The DM's PC: Why it works

[Yukitsu]

The Second In Command. Doesn't like coming up with plans or taking the lead, but is willing to make sure that the decisions that are made are followed through.

I put this in the latter category I listed. They still have significant input, they still do things themselves sometimes, and they have a huge say in the implementation of plans, even if they didn't make the plan themselves.


The Newb. The new player, maybe totally new or just new to group. The player, at least for a time, pretty much follows along like a puppy.

That's odd. Where I am, all the newbs (myself included) where spotlight stealers for a short period of time before settling down. I can see the other kind existing certainly, but I can't imagine that it would last long. Just long enough for them to get comfortable with the scheme of things.


Not really a good assumption, since I've mentioned at least 2 systems that are not D&D (RIFTS and some nameless FRPG that I can't recall). Nor are DMPCs a phenomenon that is restricted only to D&D.

Considering I said that D&D assumes about 4 people, I think you could infer that I'm implying other systems are best with different numbers, not that this discussion must only be about D&D. I simply don't know the ideal number of players for RIFTS or GURPS, or even CoC, despite playing that last one. That and those games mostly technically have GMPCs, but that's splitting hairs.


As I said, that's not always an option.

I don't know why it shouldn't be. Just grab one of your other freinds, or a work buddy or whatever. I've found it extremely easy for my group to gnab a new player completely at random that we've never met before, and they've mostly turned out to be decent folk (excepting the one guy that won't read the rules.) Most new people to the game make for good players, so long as you direct them towards the play style of the group before any other play style can be entrenched.

[Yukitsu]

But then, as mentioned before, I have a different definition of DMPC than Tyndmyr and Yukitsu. I believe I *understand* their definition. I just don't agree with it. It seems as restrictive as saying that all priest characters must be Clerics, and that all insane characters must be Chaotic. I've played NG priests that were Rogues. I've known in RL some certified clinically insane people who would fit very well into the D&D alignment of Lawful Good. And I've been in games (where I wasn't the DM) where there was a DMPC that I didn't feel was disruptive or was being played differently than any of the other PCs.

I don't think that's really an analagous summary. I'm arguing that the definition of DMPC should be a tautology, in other words, a self evident definition. "A DMPC is a DM's PC" as a definition is more akin to saying "all crazy people are people who are crazy" and that "all priests are priests." I can't fathom arguing that DMPC is a highly loose term, where the DMPC need not be the DM's, nor a PC.

As for how I rank DMPCs, I always strive to make them irrelevant to the group, either by filling in their role, or making that role unecessary. I can understand they can be a tool to help advance the plot or keep the party alive, but they are never necessary, and frankly, if the players are doing well, adjustments of that sort aren't even necessary.

[Fhaolan]

I can't fathom arguing that DMPC is a highly loose term, where the DMPC need not be the DM's, nor a PC.

The problem is that all the examples I've seen of bad DMPCs, the character in question may be the DM's, but did not follow the rules for being a PC. In so doing the tautalogy does not work. In my opinion using DM's fiat and rule 0 to artificially boost and protect the character in ways that are not enjoyed by the other PCs, they stop being PCs and go right back to being NPCs. Badly run NPCs at that. If all the non-DM's PCs enjoyed the exact same benefits of 'whatever the player wants, the player gets immediately', then they would be the exact same issue for me that these bad DMPCs are.

[Tyndmyr]

Fhaolan, would you consider a player who cheated on his character to be playing an NPC? Or would he still be playing a PC?

Does the mere act of cheating or accidentally breaking a rule make a character no longer a PC?

Now, obviously, doing so is bad, either as a player or as a DMPC(how can you ask your players to trust you, when you don't trust them to make PCs the same way you do?), so we don't need to address that...but if your definition is based on characters following the rules, you run the risk of defining characters normally accepted as PCs as NPCs. Any such definition is obviously wrong.

[valadil]

In my opinion using DM's fiat and rule 0 to artificially boost and protect the character in ways that are not enjoyed by the other PCs, they stop being PCs and go right back to being NPCs.

I disagree with that because PCs can be misused in similar ways. The DM's significant other, who gets XP bonuses, better weapons, and a badass homebrewed prestige class nobody else can play, does not become an NPC just because of DM favoritism.

--

For the record, I'm not sure if I've ever stated my opinion on DMPCs. I've seen good, bad, and neutral ones. The bad one detracted from the game quite a bit, but it was a reflection of a bad DM so I'm not sure how much room was there for improvement. I don't run DMPCs in my own games. While I'm confident that I could run one without it stealing the PC's glory, I'd rather spend my time and effort outside of the party. If dropping the NPC lets me put 50% more effort into the villain, I believe that will lead to a better game than if a halfassed buddy tagged along with the party.

[Sipex]

The problem is that all the examples I've seen of bad DMPCs, the character in question may be the DM's, but did not follow the rules for being a PC. In so doing the tautalogy does not work. In my opinion using DM's fiat and rule 0 to artificially boost and protect the character in ways that are not enjoyed by the other PCs, they stop being PCs and go right back to being NPCs. Badly run NPCs at that. If all the non-DM's PCs enjoyed the exact same benefits of 'whatever the player wants, the player gets immediately', then they would be the exact same issue for me that these bad DMPCs are.

This...is a good point.

Sorry, just had to re-affirm this.

[Yukitsu]

The problem is that all the examples I've seen of bad DMPCs, the character in question may be the DM's, but did not follow the rules for being a PC. In so doing the tautalogy does not work. In my opinion using DM's fiat and rule 0 to artificially boost and protect the character in ways that are not enjoyed by the other PCs, they stop being PCs and go right back to being NPCs. Badly run NPCs at that. If all the non-DM's PCs enjoyed the exact same benefits of 'whatever the player wants, the player gets immediately', then they would be the exact same issue for me that these bad DMPCs are.

Except the DM can and in fact should use fiat at times to elevate the players to a state of being awesome, or "giving them a moment to shine." where an impromtu plan works out in their favour, or an unlikely conversational jab gives them the initiative etc. The degree to which this happens of course, can make all the difference, and when either a PC is granted the outright ability to cheat from the DM, or the DMPC is completely violating every rule but rule 0, you don't have a PC or a DMPC anymore, you have a travesty.

I've stated as well before, that a lot of examples of bad DMPCs don't fit my categorization of PCs either.

[Jayabalard]

I don't know why it shouldn't be. Just grab one of your other freinds, or a work buddy or whatever.All too often, the people you are talking about are either not interested, or not available, or in some cases, don't exist.

Also, I've found that it's not uncommon for some people feel that it's just not desirable to bring in random new people to an already tight knit group of people.


Except the DM can and in fact should use fiat at times to elevate the players to a state of being awesome,That's not a true statement in general; a lot of people would highly resent the fact that they had a moment to shine only because of DM fiat.

[Tyndmyr]

I disagree with that because PCs can be misused in similar ways. The DM's significant other, who gets XP bonuses, better weapons, and a badass homebrewed prestige class nobody else can play, does not become an NPC just because of DM favoritism.

Right. It's still a PC.

Cheating and favoritism are still problems, and they can be combined with DMPCs to make a much worse problem...but they are definitely not limited to DMPCs.

[Fhaolan]

Fhaolan, would you consider a player who cheated on his character to be playing an NPC? Or would he still be playing a PC?

Does the mere act of cheating or accidentally breaking a rule make a character no longer a PC?

Now, obviously, doing so is bad, either as a player or as a DMPC(how can you ask your players to trust you, when you don't trust them to make PCs the same way you do?), so we don't need to address that...but if your definition is based on characters following the rules, you run the risk of defining characters normally accepted as PCs as NPCs. Any such definition is obviously wrong.

