingly impossible battle. They occasionally backstab the party at the worst moment possible. They occasionally do nothing at all as they're paralyzed with fear or indecision. They often hold significance with the plot. They're sometimes just quick silly and humorous cameos from other campaigns.

The important thing is that the players almost always get the last blow and kill the BBEG in the end. They're the stars of the show. The players get to be Beowulf. The BBEG gets to be Grendal, Grendal's Mom, and the Dragon. It's just that some NPCs get to be Wiglaf (And no. I'm talking about the original Beowulf. Not the horrible abomination animated film).

These characters, whether they're significantly weaker, significantly stronger, or the same level exist for the purposes of characterization. They're there to give the PC's friends and enemies. They're there to make the characters weep as they die (hey. I don't run D&D that often. So death is usually permanent). They're there to make the characters scream with anger when they realize their long-time ally and friend is really the BBEG and they've been going for his ploy the whole time of their own volition. They're there to give the characters something to love and hate.

My players love this. Some people would absolutely call these GMPCs and not well fleshed-out NPCs though.

Hell. From the sounds of this topic, some people even think that any NPC that doesn't just tell you what to kill next is a burden that wastes time. By that logic, calling the Bartender Phil and giving him a wife and kids makes him a DMPC.

So yeah. I think that we absolutely SHOULD have a base definition of a DMPC for this topic. One that can be quantified and not just "an unwanted GM Pet NPC". That's too vague and varies too much from person to person to be of any use in ANY discussion.

Quite frankly. I think the definition given works fine. By the logic, I've run DMPCs, and done it well. So yeah. I think there's such a thing as an acceptable DMPC. The important part is playing to your players and making sure they remain the stars (of course, then you get the players that want the other PCs to be their sidekicks instead of comrades, but that's a discussion for another time).

Oh, and I don't know why everyone keeps talking about NPCs taking so long in combat. I run perfectly complex mobs of bad guys and still manage to do their turns in the blink of an eye. Seeing as I generally know the strategy ahead of time (ie. Who's going to get hit), I roll up all their rolls before the players finish, write down the numbers, and execute the turn. All in all, the average NPC ally turn takes the 5 seconds to move the figurine as far as my players are concerned, and the enemy turn takes the time to say the damage. It's my players that usually take a while to make their decision.

EDIT:

The particular statement that you have lured the context away from, is that people are bored watching people roll dice, which no one has really contested. The initial statement that you found contestable was that people find it boring observing, which is a distinct argument.

Oh, and I LOVE watching people roll dice. They're so hypnotic and bouncy. But seriously, your original point wasn't about rolling dice but about it not being worth it for an NPC to ever be in combat because he wastes time. A lot of people have said they enjoy the additional flavor, and I've even pointed out that the time you say is so painful is non-existant for my players 99% of the time.

Quite frankly, it's an issue of whether the extra flavor is worth the smidgen of extra time, and a lot of people have said yes. This is what has directly contradicted your statement.

Otherwise, I could make the statement that no one wants to wear pants because no one wants to intentionally waste 5 seconds of their life. It's about penalty and reward outweighing each other, not just the penalty.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 03:46 PM
The particular statement that you have lured the context away from, is that people are bored watching people roll dice, which no one has really contested.That depends entirely on the context; I would be bored myself rolling the dice in the games as you've described them, but I wouldn't be bored playing the game as the DM rolled dice for an NPC vs NPC fight as described by Indon or Fhaolan. So consider that statement contested.


The initial statement that you found contestable was that people find it boring observing, which is a distinct argument.Yes, the "So you're saying that it's always boring for the players to observe the world, rather than constantly, directly interact with it?" to which you answered "Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying."

Mostly it's that you seem to be claiming that all players feel that way (and appear to have stated so 2 or 3 times at least), despite the fact that people are giving counter examples showing how that is not correct.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 03:50 PM
So you'd in essence sit back and watch as the NPCs stand there attacking eachother, which is your choice then. Different from being forced to sit back and watch, which as I've stated, was my interpretation of the situation.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 03:56 PM
A distant second was your claim that you changing spells to cover the rogue's niche could always be done without forcing a change to the character concept.

I don't require that it be the spells that do it. I merely say that there is always another way to cover the niche. Nobody's shown an exception yet.

Saying that it would go against fluff is difficult to justify unless your fluff IS "we're incapable with locks". In which case...adding a DMPC nullifies it as well.

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 03:57 PM
Actually, that's pretty much what I figured, and what I meant by "atmosphere"

What can I say, we find the things we do to antagonize each other hilarious...

GreatWyrmGold
2009-11-23, 03:58 PM
Picture the situation....PC's up if necessary.

I agree that these are valid points. However, many, as has been noted, aren't really DMNPCs. Only the last one is.
Where are DMPCs needed, or useful? Mostly if you've got a tiny group. I know; most of my games have been me and my (annoying) little brother, one as DM and the other as a player. In such a case, DMPCs are needed.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 03:58 PM
I don't require that it be the spells that do it. I merely say that there is always another way to cover the niche. Nobody's shown an exception yet.

Saying that it would go against fluff is difficult to justify unless your fluff IS "we're incapable with locks". In which case...adding a DMPC nullifies it as well.

Or the spellcaster could be a specialist and those spells could be ones that are forbidden to them. Thus to force them to use it means rebuilding their concept to allow for those schools and excluding others or removing the specialization.

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 03:59 PM
So you'd in essence sit back and watch as the NPCs stand there attacking eachother, which is your choice then. Different from being forced to sit back and watch, which as I've stated, was my interpretation of the situation.

Honestly, if a GM's worth his salt, he'll usually know what his players will and won't go for after playing with them a while. There's no forcing insinuated here unless you just really have that much issue with your GM that you view him as an enemy and not the host.

A lot of people have directly stated that they love that kind of flavor and are willingly to sacrifice the extra couple of seconds for it. Experiences and story are what make the game fun for them.

From the sounds of it, your group is very rollplayer heavy, and you're forgetting that some groups are very roleplayer heavy. It's all about what you WANT to spend your time doing. If you like the dialog, story, and repartee, then you don't mind wasting a bit of time on it. If you like hitting things, killing them, and gaining levels, then you'll probably pass. The NPCs people are pitching are tools for the essence of increasing the amount of roleplaying for the characters that like it.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:01 PM
In my above example, I just force my players to come up with an alternate method of healing. Potions, wands, whatever, but I won't inject a DMPC into the campaign to compensate for their inability to have a balanced party.

So basically your point is that your group should find another method if nobody wants to be the healer. Yet when they suggest another method, that is recruiting a healer of equivalent power (so they won't have to hold his hand all the time) and who they are willing to give an even share of the profits to in order to entice them and keep their loyalty, your response is "Fail!"? Seems as if they came up with a totally logical solution to their problem that makes perfect sense within the game world, I fail to see why that would be a "Fail!"