Not.. really. It's a matter of perspective. Accidents or misunderstandings are fine, as long as they are not persisted. But when someone cheats, no matter who they are, I don't feel that they are still playing the game. Since they're not playing the game, then they cannot be called 'Players'. Instead I would call them 'Cheaters'.

In fact, I like that term. Cheater's Characters. CCs. Cool. I've got a new term to toss out an my next game. The rest of the group will get a giggle out of it.

[Jayabalard]

If dropping the NPC lets me put 50% more effort into the villain, I believe that will lead to a better game than if a halfassed buddy tagged along with the party.I don't really agree here... if dropping the dmpc lets you put 50% more effort into the villain, then there's no reason to have a "halfassed buddy [who tags] along with the party" and, in general, you get far more value out of having several good, long running characters than one great character that shows up rarely.

[Yukitsu]

That's not a true statement in general; a lot of people would highly resent the fact that they had a moment to shine only because of DM fiat.

In general, it only comes up when the player asks "Can plan X work?" DM: "Not directly according to the rules, but it's cool enough that I'll let it work" and or "The rules don't say either for or against as far as I know, but it's cool so I'll let it work this time." It's not "Your sword suddenly turns vorpal for no real reason and kills the BBEG." The first two encourage thinking, and engagement to the game, the latter is stupid.

[valadil]

I don't really agree here... if dropping the dmpc lets you put 50% more effort into the villain, then there's no reason to have a "halfassed buddy [who tags] along with the party" and, in general, you get far more value out of having several good, long running characters than one great character that shows up rarely.

True, I just didn't want to go into too much depth on that tangent. What I meant was that the effort/time/brainspace gained by not investing in a DMPC will pay off better when spent on NPCs external to the party. A villain is one such NPC.

And just in case it wasn't clear, that's for my own games, not for anyone else's. While I'm happy to share my methods and I hope others can learn something from them, by no means to I expect other people to emulate my GMing choices and style.

[Sipex]

In general, it only comes up when the player asks "Can plan X work?" DM: "Not directly according to the rules, but it's cool enough that I'll let it work" and or "The rules don't say either for or against as far as I know, but it's cool so I'll let it work this time." It's not "Your sword suddenly turns vorpal for no real reason and kills the BBEG." The first two encourage thinking, and engagement to the game, the latter is stupid.

I have to admit I tend to do this although I find players tend to like it better if they don't realise the fiat is there. I've let my players kill a baddy at a dramatic moment instead of slightly later because he still had 1 HP.

[dsmiles]

I have to admit I tend to do this although I find players tend to like it better if they don't realise the fiat is there. I've let my players kill a baddy at a dramatic moment instead of slightly later because he still had 1 HP.

+1 to that, bro.

Players don't want to know about DM Fiats. What they don't know won't kill them.

[Jayabalard]

In general, it only comes up when the player asks "Can plan X work?" DM: "Not directly according to the rules, but it's cool enough that I'll let it work" and or "The rules don't say either for or against as far as I know, but it's cool so I'll let it work this time." It's not "Your sword suddenly turns vorpal for no real reason and kills the BBEG." The first two encourage thinking, and engagement to the game, the latter is stupid.Well, then you're comparing cheese and chalk... the DM fiat that you're talking about for players here is not the same sort of DM fiat that Fhaolan is talking about in "In my opinion using DM's fiat and rule 0 to artificially boost and protect the character in ways that are not enjoyed by the other PCs"

So really, I'm not sure what sort of point you were trying to make, or how "Except the DM can and in fact should use fiat at times to elevate the players to a state of being awesome..." was supposed to be some sort of counterargument to Fhaolan's statements.

[Jayabalard]

True, I just didn't want to go into too much depth on that tangent. What I meant was that the effort/time/brainspace gained by not investing in a DMPC will pay off better when spent on NPCs external to the party. A villain is one such NPC. Yeah, that's what I'm disagreeing with. Party NPC's (whether DMPC or not) are dealt with PCs all the time, so I think you get way more bang for your buck by fleshing them out than you do the BBEG who you only see a couple times over the course of a year's playtime. YMMV, depending on how often the PC's interact with the your BBEG.


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.Interesting... pres_man hasn't exactly been arguing against DMPC's in this thread, at least not recently.

[Yukitsu]

Well, then you're comparing cheese and chalk... the DM fiat that you're talking about for players here is not the same sort of DM fiat that Fhaolan is talking about in "In my opinion using DM's fiat and rule 0 to artificially boost and protect the character in ways that are not enjoyed by the other PCs"

So really, I'm not sure what sort of point you were trying to make, or how "Except the DM can and in fact should use fiat at times to elevate the players to a state of being awesome..." was supposed to be some sort of counterargument to Fhaolan's statements.

I expressly stated in another post that ones that dive off into the unpleasant form of cheating, as opposed to ones that everyone agrees made the situation more awesome (it can even let the character steal the spotlight, so long as everyone gets their chance in it.) made it neither a PC nor a DMPC, but a travesty in either case.

I'm not actually in the "kill it with fire" camp, in that I know why my DM might use them. I'm in the camp of "render them completely obsolete, and if the DM clings to it, then the problem goes beyond what the party lacked."

[dsmiles]

I expressly stated in another post that ones that dive off into the unpleasant form of cheating, as opposed to ones that everyone agrees made the situation more awesome (it can even let the character steal the spotlight, so long as everyone gets their chance in it.) made it neither a PC nor a DMPC, but a travesty in either case.

I'm not actually in the "kill it with fire" camp, in that I know why my DM might use them. I'm in the camp of "render them completely obsolete, and if the DM clings to it, then the problem goes beyond what the party lacked."

That's pretty much the camp I'm in. I'd rather (as both a player and a DM) have the party snag a party-controlled hireling to fill that empty slot, rather than have a DMPC running around, but if the DMPC is (by some miracle of the gods) well run but not an interference to the PC's getting the spotlight, I'm not inclined to perform an Exterminatus on the world. Sometimes, when there's a bad, spotlight-stealing DMPC, it's the only way to be sure, though.


http://www.cold-moon.com/40k/exterminatus2.jpg

[Tyndmyr]

Pretty much. I believe there is always another way to fill any given need within a party. A number of them are listed in the recent thread about balanced party myths, if you're interested.

So, if a DMPC is unnecessary, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then the DMPC is obviously not there for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM. This is why it needs to be killed with fire.

[Fhaolan]

So, if a DMPC is unnecessary, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then the DMPC is obviously not there for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM. This is why it needs to be killed with fire.

Right. Because people playing D&D must only do what is strictly necessary, because it's SRS BSNS. :smallsmile:

[Jayabalard]

So, if a DMPC is unnecessary, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then the DMPC is obviously not there for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM. This is why it needs to be killed with fire.Seriously, that's one of the most absurd argument I've seen on this thread; I personally cannot think of a single thing in the DM's toolkit that is actually necessary. Lack of necessity has nothing to do with whether it's there for the DM's benefit, or for the party's benefit, or for both, or for neither, nor does lack of being necessary have anything to do with it's value in and of itself.

Giving characters treasure and magic items as reward for accomplishing things and defeating enemies isn't necessary. I've played in several games, both D&D and not where that wasn't the case. So, if giving the characters treasure is unnecessary, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then giving the characters treasure is obviously not for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM.

Recurring villans are not necessary; so, if recurring villans are unnecessary, and the DM clings to them anyhow, then recurring villans are obviously not there for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM.

Playing roleplaying games is not necessary; so, if playing roleplaying games is unnecessary, and the DM clings to them anyhow, then playing roleplaying games is obviously not for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM.

Lack of being necessary has nothing to do with it; if the element is, in and of itself detrimental, and it's unnecessary then you might have a point, but then you're argument boils down to "if it's detrimental then it's detrimental" ... which is a pretty useless statement.

[Tyndmyr]

No, rewarding players is arguably necessary. There's a reason it's such a staple for RPGs everywhere. The details how how it takes place varies, but a game without rewards at all would be extremely unusual for an RPG.

We've already covered how DMPCs can be detrimental. If something is detrimental and unnecessary, it needs to be killed with fire.

[Jayabalard]

No, rewarding players is arguably necessary.I specifically said treasure and magic items; they're not necessary. There are plenty of other rewards that don't fall into those categories. Please stick to arguing against things that people actually say rather than a strawman.


We've already covered how DMPCs can be detrimental. If something is detrimental and unnecessary, it needs to be killed with fire.No, we've covered how a DMPC can be detrimental when it's badly done. Not "is" ... "can be"

Giving characters treasure and magic items as reward for accomplishing things and defeating enemies isn't necessary. When done badly, it can be detrimental to the game. So, if giving the characters treasure is unnecessary, and it's possible that in doing so that it will be detrimental to the game, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then giving the characters treasure is obviously not for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM. Giving treasure and magic items to the players should be killed with fire.

Edit: I can't personally think of anything in the DM's toolkit that is necessary, nor can I think of anything in the DM's toolkit that not detrimental to the game when badly done.

et cetera ad nauseam... Your argument still seems just as absurd to me.

[Brendan]

Well if the DMPC isn't evil or harming innocents within the game, you might just find that this character has become a fallen paladin.

The paladin had a -4 or five wisdom modifier (long story), and when you wake up in a crate with someone standing at the entrence after a painful transport, You charge.

[Tyndmyr]

Only if you insist on needlessly specific things and ignoring alternatives where it suits you, as well as comparing disparate things.

For instance: Treasure and magic items are rewards. Any downside that applies to them applies to ANY rewards.

The same is not true of DMPCs and alternatives. For instance, you could replace the healer "filling a gap for the party" with a wand of CLW. It's pretty hard for a wand of CLW to steal the spotlight or commit many other dangers of DMPCs.

[Sipex]

The same is not true of DMPCs and alternatives. For instance, you could replace the healer "filling a gap for the party" with a wand of CLW. It's pretty hard for a wand of CLW to steal the spotlight or commit many other dangers of DMPCs.

Better example needed. Wand of CLW doesn't get it's own turn in combat.

[Tyndmyr]

Better example needed. Wand of CLW doesn't get it's own turn in combat.

That's the point. It fills the need. Perhaps not in exactly the same way, but it gives the party access to healing, which is the reason that several DMPCs so far have obstenibly been added to parties. Action economy/party optimization was not the reason.

It also fills the need in a way that is very unlikely to be exploited, by either the DM or the party.

[pres_man]

That's the point. It fills the need. Perhaps not in exactly the same way, but it gives the party access to healing, which is the reason that several DMPCs so far have obstenibly been added to parties. Action economy/party optimization was not the reason.

It also fills the need in a way that is very unlikely to be exploited, by either the DM or the party.

Wand of cure light wounds requires that (a) one of the players can craft such a wand, (b) that there are places one can purchase such a wand [ye olde magik shoppe], (c) wands are a common reward/payment given to the party by NPCs, or (d) such wands are regularly found in loot. If none of these apply, then wands are clearly not an ideal solution to such a problem.


The paladin had a -4 or five wisdom modifier (long story), and when you wake up in a crate with someone standing at the entrence after a painful transport, You charge.

Ignorance is going to protect your paladin, who is charging and killing someone that wasn't a threat or evil in a possibly dishonorable fashion, from falling. Good luck on that one.


Interesting... pres_man hasn't exactly been arguing against DMPC's in this thread, at least not recently.

I wasn't arguing against them in the thread he was quoting either, he just had gotten me mixed up with someone else. The mistake still lives.

[Fhaolan]

We've already covered how DMPCs can be detrimental. If something is detrimental and unnecessary, it needs to be killed with fire.

Darn it. I had a good post to put up for this, but I realized it may not be allowed under forum rules, as it refered to current political systems in RL.

Can we just assume I posted something dramatic, and interesting, and it leaves you all agog? :smallsmile:

In any case, my overall point is that just because something *can* be detrimental, it doesn't mean that it always is. It just means you need to be careful with it, and put effort into making it not detrimental. If a DM wants to put that kind of effort into it so that it *isn't* detrimental, why stop him from having some fun as well? I thought the point of RPGs was that the entire group has fun, not just the DM, and not just the Players. A lot of the anti-DMPC posts seem to say 'The DM can have fun, but only in the ways I allow. His entire purpose is to service my enjoyment. If that is not fun for him, I will burn everything that he finds fun until he learns his place.'

It's replacing the tyranny of the DM with the tyranny of the Player. I don't see that being anymore viable, really.

[Stycotl]

Vested Interest is a stake that someone has in a given outcome. It's not the same as mere bias.

IE, DMs who enjoy running DMPCs have another stake in the decision: They enjoy playing DMPCs, and thus, want DMPC usage to be ok.

your definition of vested interest is quite limited compared to what is commonly referred to as vested interest. it's fine by me if you want to have your personal interpretations and limitations, but don't expect them to hold up in a serious conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_interest

you can try to spin it however you want, but that does not change the fact that you display the signs of someone with a vested interest in the topic. you have fought for 18 pages to prove that DMPCs are categorically wrong. you have stated multiple times that you kill DMPCs on sight, because they are such a horrible, evil thing.

further, you continually generalize, assume, and deflect to arguments that none of us are making; for someone with nothing more than "normal" bias, you sure resort to a multitude of logical fallacies in order to support a topic which you are apparently only minimally interested in.


This is a factor that is not part of the players judgement. The players judgement is based simply on how the DMPC appears to affect the game to them.

agreed.


Nobody is TRULY impartial. However, a player is generally a better judgement of a DM problem than the DM himself is. If you think you aren't railroading, but all your players insist you are....you're probably wrong. And even if you're not wrong, you still have a problem.

i agree with this, but i also note that none of us have claimed to be in that situation (all of the players complaining––or even most of them––and us in denial). you are certainly free to disbelieve it as you see fit, but it's pretty consistent.

truth is though, content players do exist in games that include DMPCs.


You're welcome to read through this thread, and see how many people suggested banning chaotic stupid people pre-emptively and match that list against those advocating DMPCs. There is substantial overlap.

This has nothing to do with a strawman.

in other words, you have nothing to back up your earlier claims.




Not at all. If I had said, All DMPCs are evil, so your examples of good DMPCs can't really be DMPCs, THEN I would have committed no true scottsman. The idea of attempting to invalidate your argument by sweeping redefinition is what makes it a fallacy.

Merely discussing specific instances by definition cannot be no true scottsman. Even if I'm completely wrong on the definitions, it's STILL not no true scottsman, since Im not speaking about the definition as a whole.

nope. again, there is no clear definition as to what a DMPC consists of; likewise, there is not a clear definition of what a PC is, in the sense that you guys are trying to spin it.

therefore, if you try to claim that, "well, this isn't a DMPC, because it doesn't do this," when not all PCs do that to begin with, then you are utilizing your own set of criteria with which to define it, and completely ignoring the reality that does not fit your worldview.

yukitsu's argument basically states that any player that runs a passive PC is actually running an NPC. that is great, and might make for an interesting philosophical thesis in its own thread. but it does not change the fact that technically, it is still a PC, even if it is run in a manner more befitting an NPC.

to try to dismiss a DMPC then because it doesn't fit your personal criteria is therefore a logical fallacy.


Here's where I'm confused.

What's the point of a DMPC when you can merely have an NPC that happens to accompany the characters?

likely, there is very little difference between a well-run NPC and a well-run DMPC. you even state it yourself a moment later.