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 04:02 PM
They aren't mutually exclusive, and combat favours one over the other, which is the focus of DMPCs, because RP when not adventuring is identical between NPCs and DMPCs. With the exception of DMPCs that the DM has walk off into some place where he talks with himself for a few hours, but let's not assume that extreme situation.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:02 PM
Not at all: if you're going to base your argument on the claim that all players everywhere are going to be bored by the same things that bore you, you need to justify that statement, especially since there are quite a few counterexamples being presented.

The justification of "players play the game because they enjoy participating in it" is pretty general. It's impossible to generalize any further and have anything useful whatsoever.

Once again, you're not arguing the issue at hand, you're arguing corner cases of vaguely related topics.

It's possible that some players, somewhere, prefer that every single dispute resolution be a simple coin flip. That doesn't mean that such a solution is generally preferable, or even a good option that should normally be considered.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:03 PM
Honestly, if a GM's worth his salt, he'll usually know what his players will and won't go for after playing with them a while. There's no forcing insinuated here unless you just really have that much issue with your GM that you view him as an enemy and not the host.

A lot of people have directly stated that they love that kind of flavor and are willingly to sacrifice the extra couple of seconds for it. Experiences and story are what make the game fun for them.

From the sounds of it, your group is very rollplayer heavy, and you're forgetting that some groups are very roleplayer heavy. It's all about what you WANT to spend your time doing. If you like the dialog, story, and repartee, then you don't mind wasting a bit of time on it. If you like hitting things, killing them, and gaining levels, then you'll probably pass. The NPCs people are pitching are tools for the essence of increasing the amount of roleplaying for the characters that like it.

Well at the very least it sounds as if their group is very DM vs. Players from the earlier discussion of the DM just screwing with them with an overpowered opponent.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 04:03 PM
I don't require that it be the spells that do it. That was your example, which is why I disagreed.


I merely say that there is always another way to cover the niche. Nobody's shown an exception yet.I didn't disagree with that statement, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that in reference to my comments.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:05 PM
Or the spellcaster could be a specialist and those spells could be ones that are forbidden to them. Thus to force them to use it means rebuilding their concept to allow for those schools and excluding others or removing the specialization.

You just quoted a statement that says "I don't require it be the spells that do it", complaining about the spells?

What?

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 04:07 PM
So you'd in essence sit back and watch as the NPCs stand there attacking eachother, which is your choice then. Different from being forced to sit back and watch, which as I've stated, was my interpretation of the situation.So, I take you mean that it's not always boring for the players to observe the world, rather than constantly, directly interact with it?

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 04:08 PM
So basically your point is that your group should find another method if nobody wants to be the healer. Yet when they suggest another method, that is recruiting a healer of equivalent power (so they won't have to hold his hand all the time) and who they are willing to give an even share of the profits to in order to entice them and keep their loyalty, your response is "Fail!"? Seems as if they came up with a totally logical solution to their problem that makes perfect sense within the game world, I fail to see why that would be a "Fail!"

Hirelings in my campaigns are rolled and run by the party, not the DM. They do not recieve an equal share of the XP and profit, but they to get some of the XP, and usually get paid with the profit. They function much like cohorts provided by the Leadership feat, but their expenses come out of party funds instead of individual funds.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:08 PM
You just quoted a statement that says "I don't require it be the spells that do it", complaining about the spells?

What?

Sorry, I was commenting on your "fluff" statement. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that a person's problems with a certain approach are "fluff' issues, and I was try to suggest that it may not just be "fluff" issues. Sorry for the confusion.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:10 PM
So basically your point is that your group should find another method if nobody wants to be the healer. Yet when they suggest another method, that is recruiting a healer of equivalent power (so they won't have to hold his hand all the time) and who they are willing to give an even share of the profits to in order to entice them and keep their loyalty, your response is "Fail!"? Seems as if they came up with a totally logical solution to their problem that makes perfect sense within the game world, I fail to see why that would be a "Fail!"

That's a hireling/cohort/follower/whatever. It's not a DMPC.

If you choose to let the players have an extra character, or even to run multiple characters each, go nuts. It's an option. However, it's not a DMPC, since it's not something created by the DM to be his PC.

The important bit is who has control the character with relation to the party. If the players do(and if they are recruiting him, that sounds like they are in control to me), it's not a DMPC. If the DM is determining that the party gets the character, then the DM has control. Anything not controlled by the DM cannot be a DMPC by definition.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 04:12 PM
So, I take you mean that it's not always boring for the players to observe the world, rather than constantly, directly interact with it?

I don't know what that has to do with the actual topic, as I've mentioned, so I'll just say, yeah, it always is boring. You can probably think up some obscure situation in which case "story time with DM die rolling while the PCs sit down and shut up" is interesting, but to be honest, I simply won't believe you.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:13 PM
Hirelings in my campaigns are rolled and run by the party, not the DM. They do not recieve an equal share of the XP and profit, but they to get some of the XP, and usually get paid with the profit. They function much like cohorts provided by the Leadership feat, but their expenses come out of party funds instead of individual funds.

I understand treating hirelings that way, but hirelings are not good long term solutions to fundamental issues. Getting someone of equal ability (i.e. approximately same level and wealth) is more likely to be useful in the long run than Joe Cleric that is 5 levels lower and only sticking around with you for the 500 gp you promised and when the crap hits the fan is just as likely to book it because their life isn't worth the meesly little pay they are recieving, especially when their gear is so inferior to the other people around them. Joe Cleric isn't going to run up to the front to save anyone with his crappy 19 AC during a level 12 combat, while the other members standback with their much higher AC. Well that is if the DM is playing them in believable manner of course.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:13 PM
That was your example, which is why I disagreed.

In the original post, I listed spells as one possible way in which to negate the example weakness of "no rogue".

You have said that there could be a hypothetical objection on the basis of concept. Until the specialist bit, you did not provide one. That said, the list of spells that bypass, disable, or avoid traps is sufficiently lengthy that banned schools cannot encompass them all.

I would also like to point out that a character build is not a character concept.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 04:15 PM
I understand treating hirelings that way, but hirelings are not good long term solutions to fundamental issues. Getting someone of equal ability (i.e. approximately same level and wealth) is more likely to be useful in the long run than Joe Cleric that is 5 levels lower and only sticking around with you for the 500 gp you promised and when the crap hits the fan is just as likely to book it because their life isn't worth the meesly little pay they are recieving, especially when their gear is so inferior to the other people around them. Joe Cleric isn't going to run up to the front to save anyone with his crappy 19 AC during a level 12 combat, while the other members standback with their much higher AC. Well that is if the DM is playing them in believable manner of course.

Actually, DMPCs running in and doing all the work is one of the things that most people have stated as explicitly bad, and in my opinion, a sign of either poorly CRed encounters, or a party that has not been built properly. By which I mean they're running around like chickens with their heads cut off instead of fighting effectively to any degree.