The idea of a DMPC strikes me as utter nonsense. The DM is participating in the game by providing a narrative framework. So really, you're already playing the game by giving NPC's logical motivations and roleplaying everything that isn't the PC.

that is very concisely what a DMPC can boil down to as well. we are still arguing different contexts with matching names though.

it is possible for a DM to run a story with an NPC that he treats as he would a character in a game that he wasn't DMing.

it is even possible to do that without railroading and hogging spotlights and killing player interest in the game.


You can even have favorite NPC's. But it's not reasonable to expect them to survive or for the PC's to even care about their existence.

i will not speak for anyone else, because it is possible that some others have different feelings regarding this.

i don't care if my players decide not to show interest in an NPC or DMPC. if they don't care, and move on to the next, then i'll roll with it. if it is crucial that they go talk to the old hermit down by the swamp in order to figure out the next clues to the plot, then i'll work it in some other way.

if they decide to attack him, great. if they decide to ignore him, great. if they decide to play ping pong, great. but there will be IC consequences to IC actions. if those actions are based off of OOC irritation or resentment, then they are being passive-aggressive little children that need to learn how to talk to people.

DMPC problems result from socially oblivious DMs, similarly to how chaotic stupid PC problems arise from socially oblivious players. it has nothing to do with an inherent flaw in the ideology of a chaotic neutral alignment, or in the ideology of an NPC that crosses the vaguely understood, never defined line and becomes a DMPC––though both DMPCs and chaotic neutral alignments have implications that mean that socially oblivious/handicap people are almost always bound to screw up, and that even normal people can screw up on occasion.


They have parts to play and must play them regardless of how life goes for that character.

Anything beyond that is just Mary Sueism.

that is true whether it is a PC, an NPC, or a DMPC.


Actually, I didn't state that it was not a DMPC because it wasn't bad. I stated it wasn't a DMPC because it was not a PC in the rather crucial part of making decisions and directing the party's actions and interests.

but as stated above, your personal definition of where that line of inactivity/activity lies is relevant only to yourself and the people that you game with. it is different for everyone else.

therefore, no true scotsman.


My statement is, DMPCs must be both DM controlled, and PCs. Most examples of "good" ones (and many bad as well) fail to adhere to the second standard (and in one case, the first.)

i'll include in a separate post an example of one of the first DMPCs that i ever ran, and you are more than welcome to tell me whether it meets your subjective qualifications as a PC controlled by the DM.


Who isn't recognizing it? The reasons for wanting to avoid DMPCs are multiple, as well. Just because one doesn't list every possible reasons to ban something doesn't mean they don't recognize the other possibilities exist.

and yet, you dismiss them as irrelevant and of less import than a possible bias toward them.


Good for them. Do you now deny that non-DM participants may have multiple reasons and personal taste for not wanting DMPCs?

never even implied this; you are veering off of the track.


"It will destroy the campaign!" is the extreme end of it, but it's not the only reason.

The's the crux of my point. It's a contest of "what I want" vs "what the others want" with the deterimantors for both being their personal wishes. Just because one of those people is the DM doesn't mean they're the only one who has any say about what they want and do not want.

how many times are you guys going to bring this up? not one of us to my memory has stated that we are the only ones with any say in the matter. not one of us has ever said that we would run a DMPC if the group was opposed to it.

you keep resorting to this as an argumentative strategy; that is called a non sequitur fallacy, and depending on why, a straw man fallacy.


I don't like DMPCs because they consume time, EXP, treasure and distract the DM, and provide absolutely no necessary input that could not have been better added elsewhere.

you must not like NPCs, including henchmen, then either, right? hell, even PCs, as jayabalard mentioned, fall into the same category. your apparently negative personal experience with them is not the definition by which the rest of them run.

and your answer, "because it brings more players, and is a social game," would mean that you also don't like it when the DM lets the players run more than one character. are you as adamant about a single PC per player as you are about no DMPCs?


That said, any decent DM will be adjusting treasure/exp/resources based on the number of characters in said group, thus the addition of any DMPC or PC shouldn't change this.

If the DM isn't doing this and can't claim inexperience then they probably aren't playing a decent DMPC anyways.

Makes sense. More party members = better capabilities = harder challenges = bigger rewards.

yup. though i am sure that yukitsu has a problem with large encounters or something too.

[Stycotl]

I played a 16yo Diplomancer Rogue (as a player). Everyone knew my build, and automatically nominated him for "party leader." The character was 16!!! The wizard was 24!!! Why in the gods' names would they nominate the "inexperienced kid" over the "world-wise older wizard"??? It's a knee-jerk reaction to make the high-charisma character the leader, IMO. I was the "spotlight stealer" in that game. (Granted, it was forced on me, but still...)

not entirely related, but your post reminded me:

in the pbp game that i am running now, the shield marshal (NPC) chose two team leaders from among the PCs. i picked the psionicist/sniper as the overall leader, and the swordsage/warblade as his second, each in charge of one team.

it wasn't until after i made the decision that one of the players (douglas, i believe) noted that both of those characters have the lowest charisma of the entire group.

i thought it was rather funny, and highlighted the fact that i run games differently than i am used to games being run by others. not monumentally so, but still different.

i think that some people forget about the story aspect, and automatically jump right to the "win the game" aspect; though there could certainly be other reasons why these things happen.


So, if a DMPC is unnecessary, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then the DMPC is obviously not there for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM. This is why it needs to be killed with fire.

even without the rather obvious mistakes in this logic being pointed out, you can't really claim at all that if the DM clings to it, he is not out for the benefit of the party.

i'm gonna ignore the inverse "logic" as well that you are thereby espousing and concentrate on simple OOC issues, such as plot development and stuff.

a suitable prologue is not necessary for a fun story, but if the DM "clings" to the idea of making a prologue anyway, that hardly means that he is not out for the benefit of the party.

similarly, a hollywood-style resolution is not necessary; neither is a japanese film-styled lack of a resolution. therefore, if the DM is "clinging" to the idea of making a game run along one of those lines, erroneously according to you, he is not out for the good of the party.

leaving the story construction arena and going on to game mechanics, allowing the players to roll dice in order to affect the outcome of their actions is not necessary either. that means, according to you, that if the DM is hellbent on making it a game that involves dice, he isn't out for the benefit of the PCs. but, it also means that if the players are hellbent on it either way, they are not out for the benefit of the party.

players that are "clinging" to DMPCs or NPCs or PCs or anything else that is not inherently necessary for the game to function are also bad, according to you, as are players that are determined not to have DMPCs, NPCs, and PCs, since it is not necessary that they go away either.

you live in a world of slippery logic, my friend.

[dsmiles]

The paladin had a -4 or five wisdom modifier (long story), and when you wake up in a crate with someone standing at the entrence after a painful transport, You charge.

Or if you believe in the 1e Cavalier/Paladin mentality, you charge, period.

EDIT: Also, I am agog at Fhaolan's last post...:smallagog:

EDIT v2: @Stycotl: We had gotten off topic onto spotlight stealing in general...

[FuegoAzul]

Yeah I'll be honest its pretty railroad-y anyway, even if its the DM's character saying stuff.

I was playing an Elf Wizard once when I was DMing, and we were going into this misty valley. The rest of the party didn't really care that it was almost nightfall. But I, not my character of course, knew that ghosts and undead came out in this valley after nightfall. They were, naturally, suspicious when my character tried to steer them away from the place.

Of course we ended up getting caught there at night anyway.

But I think it strongly depends on the group. I was playing that game with only my close friends, and so the DM PC thing worked where-as it wouldn't have in a more open group.