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 04:15 PM
They aren't mutually exclusive, and combat favours one over the other, which is the focus of DMPCs, because RP when not adventuring is identical between NPCs and DMPCs. With the exception of DMPCs that the DM has walk off into some place where he talks with himself for a few hours, but let's not assume that extreme situation.

Ah, but that's the thing. People have also complained about DMPCs also SPECIFICALLY being plot important as well without necessarily being involved in combat. However, the argument for acceptable DMPCs has specifically been made with roleplaying as the context. Because either...

1. The "DMPC" is NOT important in combat or only occasionally helps out and serves as a story hook and roleplaying opportunity for the players.

2. The "DMPC" is merely a hireling that was given more breath and a backstory.

So yes. A character can be a DMPC under some rules without ever being involved in combat. After all, not all REGULAR PCs need to be combat focused.

I've already stated that defining DMPC as "an unwanted GM Pet NPC" is a bad idea because it can't be quantified, and this is why. My well fleshed-out NPC in my group is an NPC for another group. This may not seem like a problem, but if we're discussing an IDEA we need a solid basis of discussion. We need to be thinking on at least similar levels when we hear DMPC for the discussion to even make sense.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:15 PM
I understand treating hirelings that way, but hirelings are not good long term solutions to fundamental issues. Getting someone of equal ability (i.e. approximately same level and wealth) is more likely to be useful in the long run than Joe Cleric that is 5 levels lower and only sticking around with you for the 500 gp you promised and when the crap hits the fan is just as likely to book it because their life isn't worth the meesly little pay they are recieving, especially when their gear is so inferior to the other people around them. Joe Cleric isn't going to run up to the front to save anyone with his crappy 19 AC during a level 12 combat, while the other members standback with their much higher AC. Well that is if the DM is playing them in believable manner of course.

He specifially said that in his campaign, they were run by the party. Presumably in exceptional circumstances, the DM might consider the effects of fear, etc on that hireling, but you're objecting to something that isn't the proposed solution.

Artanis
2009-11-23, 04:17 PM
I don't know what that has to do with the actual topic, as I've mentioned, so I'll just say, yeah, it always is boring. You can probably think up some obscure situation in which case "story time with DM die rolling while the PCs sit down and shut up" is interesting, but to be honest, I simply won't believe you.

So in other words, you'll ignore anything we say unless it's agreeing with you. Good to know.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:17 PM
That's a hireling/cohort/follower/whatever. It's not a DMPC.

If you choose to let the players have an extra character, or even to run multiple characters each, go nuts. It's an option. However, it's not a DMPC, since it's not something created by the DM to be his PC.

The important bit is who has control the character with relation to the party. If the players do(and if they are recruiting him, that sounds like they are in control to me), it's not a DMPC. If the DM is determining that the party gets the character, then the DM has control. Anything not controlled by the DM cannot be a DMPC by definition.

And we are back to that. Just because the players are trying to recruit a specific type of ally does not mean they are going to be control (and rolling for) or designing the character. Certainly some groups are fine with that and that is great, but the typical game (weren't you the one making a big deal about the "standard" game?) is that ALL NPCs are controled by the DM and constructed by the DM (unless running a module). So while it is true that some groups will have a Party Character that individual players will trade off as well as their own character, this is not the standard method. The standard method is for a DM to control those characters.

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 04:17 PM
Joe Cleric isn't going to run up to the front to save anyone with his crappy 19 AC during a level 12 combat, while the other members standback with their much higher AC. Well that is if the DM is playing them in believable manner of course.

Unbelieveably, most PC clerics I've ever seen waited until after combat to heal anyone not immediately dying (heal skill anyone?)...they were all too involved in the melee themselves. Why would an NPC cleric with the same incentives as the PCs do any different? They're nothing but an XP and GP sponge.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:18 PM
We need to be thinking on at least similar levels when we hear DMPC for the discussion to even make sense.

DMPC = The DM's PC.

If it's not the DM's character, it can't count.
If it's not acting like a PC, it can't count.
It has to be both.


You can have bad regular PCs and NPCs too, but this specific issue is as listed above.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 04:18 PM
Ah, but that's the thing. People have also complained about DMPCs also SPECIFICALLY being plot important as well without necessarily being involved in combat. However, the argument for acceptable DMPCs has specifically been made with roleplaying as the context. Because either...

1. The "DMPC" is NOT important in combat or only occasionally helps out and serves as a story hook and roleplaying opportunity for the players.

That's not a PC.


2. The "DMPC" is merely a hireling that was given more breath and a backstory.

That's not a PC.


So yes. A character can be a DMPC under some rules without ever being involved in combat. After all, not all REGULAR PCs need to be combat focused.

Even if they aren't focused for combat, that doesn't mean they aren't involved in combat. Generally, if you post a topic about how you played some pacifistic character that doesn't use buffs, knowledges, battlefield control or get involved in any matter, you'll hear about backlash from the party about how your character is dead weight.


I've already stated that defining DMPC as "an unwanted GM Pet NPC" is a bad idea because it can't be quantified, and this is why. My well fleshed-out NPC in my group is an NPC for another group. This may not seem like a problem, but if we're discussing an IDEA we need a solid basis of discussion. We need to be thinking on at least similar levels when we hear DMPC for the discussion to even make sense.

I've merely defined DMPC as the DM's PC, which is basically what the term stands for.

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 04:19 PM
So in other words, you'll ignore anything we say unless it's agreeing with you. Good to know.

Well, since you're likely going to start doing that to me, this post likely doesn't matter, but if it's not on the topic of DMPCs when we're talking about it I'll ignore you. If it's about something related to DMPCs when that's the topic, I won't, even if it doesn't agree with me.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:20 PM
He specifially said that in his campaign, they were run by the party. Presumably in exceptional circumstances, the DM might consider the effects of fear, etc on that hireling, but you're objecting to something that isn't the proposed solution.

He said HIRELINGS were.


... do not recieve an equal share of the XP and profit, but they to get some of the XP, and usually get paid with the profit. They function much like cohorts provided by the Leadership feat, but their expenses come out of party funds instead of individual funds.

That is not what I have suggest, nor is it what I believe he was suggesting his party would have wanted if they asked for a "DMPC", since obviously if they meant "hireling" he wouldn't have said "Fail!" because he is already doing that. Instead he would have said, "Succeed!"

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:21 PM
And we are back to that. Just because the players are trying to recruit a specific type of ally does not mean they are going to be control (and rolling for) or designing the character. Certainly some groups are fine with that and that is great, but the typical game (weren't you the one making a big deal about the "standard" game?) is that ALL NPCs are controled by the DM and constructed by the DM (unless running a module). So while it is true that some groups will have a Party Character that individual players will trade off as well as their own character, this is not the standard method. The standard method is for a DM to control those characters.

As already mentioned, rolling for /= control of.

In some groups, the DM may even make rolls for the PCs. They are still PCs, however...they don't magically become a party of NPCs.

Control is who makes the DECISIONS. If he's your hireling, you should in fact make the decisions about what he's supposed to do. He may fail, or disobey, but such is life. The player is still the one in the driver's seat.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:24 PM
Unbelieveably, most PC clerics I've ever seen waited until after combat to heal anyone not immediately dying (heal skill anyone?)...they were all too involved in the melee themselves. Why would an NPC cleric with the same incentives as the PCs do any different? They're nothing but an XP and GP sponge.

BINGO! (the bolded part)

That is the difference. A believable hireling isn't going to risk his neck to save one of the PCs during a fight. He just doesn't have enough investment, ability, gear, or gain to make the risk worth it. A full fledged party member with equal gear and abilities is much more likely to be willing AND able to provide those dying with the aid they need in those most desperate of circurmstances.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:26 PM
As already mentioned, rolling for /= control of.

In some groups, the DM may even make rolls for the PCs. They are still PCs, however...they don't magically become a party of NPCs.

Control is who makes the DECISIONS. If he's your hireling, you should in fact make the decisions about what he's supposed to do. He may fail, or disobey, but such is life. The player is still the one in the driver's seat.

If he is able to disobey, then you are not the one making the decisions. You may be the one making the demands, but not ultimately the decisions for the character.

Artanis
2009-11-23, 04:29 PM
Well, since you're likely going to start doing that to me, this post likely doesn't matter, but if it's not on the topic of DMPCs when we're talking about it I'll ignore you. If it's about something related to DMPCs when that's the topic, I won't, even if it doesn't agree with me.

I don't see how I am doing the same thing to you. I believe you that you find that situation boring.

However, your argument is that every player in the entire world ever finds that situation boring. I disagree with this assessment, and as such, I can attempt to counter that argument. When you are making such an argument, all it takes is a single counterexample to prove you wrong. However, you have explicitly stated that you will ignore any counterexample that anybody gives.

This is the logical equivalent of clapping your hands over your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" every time somebody disagrees with you.

dsmiles
2009-11-23, 04:30 PM
BINGO! (the bolded part)

Maybe you should have bolded the "(heal skill anyone?)" part. Any party worth their salt has a couple of people with enough ranks to stabilize someone (I say "a couple" because I believe in having no single point of failure).

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 04:36 PM
Even if they aren't focused for combat, that doesn't mean they aren't involved in combat. Generally, if you post a topic about how you played some pacifistic character that doesn't use buffs, knowledges, battlefield control or get involved in any matter, you'll hear about backlash from the party about how your character is dead weight.

What about the prince the party is escorting back to his Kingdom that's too much of a simpering coward to fight. This is a feasible scenario, and one that can be considered a DMPC if the character has out of combat skills.

My players have had an NPC that helped quite a bit outside of combat and was following them frequently, but when combat came she specifically got out of the way because the PCs were WAY higher level than her and fighting things that would kill her in 2 hits. Sure. She could do a very basic bard buff and sneak attack for a MASSIVE 2d6 extra damage (for level 14-ish characters in a 3.5 modified system where over 50 damage in 1 hit was not uncommon at that level). They already had a WAY better bard for those buffs and her damage would've contributed nothing before getting her killed. Effectively, she was not counted for encounters because her job was to not participate.

Her MECHANICAL benefit for the party came in the form of knowledge, connections, a high gather information skill, and being able to disguise them to a supernatural level. These came in handy for the party, and some would argue that this is EXPLICITLY a DMPC because she had a character sheet. However, she is NOT a combatant NPC at ALL. Same thing with a lot of NPCs. They can exist without comba



I've merely defined DMPC as the DM's PC, which is basically what the term stands for.

You can quote what it stands for all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that no one has clearly defined it. Where SPECIFICALLY is the line between an NPC with a character sheet and an NPC. We were given a definition to base it upon, and several people have simply said it doesn't count because it's "not a negative thing".

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 04:37 PM
What can I say, we find the things we do to antagonize each other hilarious...Hey, to each their own; if that's what you enjoy go for it.


Otherwise, I could make the statement that no one wants to wear pants because no one wants to intentionally waste 5 seconds of their life. It's about penalty and reward outweighing each other, not just the penalty.Well, to be honest, I bet most people don't really want to wear pants, they just do so to avoid the penalties of not wearing them.


The justification of "players play the game because they enjoy participating in it" is pretty general. It's impossible to generalize any further and have anything useful whatsoever.I'm not sure what you mean here; I can't place the context. That's not what I've been disagreeing with. Maybe that's you trying to paraphrase what he means rather than quoting? I really couldn't say.


In any case, I disagree with the implication that players choosing to observe the world are not participating in the game; they are observing when other players are talking or doing things, and they're still participating. There are times to be active, and times to be passive, and sometimes the passive portions can be just as enjoyable as the active ones.

Done well, having a DMPC (as defined by the OP) is no different than waiting your turn while some other player is talking or doing something.


Once again, you're not arguing the issue at hand, you're arguing corner cases of vaguely related topics. It is the issue at hand: "are there types of DMPC's (here defined as an NPC that regularly accompanies and assists the party) that can work"

I've a brief example of one where it worked, and disagreed with the people who have give a unilateral "no" to that question; especially if they implied that their statement was not one of opinion based on their own personal playstyle but fact that applied to all players everywhere.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:42 PM
BINGO! (the bolded part)

That is the difference. A believable hireling isn't going to risk his neck to save one of the PCs during a fight. He just doesn't have enough investment, ability, gear, or gain to make the risk worth it. A full fledged party member with equal gear and abilities is much more likely to be willing AND able to provide those dying with the aid they need in those most desperate of circurmstances.

Why?

Why would who is in control of the character out of the game have anything to do with the in-game characters motivations?

Sure, there may be a point at which his pay isn't worth the risk...but isn't that true for any character, including PCs?

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 04:43 PM
I've merely defined DMPC as the DM's PC, which is basically what the term stands for.Since this isn't your thread, you should probably use the term as defined by the OP, since that matches up with what he was actually asking about.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:45 PM
Since this isn't your thread, you should probably use the term as defined by the OP, since that matches up with what he was actually asking about.

If I start a thread entitled "When is cheating ok?", and then describe optimization as cheating in my post, I can expect people to explain that optimization /= cheating. Probably several people, repeatedly, and in detail.

If you invent definitions, you should expect disagreement.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:50 PM
Why?

Why would who is in control of the character out of the game have anything to do with the in-game characters motivations?

Sure, there may be a point at which his pay isn't worth the risk...but isn't that true for any character, including PCs?


He just doesn't have enough investment, ability, gear, or gain to make the risk worth it.