[Serpentine]

I had the opposite happen in my game: The party was having a look at a dragon graveyard, and were deciding whether to go further into it or camp for the night outside it. As DM, I wanted them to get stuck in there. My character, though, being a cautious sort, though it better to wait 'til morning. When they asked her opinion, I gave the latter. They went on anyway, so it all worked out.

[dsmiles]

I had the opposite happen in my game: The party was having a look at a dragon graveyard, and were deciding whether to go further into it or camp for the night outside it. As DM, I wanted them to get stuck in there. My character, though, being a cautious sort, though it better to wait 'til morning. When they asked her opinion, I gave the latter. They went on anyway, so it all worked out.

Ahh, reverse metagaming at it's finest. Your DMPC/NPC told them that she'd rather stay outside, meaning (of course) that wonderful things will happen if they continue further into the graveyard...but what it really means is that they will probably be obliterated if they continue...:smallbiggrin:

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

[Jayabalard]

For instance: Treasure and magic items are rewards. Any downside that applies to them applies to ANY rewards. Not so; treasure is a very specific sort of reward, and depending on the game system it has fairly specific sorts of effects mechanically on the game. Mechanical rewards aren't the only type though; there are purely social/roleplaying rewards, and even games where the game itself is the only reward; I've been many games those are the primary, or even only means of rewarding the players. The downsides of badly handling treasure/magic item distribution aren't the same as the downsides of badly handing those pure Roleplaying/non-mechanical rewards.


The same is not true of DMPCs and alternatives. For instance, you could replace the healer "filling a gap for the party" with a wand of CLW. No, that's replacing part of what the DMPC brings with something else; nor is it without it's problems, since it only works if you reward the players in a specific way, so you've just trading the risk of problems from one DM toolkit item (DMPC) with the risks of another DM Toolkit item (Treasure/magic item rewards); nor is it a universal fix, since a wand of CLW is applicable in certain games (generally D&D 3.x with a certain level of magic item availability).

[Tyndmyr]

your definition of vested interest is quite limited compared to what is commonly referred to as vested interest. it's fine by me if you want to have your personal interpretations and limitations, but don't expect them to hold up in a serious conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_interest

Well yes, but all the detailed financial implications of THAT use of the definition are pretty obviously unrelated to D&D.

This makes the rest of your entire post invalid, since your foundation is wildly off base.

Edit: Also, as previously mentioned before, simply throwing around fallacy names proves nothing. You have to show WHY they fulfill the criteria for that fallacy, or you're not actually addressing the argument.

[Serpentine]

Seriously? The entire post? You mean the one that had maybe 1/10th relating to that specific issue, the rest addressing very different topics?

Wow. Seriously?

[Tyndmyr]

It's also amusing how on one hand, I'm told I have a "vested interest" because I've argued the same side for a while, and on the other, I'm criticized for not arguing over enough stuff.

[Serpentine]

On "vested interest".
Not on "vested interest".


your definition of vested interest is quite limited compared to what is commonly referred to as vested interest. it's fine by me if you want to have your personal interpretations and limitations, but don't expect them to hold up in a serious conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_interest

you can try to spin it however you want, but that does not change the fact that you display the signs of someone with a vested interest in the topic. you have fought for 18 pages to prove that DMPCs are categorically wrong. you have stated multiple times that you kill DMPCs on sight, because they are such a horrible, evil thing.
further, you continually generalize, assume, and deflect to arguments that none of us are making; for someone with nothing more than "normal" bias, you sure resort to a multitude of logical fallacies in order to support a topic which you are apparently only minimally interested in.



agreed.



i agree with this, but i also note that none of us have claimed to be in that situation (all of the players complaining––or even most of them––and us in denial). you are certainly free to disbelieve it as you see fit, but it's pretty consistent.

truth is though, content players do exist in games that include DMPCs.



in other words, you have nothing to back up your earlier claims.





nope. again, there is no clear definition as to what a DMPC consists of; likewise, there is not a clear definition of what a PC is, in the sense that you guys are trying to spin it.

therefore, if you try to claim that, "well, this isn't a DMPC, because it doesn't do this," when not all PCs do that to begin with, then you are utilizing your own set of criteria with which to define it, and completely ignoring the reality that does not fit your worldview.

yukitsu's argument basically states that any player that runs a passive PC is actually running an NPC. that is great, and might make for an interesting philosophical thesis in its own thread. but it does not change the fact that technically, it is still a PC, even if it is run in a manner more befitting an NPC.

to try to dismiss a DMPC then because it doesn't fit your personal criteria is therefore a logical fallacy.



likely, there is very little difference between a well-run NPC and a well-run DMPC. you even state it yourself a moment later.



that is very concisely what a DMPC can boil down to as well. we are still arguing different contexts with matching names though.

it is possible for a DM to run a story with an NPC that he treats as he would a character in a game that he wasn't DMing.

it is even possible to do that without railroading and hogging spotlights and killing player interest in the game.



i will not speak for anyone else, because it is possible that some others have different feelings regarding this.

i don't care if my players decide not to show interest in an NPC or DMPC. if they don't care, and move on to the next, then i'll roll with it. if it is crucial that they go talk to the old hermit down by the swamp in order to figure out the next clues to the plot, then i'll work it in some other way.

if they decide to attack him, great. if they decide to ignore him, great. if they decide to play ping pong, great. but there will be IC consequences to IC actions. if those actions are based off of OOC irritation or resentment, then they are being passive-aggressive little children that need to learn how to talk to people.

DMPC problems result from socially oblivious DMs, similarly to how chaotic stupid PC problems arise from socially oblivious players. it has nothing to do with an inherent flaw in the ideology of a chaotic neutral alignment, or in the ideology of an NPC that crosses the vaguely understood, never defined line and becomes a DMPC––though both DMPCs and chaotic neutral alignments have implications that mean that socially oblivious/handicap people are almost always bound to screw up, and that even normal people can screw up on occasion.



that is true whether it is a PC, an NPC, or a DMPC.



but as stated above, your personal definition of where that line of inactivity/activity lies is relevant only to yourself and the people that you game with. it is different for everyone else.

therefore, no true scotsman.



i'll include in a separate post an example of one of the first DMPCs that i ever ran, and you are more than welcome to tell me whether it meets your subjective qualifications as a PC controlled by the DM.



and yet, you dismiss them as irrelevant and of less import than a possible bias toward them.



never even implied this; you are veering off of the track.



how many times are you guys going to bring this up? not one of us to my memory has stated that we are the only ones with any say in the matter. not one of us has ever said that we would run a DMPC if the group was opposed to it.

you keep resorting to this as an argumentative strategy; that is called a non sequitur fallacy, and depending on why, a straw man fallacy.



you must not like NPCs, including henchmen, then either, right? hell, even PCs, as jayabalard mentioned, fall into the same category. your apparently negative personal experience with them is not the definition by which the rest of them run.

and your answer, "because it brings more players, and is a social game," would mean that you also don't like it when the DM lets the players run more than one character. are you as adamant about a single PC per player as you are about no DMPCs?



yup. though i am sure that yukitsu has a problem with large encounters or something too.

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the vested interest issue.

[Ormagoden]

Interesting... pres_man hasn't exactly been arguing against DMPC's in this thread, at least not recently.

You didn't read the post didjanow? Its a quote from another thread which is in response to another thread about a thread that has this topic in it.
AKA me pointing out there are already a few threads on this topic already with the same people going back and forth in them over and over. (including me.)

In both threads however I'd like to point out that when I have posed a valid counterpoint to Yukitsu's round about opinions he moved on to other easier posts to respond to. :P

[dsmiles]

*jumps up and down*

Hello? Is there anybody on the other side of that wall?

:smallwink:

Darn you Lostfang! You made my comment pointless! (Not that it wasn't already pointless...)