I would assume that a PC would be of an appropriate level to be in the party (I'm assuming you don't typically have a level 2 PC traveling in a party of level 6's). Thus they have the ability and the gear to handle the situation. And since they know they are going to get roughly 1/4 of any loot (a little less if they are paying a hireling) they have the investment and the potential gain to make it worth it. A hireling just doesn't have those things to make it worth taking a big risk to save someone (and a heal check might stop them from bleeding to death but isn't going to stop them from getting coup-de-graced).

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:50 PM
If he is able to disobey, then you are not the one making the decisions. You may be the one making the demands, but not ultimately the decisions for the character.

Your own character can disobey you, the player. The DM can flat-out tell you that your character, as described, would not do something because of x. x frequently may include lack of in-character knowledge, or being wildly counter to his nature, or something else entirely, depending on game.

You still control the character, but someone needs to arbitrate(in any game with a DM, at least). These things need not be contradictory in nature, and won't be unless the players and the DM are being deliberately adversarial.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 04:52 PM
I would assume that a PC would be of an appropriate level to be in the party (I'm assuming you don't typically have a level 2 PC traveling in a party of level 6's). Thus they have the ability and the gear to handle the situation. And since they know they are going to get roughly 1/4 of any loot (a little less if they are paying a hireling) they have the investment and the potential gain to make it worth it. A hireling just doesn't have those things to make it worth taking a big risk to save someone (and a heal check might stop them from bleeding to death but isn't going to stop them from getting coup-de-graced).

Hirelings do not have to be level 2.

And yes, the players should get what they paid for. If you're a high level party, and you pay two coppers to get a lowbie to follow you around, his contribution should be much smaller than if you paid the price to get someone competent.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 04:52 PM
If I start a thread entitled "When is cheating ok?", and then describe optimization as cheating in my post, I can expect people to explain that optimization /= cheating. Probably several people, repeatedly, and in detail.

If you invent definitions, you should expect disagreement.Hey, it's not my definition, it's the OP's

If you want to point out to the OP that he's misusing the term, that's fine, but if you want to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, you should answer thier question as they asked it. If you find thier definition objectionable, then stick to using the correct terms (meaning, don't call it a DMPC, call it whatever you think is an appropriate term).

so in your example, you should expect people to say things to the effect of "cheating is bad, but optimization isn't cheating, and it's ok to do it under these circumstances" rather than just saying "cheating is bad, thread over because you misused the term"

Toliudar
2009-11-23, 04:55 PM
Why?

Why would who is in control of the character out of the game have anything to do with the in-game characters motivations?

Sure, there may be a point at which his pay isn't worth the risk...but isn't that true for any character, including PCs?

Since DMPC is not a RAW-defined term, I think that it's perfectly workable to start with the OP's definition in a thread. You're free to disagree with definition, but it's hardly the neologism you're describing.

If an NPC has motivations that the players don't know, how in the world could a player work with those motivations?

pres_man
2009-11-23, 04:58 PM
Hirelings do not have to be level 2.

Really? Seriously? Oh my god and I guess next your going to tell me that groups don't have to be 6th level. :smallsigh: You toss out a couple of numbers to demonstrate a point and people get all stuck on them.


And yes, the players should get what they paid for. If you're a high level party, and you pay two coppers to get a lowbie to follow you around, his contribution should be much smaller than if you paid the price to get someone competent.

And so you have to keep trading up I guess.
PC level 1: We'll hire Bob the Cleric (level 1)
*several adventures later*
PC level 2: Thanks Bob, take care. Now we will hire Bob's older sister. Bobett the Cleric (level 2)
*several adventures later*
...
*several adventures later*
...
...
...
*several adventures later*
PC level 17: Thanks Hank the Cleric (level 16), Bob's Great-Uncle. Now we'll hire your sister Hanna the Cleric (level 17).

Is it starting to seem a bit fake yet?

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 04:59 PM
The OPs definition seems to be any NPC at all that happens to be near the party, and not against their goals. That doesn't seem like a relevant point of discussion.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 05:00 PM
Since DMPC is not a RAW-defined term, I think that it's perfectly workable to start with the OP's definition in a thread. You're free to disagree with definition, but it's hardly the neologism you're describing.

If an NPC has motivations that the players don't know, how in the world could a player work with those motivations?

Does RAW explicitly define what constitutes cheating and optimization?

I never said that the thread should end because he misused the word. It's the pro-DMPC side who is advocating the "use our definitions or get out". In essence, you're trying to define the other side away. Not expecting argument on this is ludicrous.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 05:05 PM
Really? Seriously? Oh my god and I guess next your going to tell me that groups don't have to be 6th level. :smallsigh: You toss out a couple of numbers to demonstrate a point and people get all stuck on them.

Hirelings do not have to be 1/3rd the party level. Or any other arbitrarily ridiculously weak assumption you make.

You've assumed they are weak and worthless, and a DMPC is not, and based your argument on that. There is no rule that this should be the case, so it's something purely invented.


And so you have to keep trading up I guess.
PC level 1: We'll hire Bob the Cleric (level 1)
*several adventures later*
PC level 2: Thanks Bob, take care. Now we will hire Bob's older sister. Bobett the Cleric (level 2)
*several adventures later*
...
*several adventures later*
...
...
...
*several adventures later*
PC level 17: Thanks Hank the Cleric (level 16), Bob's Great-Uncle. Now we'll hire your sister Hanna the Cleric (level 17).

Is it starting to seem a bit fake yet?

Do hirelings get a share of the xp? If they took active part in the encounter, as you demand, they should. Cohorts do, as per the leadership feat.

If they stay out of the way at hide, not so much...but in that case, do you need them to be exactly the same level as the party?

So, in this instance as well, you're inventing rules.

Fhaolan
2009-11-23, 05:11 PM
I would assume that a PC would be of an appropriate level to be in the party (I'm assuming you don't typically have a level 2 PC traveling in a party of level 6's).

That's possibly another case of old-timer's syndrome. Having widely disparate levels for PCs in the same party was far more common in older editions, as ressurection-type magic was much harder to get ahold of, and the supposed rule was for any player who's PC died had to start their new character at level 1. And it was easier to die in the first place, if you were daft. Which we were. :smallbiggrin:

At least, that's how I remember it when I was playing way-back-when. I vaguely remember being in a group with one 10th level PC, three 6th level PCs, and one 1st level PC. Probably exasperated by the fact that different classes leveled up at different speeds in those rulesets. (Intra-party balance wasn't considered as important back then, as that's a more recent game design theory.)

Nero24200
2009-11-23, 05:11 PM
Done well, having a DMPC (as defined by the OP) is no different than waiting your turn while some other player is talking or doing something.
That's not quite 100% true. You see, if the group has 5 players, you're going to have to put if with 4 players doing their own thing. Now, theres nothing wrong with this in itself, but it can be frustrating for some.

I myself, for instance, am used to games with no more than 3 players, so naturally, when I started playing with 5, I disliked that we all had less time devoted to us indiviually. I also found that, sometimes, I'll not bother saying what my character's going to do, since it seems pretty irrelevent (even when it might not be) and others are almost always talking. At the end of the day, a DMPC is yet another addition to this, but it's not just an addition to this, it's a completely unnessiciery addition. If I want the fun that comes with a few more players, I need to accept that I won't have the spotlight as often, but adding a DMPC doesn't always mean more fun, and that's when this "Time tax" really takes it's toll.

As someone who has played alongside DMPC's and used them myself, I can say that they are rarely a good idea. A bumbeling bard who hides at the first sign of danger may sound interesting and not step on anyones toes, but it'll get annoying quickly when you're trying to sneak up on foes and he shrieks every 5 seconds.

That and well...DMPC's are often treated kinda like PC's, but they're not. They aren't subject to the same rules the PC's are. If the DM says "You're starting at X level", theres nothing to stop the DM making the DMPC X level +1. If the DM says "No monster races", theres still nothing to stop the DM making the DMPC a monster race.

And well...lastly, as DMPC's, they're expected to last quite a while IG. One lesson I've learned quickly is that if I want to maintain a level of internal consistancy, I should be prepered to let any NPC die at the hands of the PC's. Yes, any. Allow me to tell a little story of when one of my DM's gave us a DMPC. It started with my character (a human origonally, but transformed into a cat-folk due to weird experiements, and quests to find a way to return to normal). The campaign started off with my character following a hot lead on finding an artifact that could return her to normal.

Naturally, monsters held it, so the party of only 3 characters including myself had to sneak in, fight some of them, and even take on their leader. When we reached for the artifact though, an DMPC scooped it up from right underneath us. Now, my character's first thought was "We just risked life and limb for that, we're not giving it up". The other PC's felt the same, and so we tried to fight them. It was pretty obvious that the DM wanted them to remain around for long, since despite "not being strong enough to take on the monsters themselves", they were still enough levels above us that we couldn't lay a finger on them. The DM forced us to have them tag along with us for the entire campaign and I couldn't stand them at all, I feel the campaign would have been much better without them.
So as you can see, I havn't had fun experiences with DMPC's. I'm not saying there aren't times when they might be okay, but I've yet to really experience such a time and the number of times they just become annoying seem to be a significantly larger number.

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 05:12 PM
The OPs definition seems to be any NPC at all that happens to be near the party, and not against their goals. That doesn't seem like a relevant point of discussion.

It is though.

It's broad, I'll give you that, but people have defined less than that as a DMPC even in this thread. Some people have essentially made the argument that NPCs are for buying items and getting quests and named NPCs are for killing or for rescuing as a part of a quest. After all, if he or she is actively helping the party in any matter that another party member could theorhetically handle with the right class levels and a high enough level, then you could consider them a DM's PC.

People have defined DM PC's to that extent. And it's true. Sometimes characters like that can be bad for the campaign. The discussion here is about how NPC's that ACTIVELY interact with the party in a positive way can be used to positive effect and not stomp on the party's toes. If you're saying that's impossible, you're either narrowing the definition or are very staunch about having the spotlight 100% of the time.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 05:13 PM
Hirelings do not have to be 1/3rd the party level. Or any other arbitrarily ridiculously weak assumption you make.

You've assumed they are weak and worthless, and a DMPC is not, and based your argument on that. There is no rule that this should be the case, so it's something purely invented.

Not entirely, unless you are claiming that NPCs have the same wealth as PCs. Is this what you are claiming? If not, then there are at least some rules that are not just arbitrary or purely invented.


Do hirelings get a share of the xp?

Nope, they don't, check your DMG.


If they took active part in the encounter, as you demand, they should. Cohorts do, as per the leadership feat.

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.


If they stay out of the way at hide, not so much...but in that case, do you need them to be exactly the same level as the party?

So, in this instance as well, you're inventing rules.

I am suggesting if you are hiring people that are ill equipped (see again NPC wealth vs PC wealth) to handle the challenges, don't expect them to handle the challengs very well. So if you are looking for actual aid from a person you are recruiting to your party, you might want to find someone that is more your equal, then your inferior.

BRC
2009-11-23, 05:18 PM
The OPs definition seems to be any NPC at all that happens to be near the party, and not against their goals. That doesn't seem like a relevant point of discussion.
I believe I mentioned something about "Regularly helps the party". The town guard that the PC's help defend the town against goblins isn't a DMPC by my definition unless he then proceeds to tag along with the party for several adventures. The word "Regularly" is significant. What differentiates a DMPC (By my definition) From an allied NPC is duration. If you think of the campaign as a TV show, a DMPC is part of the regular cast.

Also, concerning the definition argument, the only argument I feel is invalid is the one that declares the entire discussion pointless because by their definition, a DMPC is inherently Bad. If it was good, it wouldn't be a DMPC. That's why I provided a definition in the first post, to avoid just that argument. If I just said "Can a DMPC be done well" some people would say "No, because if it was, it wouldn't be a DMPC", and there would be nothing in the origional premise that made that invalid.


Does RAW explicitly define what constitutes cheating and optimization?

I never said that the thread should end because he misused the word. It's the pro-DMPC side who is advocating the "use our definitions or get out". In essence, you're trying to define the other side away. Not expecting argument on this is ludicrous.

I never said that the thread should end because he misused the word. It's the pro-DMPC side who is advocating the "use our definitions or get out". In essence, you're trying to define the other side away. Not expecting argument on this is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, it's the Anti-DMPC side trying to define things away. Nobody is claiming that all DMPC's are good, some people are claiming that it's possible to have a good one. The other side is saying that it's not, because since that's good, it's not a DMPC. It's what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "No Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal" "But my uncle is scottish, and he loves sugar on his oatmeal" "Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal".

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 05:18 PM
That's possibly another case of old-timer's syndrome. Having widely disparate levels for PCs in the same party was far more common in older editions, as ressurection-type magic was much harder to get ahold of, and the supposed rule was for any player who's PC died had to start their new character at level 1. And it was easier to die in the first place, if you were daft. Which we were. :smallbiggrin:

At least, that's how I remember it when I was playing way-back-when. I vaguely remember being in a group with one 10th level PC, three 6th level PCs, and one 1st level PC. Probably exasperated by the fact that different classes leveled up at different speeds in those rulesets. (Intra-party balance wasn't considered as important back then, as that's a more recent game design theory.)

I would agree with this. I'm currently playing in one campaign now where everyone starts at first, and most of the people I started playing with started playing in 2nd ed or earlier. Yes, you're horribly fragile at level 1 when the party is facing ECL 6-10, but you learn caution really quick. It's definitely possible to contribute even at a low level though...you just play very differently.