Anyway...having a vested interest in the character (and his/her backstory and development), IMHO, is what makes it a PC in the first place. A DM having a vested interest in a NPC would therefore turn it into a DMPC by my definition. I'm still trying to find an accepted definition of "DMPC" in this thread, so I just thought I'd throw mine out there.

[Tyndmyr]

You didn't read the post didjanow? Its a quote from another thread which is in response to another thread about a thread that has this topic in it.

Um, yeah...let's keep the discussion purely to this thread, please. There's been plenty of stuff said in here.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the vested interest issue.

The rest of his unrelated comments are addressed by me pointing out that simply calling an argument a fallacy does not make it so. You need to show why it fulfills the criteria for that.

Otherwise, things like "strawman" are mere accusations being hurled around.

[dsmiles]

In reference to my definition of DMPC (applicable portion bolded):

Vested Interest

From Merriam-Webster.com:
Main Entry: vested interest
Function: noun
Date: 1818
1 : an interest (as a title to an estate) carrying a legal right of present or future enjoyment; specifically : a right vested in an employee under a pension plan
2 : a special concern or stake in maintaining or influencing a condition, arrangement, or action especially for selfish ends
3 : one having a vested interest in something; specifically : a group enjoying benefits from an existing economic or political privilege

[Ormagoden]

Um, yeah...let's keep the discussion purely to this thread, please. There's been plenty of stuff said in here.

No argument there. I'm just simply pointing out we've all had this discussion multiple times over the last month in a few threads now. To me it has become a bit tiresome. Not to say that this thread does not have merit! Because indeed it does.

Perhaps we should come up with a well thought out definition of DMPC to further our understanding of the topic.

DMPC (Noun)

1. A Non-player character under the control of the dungeon master that is a member of the adventuring party.


The above is probably the simplest definition I can come up with... Reading the above and considering I'm going to add additional definitions; are we in agreement thus far on the definition?

[Serpentine]

Works for me, with the caveat (not necessary to make it part of the definition, however) that it is possible for one type of character to become another. That is, an NPC can become a DMPC can become a PC can become an NPC and so on, according to circumstances.

[Choco]

a DMPC:

1. A permanent member of the party, played by the DM,
2. That shares in the loot,
3. The XP,
4. And the decision making process, as well as being
5. A participant in combat with the PC's, thus resulting in
6. Glory either being stolen from or simply shared with the PC's.

An NPC that the players insist on bringing along as a permanent member of the party that contributes to combat is elevated to a DMPC. A DMPC that leaves the party becomes an NPC again. If the DM chair gets alternated, the DMPC will become a PC. Yes, circumstances is what it is all about.

[Fhaolan]

DMPC (Noun)

1. A Non-player character under the control of the dungeon master that is a member of the adventuring party.


I would remove the "non-player" bit, as definition-wise I don't think it's strictly necessary:

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that is a member of the adventuring party.

This, however, this doesn't cover one of the things that is commonly labeled 'DMPC' by a lot of people: The Mary/Marty-Sue character that appears and disappears randomly, able to aid or interfere with the party but cannot be affected by the party themselves by DM fiat. Mainly because this character is not part of the party as such. For example, whenever Ed Greenwood pulled out Elminster.

[Tyndmyr]

Works for me, with the caveat (not necessary to make it part of the definition, however) that it is possible for one type of character to become another. That is, an NPC can become a DMPC can become a PC can become an NPC and so on, according to circumstances.

Yeah, this is essential. I've seen DMs trot out former PCs in campaigns they did not DM in to show them off. While clearly the character was a DMPC in campaign #2, it was also clearly a PC in campaign #1.

Likewise, even PCs can become NPCs due to campaign events.

I would say that any of the three, DMPC, PC and NPC can become any of the others.


The Mary Sue like character that isn't technically part of the party still tends to cross paths with the party incessantly. If it's a one time event, that could simply be a bad NPC, but doesn't really sound like a DMPC.

[Fhaolan]

I would remove the "non-player" bit, as definition-wise I don't think it's strictly necessary:

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that is a member of the adventuring party.

This, however, this doesn't cover one of the things that is commonly labeled 'DMPC' by a lot of people: The Mary/Marty-Sue character that appears and disappears randomly, able to aid or interfere with the party but cannot be affected by the party themselves by DM fiat. Mainly because this character is not part of the party as such. For example, whenever Ed Greenwood pulled out Elminster.

Oh, just thought of something. Try this:

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that is a full member of the adventuring party (not a henchmen, cohort, or any another kind of follower as per the D&D rules).

[Jayabalard]

Seriously? The entire post? You mean the one that had maybe 1/10th relating to that specific issue, the rest addressing very different topics?

Wow. Seriously?I'm really not sure why you're surprised; that kind of gross exaggeration is kind of par for course around here. People tend to do that as a kind of song and dance to draw attention away from the terrible logic that they are using, or the valid points someone else has made.


6. Glory either being stolen from or simply shared with the PC's.You're probably better off leaving the "stolen from" bit, otherwise you're only talking about bad DMPC's and that's not very helpful to the discussion


You need to show why it fulfills the criteria for that.

Otherwise, things like "strawman" are mere accusations being hurled around.You mean like, quoting what people actually did say, and showing how what you're arguing against is not the same thing? As far as I'm aware, every reference to "strawman" in this thread has that sort of supporting evidence along with it.

[Choco]

You're probably better off leaving the "stolen from" bit, otherwise you're talking about bad DMPC's and that's not very helpful to the discussion

That is true, but I wanted to make a point that by the logical definition there can be good (or at least not bad) or bad DMPC's, since so many here seem to think they are all bad.

[Yukitsu]

Oh, just thought of something. Try this:

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that is a full member of the adventuring party (not a henchmen, cohort, or any another kind of follower as per the D&D rules).

Sure, I'd agree with that.

[dsmiles]

Oh, just thought of something. Try this:

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that is a full member of the adventuring party (not a henchmen, cohort, or any another kind of follower as per the D&D rules).

I'll buy this as a definition.

[Jayabalard]

That is true, but I wanted to make a point that by the logical definition there can be good (or at least not bad) or bad DMPC's, since so many here seem to think they are all bad.The problem is that's the only one of your items that follows that line.

1 could include "forced into the party no matter what the players want; 2 could include "takes more of the loot than the PC's" 3. Steals exp so that the players don't get it; 4 could include "forces decisions on the party (ie enforced railroading)" and 5 could include "handles important combat without including the players" ... but you don't, so the addition that you have in #6 really stands out because it's a very different form.

And the moment you start including all of these things, your definition starts looking like you're presupposing a "bad" DMPC, and that's really just not very useful in these sorts of debates. Then people can make arguments based on your definition, that are basically equivalent to saying that only bad DMPCs are really DMPCs, and the others are not DMPCs.

[Tyndmyr]

The problem is that's the only one of your items that follows that line.

1 could include "forced into the party no matter what the players want; 2 could include "takes more of the loot than the PC's" 3. Steals exp so that the players don't get it; 4 could include "forces decisions on the party (ie enforced railroading)" and 5 could include "handles important combat without including the players" ... but you don't, so the addition that you have in #6 really stands out because it's a very different form.

I would substitute "advances with, or is more powerful than the party" for the loot and xp ones. The exact details of how he/she does so are not that critical, but that level 1 commoner you rescued who remains a level 1 commoner is not a DMPC. If it's a uber-epic guy that follows you everywhere, he could be. Likewise, if he gets a normal share of loot and xp, he could be.

Also, I wouldn't require that the DMPC be the party leader/railroader. I would require that they take some part in the party socially. This could include railroading, but it's much broader.

After all, not all PCs are party leaders, and it's silly to impose a higher leadership standard on DMPCs than PCs.