If you did have a hireling accompanying you of a significantly lower level, presumably they would contribute in much the same way. If they can get you back up without much risk, they will...because you're the meatshield keeping them alive.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 05:21 PM
The OPs definition seems to be any NPC at all that happens to be near the party, and not against their goals.No, its: an NPC that regularly accompanies and assists the party (per the OP's definition)


That doesn't seem like a relevant point of discussion.I think the OP's question is always a relevant point of discussion; it even opens up discussion on what the definition of DMPC is; but you shouldn't really demand that people use your definition over the OP's.


You've assumed they are weak and worthless, and a DMPC is not may not be, and based your argument on that. Fixed; there's no reason to assume that they're going to be especially strong either.


Does RAW explicitly define what constitutes cheating and optimization?I don't see what the RAW has to do with this.


I never said that the thread should end because he misused the word. It's the pro-DMPC side who is advocating the "use our definitions or get out". In essence, you're trying to define the other side away. Not expecting argument on this is ludicrous.Noone said anything like "use our definitions or get out" (although Yukitsu came kind of close)

I just pointed out that it's a little pointless to define your terms to be radically different than the OP's, and then demand that people use your definition over his. That makes everything you say less applicable to the actual question that he was asking. You're free to argue whatever point you want, and define your terms however you want, though you should refrain from correcting people when they go with the OP's definition rather than yours.

pres_man
2009-11-23, 05:22 PM
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

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 05:24 PM
Not entirely, unless you are claiming that NPCs have the same wealth as PCs. Is this what you are claiming? If not, then there are at least some rules that are not just arbitrary or purely invented.

I made no claims either way regarding wealth. Wealth ends up being highly campaign specific. However, power is not derived just from wealth.

Besides, the original example was hiring a cleric to be a healbot. They could have substantially less wealth than the party, and not be vastly weaker. Remember, bonuses go on an exponential cost scale.

And obviously, well paid minions will be able to equip themselves better...and if you desire, you can give them gear directly.


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.

See? Problem fixed. Doesn't rob the party of xp, yet cohort trickles along behind. They can't ever quite match the party, but they can be close.


I am suggesting if you are hiring people that are ill equipped (see again NPC wealth vs PC wealth) to handle the challenges, don't expect them to handle the challengs very well. So if you are looking for actual aid from a person you are recruiting to your party, you might want to find someone that is more your equal, then your inferior.

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

Wealth is only one aspect of power.

Fhaolan
2009-11-23, 05:25 PM
It's what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "No Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal" "But my uncle is scottish, and he loves sugar on his oatmeal" "Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal".

Irrelevant aside: I'm Scottish, and yes, I do put salt on my oatmeal on occasion. It works, but only if you are using actual oats that doesn't already include sugar of any kind. And I have to be in a very specific frame of mind to deal with it, such as the morning of a summer event when I have to roam around in heavy gear all day. The evening of said days is pretty much the only time I can deal with whole dill pickles as well. It's all about electrolyte balance.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 05:27 PM
That's not quite 100% true. You see, if the group has 5 players, you're going to have to put if with 4 players doing their own thing. Now, theres nothing wrong with this in itself, but it can be frustrating for some. 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)

Karoht
2009-11-23, 05:28 PM
DMPC arguements in a nutshell

"Filling in a required player role"
This would be valid, if the DM can't jigger the campaign to work without that role. If the DM can not do so without the use of a DMPC, then it is the fault of the DM, pretty much in all cases.
That said, the DM can also use this as a money sink (purchasing items to help fill the niche, purchasing the services of a hireling to fill the niche). Also, don't forget that filling this niche can be used as a ruse. A ruse to infiltrate the party. Oh look, the party needs a rogue for traps (an arguement I disagree with, but for the moment we will ignore that). Gee, it would really suck if the big bad had a mole in the party, and used it to keep track of the party, evaluate strengths and weaknesses, and potentially weaken the party from within here and there.
As far as getting around traps without nerfing the caster of the party, or anyone else for that matter. Give (and by give I mean make available, not so much as freely distribute) magic items to your party that can kind of make up for not having a rogue around. Or if someone in the party is taking any of the appropriate crafting feats, drop hints that they could make an item which would really help out with traps. I recall in a recent campaign, a sorceress abusing a Ring of Ruby Red Reflection (I think that is the name. It is named after a spell in the Spell Compendium), to the point where the party rogue hardly had to lift a finger.
Or change the nature of the traps being flung at the party. If the party is mostly casters, use more traps with effects which have will saves rather than reflex. If it's mostly fighters, go fortitude, or effects where their AC will be of use. Or use traps which will separate the party (IE-wall dividers, random teleports).
Healing you can deal with in a similar manner. Have potions and wands available. It isn't a great option, but it's there for emergencies. The hireling Cleric that was brought along is secretly working for an evil cult or dark god or what have you. Or if the party druid is too focused on melee combat and isn't tossing out a heal once in a while, then get them to use their spontaneous Summon Monster and bust out a Unicorn, they heal pretty good actually. Or use more buffs prior to the combat.
Or, get your party to play smarter and avoid damage by not doing stupid things. Like running into traps. Or tackling an entire army at once. Minimizing stupid things will minimize necessary healing required.

Bottom line: As a DM, if you can't look at your party's strengths and weaknesses and tailor their encounters accordingly, then learn how or expect PC deaths. A DMPC should not be filling the gaps in your plans. Your PC's skills and abilities should be able to fulfill the objectives, or they shouldn't be up against something. And if they find themselves up against something where their strengths are not enough, then the either need to outsmart and outplay that something, or retreat. DMPC not required.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-23, 05:32 PM
No, its: an NPC that regularly accompanies and assists the party (per the OP's definition)

I think the OP's question is always a relevant point of discussion; it even opens up discussion on what the definition of DMPC is; but you shouldn't really demand that people use your definition over the OP's.

As per no-true scottsman, the original definition invalidates the possibility of unhelpful DMPCs, because it assumes they assist the party.



Fixed; there's no reason to assume that they're going to be especially strong either.

I didn't. Pres man did.


I don't see what the RAW has to do with this.

Like the previous line, please stop taking this out of context, and look at the quote.


Noone said anything like "use our definitions or get out" (although Yukitsu came kind of close)

You, a few posts back:

Since this isn't your thread, you should probably use the term as defined by the OP, since that matches up with what he was actually asking about

This does look like you're trying to tell people what definition they have to use.


I just pointed out that it's a little pointless to define your terms to be radically different than the OP's, and then demand that people use your definition over his. That makes everything you say less applicable to the actual question that he was asking. You're free to argue whatever point you want, and define your terms however you want, though you should refrain from correcting people when they go with the OP's definition rather than yours.

Did I demand that people use my definition? No. Did I disagree with his definition, and explain why? Yes.