[Jayabalard]

I would substitute "advances with, or is more powerful than the party" for the loot and xp ones. The exact details of how he/she does so are not that critical, but that level 1 commoner you rescued who remains a level 1 commoner is not a DMPC. If it's a uber-epic guy that follows you everywhere, he could be. Likewise, if he gets a normal share of loot and xp, he could be.Nah, if the DMPC is less powerful, and advances more slowly, then it is still a DMPC; it's just that it should be somewhat similar in terms of how the advancement of that character works; it needs to advance is really the only necessary part of that.

The point was: there's no reason to insert any of the "bad dmpc" traits into the general definition of DMPC's. It just detracts from the usefulness of that general definition, since you'll get plenty of people who will disagree with your definition because it's slanted against DMPCs instead of staying neutral.

[Ormagoden]

Updated definition

DMPC (Noun)

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a member of the adventuring party.

Thoughts?

[valadil]

Updated definition

DMPC (Noun)

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a member of the adventuring party.

Thoughts?

I'd consider inserting "contributing" before adventuring. That will include same level characters and more powerful characters, while ignoring the peasant who cowers in the wagon.

[BishFish]

Updated definition

DMPC (Noun)

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a member of the adventuring party.

Thoughts?

DMPC (Noun)

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a contributing member of the adventuring party.


I once had a DM who had the NPC in the party attack us. I left it at 0 health so we could easily bring it to full (it was a wizard) in case of a battle.

[Ormagoden]

Thanks for the help bishfish but I'll be updating the definition if you don't mind.

On a that note valadil, when reading the definition do you assume a member of the adventuring party is contributing? or no? I'll pose that to everyone else as well...

[Stycotl]

Well yes, but all the detailed financial implications of THAT use of the definition are pretty obviously unrelated to D&D.

you didn't read the page, did you?

sure, economics has a part to play in the theories of vested interest. however, the page is not about economics. i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not purposefully being deceitful and deflective, and that you aren't merely dull, and i'm gonna point out that this then sounds a whole lot like your earlier logical fallacy about roleplay rewards.


Treasure and magic items are rewards. Any downside that applies to them applies to ANY rewards.

just because an apple is a fruit, a fruit is not therefore an apple. you are trying to argue that because treasure is a reward, rewards are therefor treasure, and that since economic vested interest in vested interest, then all vested interest is vested interest. they don not operate by identical rules, though the one is a subset of the other.

further, earlier you attempted to link a vested interest only to those with a stake in the argument (as defined on the wiki link). you seem to have missed the other four components.

the wiki article that i linked you to talks about vested interest in broad terms, not limited merely to finances and legal matters.

i'll quote a few relevant parts since you ignored or failed to understand them the first time.


Not to be confused with the pre-existing legal term vested interest, which is related to the concept of vesting. In other words, if an attitude object is deemed to have important perceived personal consequences, then that object is of high vested interest. For example, a 30 year old individual is told that the legal driving age is being raised from 16 to 17 in his state. While he may not agree with this law, it does not affect him as much as the 15 year old prospective vehicle operator. This example illustrates the point that highly vested attitudes concerning issues are related to an individual’s point of view of the situation.


Drinking Age Experiment

Various studies have been conducted to determine the effects of vested interest on attitude strengths. In one such study, Crano and Sivacek (1982) visited a university and gathered the results of a proposed drinking age referendum in the state of Michigan. The referendum sought to increase the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. The respondents were divided into three categories, which were high vested interest (those who would be significantly impacted immediately as a result of the referendum), low vested interest (those who would be unaffected by the law change at the time of its inception), and moderate vested interest (those who fell between these extremes). Although 80% of the subjects were opposed to the referendum, their respective levels of vested interest clearly indicated that the strength of their attitudes significantly impacted their resultant behaviors. Roughly half of the high vested interest group joined the anti-referendum campaign. However, roughly 1/4 of the moderate vested interest group and 1/8 of the low vested interest group joined the campaign. (Sivacek & Crano, 1982)


Comprehensive Exam Experiment

In a second study, Sivacek and Crano (1982) visited Michigan State University. In this experiment, subjects were informed that the university was considering the addition of a senior comprehensive examination to the graduate prerequisites. Respondents were given choices to 1) do nothing, 2) sign an opposing petition, 3) join a group that opposed the referendum, and 4) volunteer specific amounts of hours to the opposing group's activities. The respondents were grouped into the same three categories (high, moderate, and low vested interest). The study found that those of the highest levels of vested interest were significantly more inclined to take actions based upon their attitudes concerning the issue; that is, their resultant behaviors (signing the petition, joining the group, pledging multiple hours with the group) occurred much more consistently (and prevalently) than that of the other two vested interest groups. (Sivacek & Crano, 1982)


Summary

Each of these five entities [stake, salience, certainty, immediacy, and self-efficacy] coexist within an individual’s realm of conscious judgment. Any of these entities, if it creates a strong enough attitude, can cause an individual to either adopt or reject an advocated position. All five are considered anytime an individual is presented with a message that attempts to influence or persuade him to adopt a certain position or perform an action. The process of evaluating these entities can range from near instantaneous to several years; at any rate, all five are considered (consciously or subconsciously) before making a decision.

therefore, you have vested interest in the outcome of this "debate" (i use the term loosely), whether you are willing to admit it or not.


This makes the rest of your entire post invalid, since your foundation is wildly off base.

your definition of invalid seems to to plug your ears and talk louder so that you can't understand what i am saying.

further, my whole post did not hinge on the definition of vested interest, or who is vested and who is not, so you are again committing a logical fallacy.

and before you try to claim yet again that i haven't qualified the claim, i just did. if you didn't catch it, read the above paragraph, and your quote, and you are probably bright enough to figure out what i am talking about.

that goes for pretty much every time that i label your not-alltogether-thought-out arguments as logically fallacious, and if it is not every time, let me know and i will go back and fix it.


It's also amusing how on one hand, I'm told I have a "vested interest" because I've argued the same side for a while, and on the other, I'm criticized for not arguing over enough stuff.

that is part of what has been said, but not the entirety of it; refer to the above for the rest, and look at the 5 factors that are theorized to determine vested interest.

in the end, it is fine to have logical fallacies driving your personal preferences if you wish; i'm certainly not trying to stop you from doing so. but i am hoping that you will be adult enough to admit it when you are using generalizations, assumptions, emotional reactions, straw men, red herrings, and other logically unsupportable arguments in order to form your opinions.

[Tyndmyr]

I'd consider inserting "contributing" before adventuring. That will include same level characters and more powerful characters, while ignoring the peasant who cowers in the wagon.

Contributing member is important. Physical proxmitiy is not enough to make one a PC, there has to be some actual interaction.



Huh...contribution tends to imply that it's beneficial. I think "interaction" is a more neutral term.

After all, if the guy is some uberpowerful guy that tags along everywhere, does nothing to help, claims loot, and makes fun of you the entire time...that's still a DMPC. A particularily bad kind, as it turns out. He's still interacting with the party on a regular basis, though, where the commoner hiding in the wagon all the time really isn't.

[Tyndmyr]

i'll quote a few relevant parts since you ignored or failed to understand them the first time.

....lots of irrelevant stuff....

therefore, you have vested interest in the outcome of this "debate" (i use the term loosely), whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Huh? Scientific studies showed a correlation between self-interest and the decision. IE, some people are biased in favor of their own self interest. Not really a revelation there.

How do you get from that to "You have a vested interest in this debate"?

Seems like you're missing a connecting step or three.


your definition of invalid seems to to plug your ears and talk louder so that you can't understand what i am saying.

I have no idea how I'm supposed to take this seriously. This is a forum. What you said literally is not possible. Perhaps you would like to rephrase this?


further, my whole post did not hinge on the definition of vested interest, or who is vested and who is not, so you are again committing a logical fallacy.