Did you tell other people to use the OPs definition? Yes.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 05:37 PM
"Filling in a required player role"
This would be valid, if the DM can't jigger the campaign to work without that role. If the DM can not do so without the use of a DMPC, then it is the fault of the DM, pretty much in all cases.That's not really much of an argument: Being able to make the campaign work doesn't mean that you wind up with a better game with no DMPC than you would have had with one.


On the contrary, it's the Anti-DMPC side trying to define things away. Nobody is claiming that all DMPC's are good, some people are claiming that it's possible to have a good one. The other side is saying that it's not, because since that's good, it's not a DMPC. It's what is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. "No Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal" "But my uncle is scottish, and he loves sugar on his oatmeal" "Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal".that was kind of why I pointed out the OP's definition; I was hoping that people would get over the semantics bit.

Saph
2009-11-23, 05:38 PM
Also, concerning the definition argument, the only argument I feel is invalid is the one that declares the entire discussion pointless because by their definition, a DMPC is inherently Bad. If it was good, it wouldn't be a DMPC. That's why I provided a definition in the first post, to avoid just that argument. If I just said "Can a DMPC be done well" some people would say "No, because if it was, it wouldn't be a DMPC", and there would be nothing in the origional premise that made that invalid.

Yes, but if you've got a term that's an acronym, and you provide a definition that doesn't match the acronym, you shouldn't be surprised if people object. DMPC stands for "The DM's PC" - ie a character played by the DM like a PC. You're defining it to mean "An NPC who regularly accompanies and assists the party". Essentially, you're redefining the term to mean something quite different.

The obvious response to this is "why use the term DMPC at all?" Why not just call Bill the Teamster et all NPCs? What does it add to try and take over another, already existing definition? Trying to redefine a term as you're doing is really confusing and quite unnecessary.

Ormagoden
2009-11-23, 05:45 PM
Let me refer you to an earlier post that I made in another thread where this "discussion" first started for an accurate definition of a DMPC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7345799#post7345799)

Please ignore Pres_mans earlier definition.

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.

This has really been boiling down to a huge argument over the past couple of days; in both this thread and another.

I'd like to attempt to diffuse the situation by offering my definition of a correctly played DMPC in my link above. I'm sure neither side would have an argument if DMPCs all stuck with those definitions while they interacted with the party.

Now I understand that some of you are of the opinion that
"We don't need a DMPC. All they do is suck up EXP and part of the treasure."

I don't exactly disagree with that statement however it is not true in all cases. If a party is outmatched by an opponent that has previously bested them, they might approach some NPCs who are near their level to garner some aid in a fight.

In the case above when my party seeks someone out, I don't want that person who is going to aid them be a member of the teeming faceless mass of NPCs in my head. I want the players to like the character, whether its a goodly paladin bent on rooting out evil or a unscrupulous rogue who has been waiting for a chance to get back at the big bad the players need help defeating. If one of those characters comes along to help, I want them to be real. Should one of those characters die I want it to mean something. The party might lament at the paladin's death or take a lesson from the path of vengeance the rogue was on.

In other instances a party may be too small or not have the right resources. They might seek out an arcane spellcaster to help them or a cleric to heal them. I want those characters to have faces too, real faces the players can relate to for better or ill.

So yes I like DMPCs and yes I'm frequent to use them especially when needed. However I do not break the rules for them or make them useless or enemies of the party (which shouldn't get a share of party EXP).

From my experience most of the time (read 99%) cohorts and hirelings run by players, although very useful, are faceless. Meaning they don't have much depth and a player treats them like they would a wand in their inventory.
I also recognize that this experience with them makes my argument against them biased.

For the most part I don't personally deal with the leadership line of feats. If a character wants to hire someone out its easy enough to do so in my world. I don't even bother making players waste a feat on it. That might seem unbalanced to you or a "jerkbag DM" move for getting rid of leadership. My players however do not complain when they tell me they are looking for a character with "These classes and these traits and morals" and I provide them with a well crafted DMNPC with a rich back story and personal motivations to help them out.

Bah! I'm rambling...but you get the gist. No more of these silly DMPC threads please! They just make you all frustrated.

So please lets move on to a new thread and a new topic, eh?
(coincidentally did the OP get an answer?)

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 05:47 PM
As per no-true scottsman, the original definition invalidates the possibility of unhelpful DMPCs, because it assumes they assist the party.Assist is a fairly vague term; there's plenty of room for characters that are fairly unhelpful but assist the PCs, specifically ones that are only competent to help in specific ways (ex: only out of combat, only in combat, and so on).


Did I demand that people use my definition? No. Did I disagree with his definition, and explain why? Yes.If you'll note, I wasn't correcting you.


Did you tell other people to use the OPs definition? Yes.Actually, I suggested that a specific individual use the OP's definition instead of demanding people use his, and then generalized that to other people as they disagreed with me.


The obvious response to this is "why use the term DMPC at all?" Why not just call Bill the Teamster et all NPCs? What does it add to try and take over another, already existing definition? Trying to redefine a term as you're doing is really confusing and quite unnecessary.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.

It's not uncommon for people to take a name for thing A (DMPC as you define it) that has some similarities to thing B (DMPC as the OP defines it), and then use the same name to mean both Thing A and Thing B (DMPC).

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 05:49 PM
I didn't demand others use my definition. I merely stated the one I was using.

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 05:52 PM
As per no-true scottsman, the original definition invalidates the possibility of unhelpful DMPCs, because it assumes they assist the party.
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.


Did I demand that people use my definition? No. Did I disagree with his definition, and explain why? Yes.

Did you tell other people to use the OPs definition? Yes.

Seeing as the poster of the topic set the topic at discussing whether DMPCs under that definition can be acceptable, it's expected that you would use his definition so there's a basis for discussion. Otherwise, it's like someone starting a topic about cakes and switching the discussion to brownies because you want to talk about pastries in general.

You CAN talk about brownies since it's a free country and off-topic discussion happens, but you shouldn't be shocked if someone tells you to get back on topic.

Discussion without a solid basis or starting point is high school debate; a pointless screaming and pointing fest with arbitrary points awarded for yelling the loudest and knowing the most big words in a minute.

BRC
2009-11-23, 05:52 PM
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".

Yukitsu
2009-11-23, 05:54 PM
Yes. That would have been less contentious.

Jayabalard
2009-11-23, 05:56 PM
I didn't demand others use my definition. I merely stated the one I was using.

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 not a PC.
<snip for length you can click to read it>
I've merely defined DMPC as the DM's PC, which is basically what the term stands for.

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


I don't know what that has to do with the actual topic, as I've mentionedRelevance: 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.


so I'll just say, yeah, it always is boring. You can probably think up some obscure situation in which case "story time with DM die rolling while the PCs sit down and shut up" is interesting, but to be honest, I simply won't believe you. with that last bit, it sounds like you're going to back to generalizing this as "all players feel this way"