If it's not important, why do you keep bringing it up at length?


and before you try to claim yet again that i haven't qualified the claim, i just did. if you didn't catch it, read the above paragraph, and your quote, and you are probably bright enough to figure out what i am talking about.

that goes for pretty much every time that i label your not-alltogether-thought-out arguments as logically fallacious, and if it is not every time, let me know and i will go back and fix it.

No...that's not a qualification. "I'm sure you're bright enough to figure it out" isn't an explanation at all.

[Saph]

Updated definition

DMPC (Noun)

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a member of the adventuring party.

Thoughts?

Poor definition, IMO. It doesn't have any reference to the original acronym, includes loads of characters that most people wouldn't call a DMPC, and doesn't really touch on the whole reason that so many people dislike them in the first place.

[Serpentine]

Poor definition, IMO. It doesn't have any reference to the original acronym, includes loads of characters that most people wouldn't call a DMPC, and doesn't really touch on the whole reason that so many people dislike them in the first place.Your latter point is why I disliked your definition in the "Spot the DMPC" thread. As far as I, and many others, are concerned, "DMPC" is a neutral term.
Right then, my turn.

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).
2 perjorative a bad DMPC; a character run by the Dungeon Master with one or more of the following traits: is of a higher level/power level to other characters; takes a greater or unfair share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc); dominates, directs or determines party actions, discussions and/or decisions; takes a greater share of DM attention; breaks the rules PCs are bound to, in play and/or creation; is protected from death and/or misfortune to a greater degree than PCs; otherwise is subject to DM favouritism.

Player Character (PC) n A character run by a player; a player-run protaganist of a tabletop game.

[Stycotl]

Huh? Scientific studies showed a correlation between self-interest and the decision. IE, some people are biased in favor of their own self interest. Not really a revelation there.

How do you get from that to "You have a vested interest in this debate"?

the sad thing is that i you do this so often that i can't tell when you just genuinely don't understand, and when you are deflecting and lying through your teeth like a bad lawyer.

if you truly don't understand the page, then this is merely ignorance; that can be fixed.

if you do understand it, but are purposefully spinning the information in order to argue a point that is not even being made, or one that is not super relevant or critical to the point, that is––again––what is known as a straw man argument. i'll let you get on with your attempts to spin it as something else though; i doubt you could admit a logical fallacy even if you really wanted to.


Seems like you're missing a connecting step or three.

the point there is pretty easy to understand, and has much more to do with vested interest than a mere self interest. it talks specifically about 5 factors there, one of which is categorically tied to self interest, the other four being tied to other factors.

in your case, the certainty principle seems to play as large a part of your vested interest as the stakes you have in it; not only does it have the spotlight, but you have let it grow into some abominable paranoia based off of generalizations and assumptions. immediacy might have some aspect to your thought process as well, but we haven't spoken as much about the timelines upon which you think DMPCs sabotage campaigns. there are probably other ways in which the immediacy factor could be extrapolated into this argument as well. i don't think that the salience or self-efficacy factors play a role in your vested interest, though i would be open to hear anyone's opinions if they believe otherwise.


I have no idea how I'm supposed to take this seriously. This is a forum. What you said literally is not possible. Perhaps you would like to rephrase this?

because i used words that implied listening and speaking? seriously? you are picking on that?

bravo, tynd. you keep knocking them out into left field here.

when this happens in a debate class, it is called a deflection, generally owing to the fact that you don't have an argument, but are not humble or wise enough to admit it.

it is similar to when people start making fun of another's spelling or grammar, and ignoring the issues raised in the other's post; but i expect that you have a justification for that too.

so, i realize that this might be hard for you, but if you actually go back and ignore whatever metaphors, allusions, alliterations, spelling errors, and grammatical errors that are apparently torturing you into a state where you can't concentrate on anything else, then you might just find yourself capable of actually responding to a comment or question that has been directed your way.

EDIT: it just occurred to me that there might be some confusion because i stated the quoted sentence poorly:


your definition of invalid seems to [be] to plug your ears and talk louder so that you can't understand what i am saying.

i left out a "be." if that is where the confusion is coming from, then i apologize. if not, then you are indeed deflecting, and executing a blatantly obvious, poorly contrived attempt at it at that.


If it's not important, why do you keep bringing it up at length?

you were the one that brought this up. did you forget that?

i am merely commenting on what you brought up. further, i did not say that it was unimportant. that would be you again trying to put words into my mouth, a habit that you have which makes it pretty much impossible to have any sort of meaningful conversation with you.

deflecting again, tynd.


No...that's not a qualification. "I'm sure you're bright enough to figure it out" isn't an explanation at all.

are you truly mistaking "i'm sure you are bright enough" as my qualification? i ask mainly because it is written fairly plainly only a few words ahead of the quoted section that you are fixating on, and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand what i meant.

i also ask because i am trying very hard, despite your repeated nose dives into poor argument strategy, to take you seriously. if it would make you happier, i could certainly just write you off as a little dense and we can just quit conversing, but i'd prefer to see if it is actually possible to talk with you in an intelligent manner.

i know, i know––i might as well be trying to discuss philosophy with my dog, right? in the end, i am confident that your posts and my posts are both out in the open for anyone to see that has the desire to do so. i have little doubt that most of them can see a weak attempt at a deflection or a straw man argument when they see one, even though some of them have never studied logical fallacies and do not even know their respective names.

[dsmiles]

Your latter point is why I disliked your definition in the "Spot the DMPC" thread. As far as I, and many others, are concerned, "DMPC" is a neutral term.
Right then, my turn.

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).
2 perjorative a bad DMPC; a character run by the Dungeon Master with one or more of the following traits: is of a higher level/power level to other characters; takes a greater or unfair share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc); dominates, directs or determines party actions, discussions and/or decisions; takes a greater share of DM attention; breaks the rules PCs are bound to, in play and/or creation; is protected from death and/or misfortune to a greater degree than PCs; otherwise is subject to DM favouritism.

Player Character (PC) n A character run by a player; a player-run protaganist of a tabletop game.

Serp, if DMPCs need to contribute to be condsidered DMPCs, shouldn't PCs have to contribute to be considered PCs? Otherwise they would just player-run NPCs, IMO. (We're just talking definitions now. Player-Run NPCs is a debate for another thread.)

[Serpentine]

Serp, if DMPCs need to contribute to be condsidered DMPCs, shouldn't PCs have to contribute to be considered PCs? Otherwise they would just player-run NPCs, IMO. (We're just talking definitions now. Player-Run NPCs is a debate for another thread.)In real-life practice, are there really any PCs that make absolutely no contribution to actions, discussions and decisions? Keeping in mind that it's really in comparison to other characters - in a hack-and-slash game with minimal-to-zero roleplaying, no character would be expected to contribute to discussion, for example - and that "rarely" is not the same as "never".
In any case, badly-played PCs are, indeed, yet another issue.

[Saph]

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).

Not a good definition IMO, because it doesn't contain the key ingredient of emotional attachment that distinguishes a DMPC (as the DM's avatar) from an NPC who just happens to accompany the party.

Another problem with this is that many of the worst types of DMPC don't match your definition. They don't follow the rules and limitiations placed on PCs . . . because they get to ignore them. They don't take a share of rewards . . . because they don't need them or get much better stuff. Finally, your definition would include henchmen-types that the PCs hire and that most people would not normally call a DMPC, even if they do join in discussions.

So your definition includes false positives (includes henchmen and hirelings that happen to talk) and false negatives (misses some of the worst types of DMPC who ignore the rules completely).

[Serpentine]

Not a good definition IMO, because it doesn't contain the key ingredient of emotional attachment that distinguishes a DMPC (as the DM's avatar) from an NPC who just happens to accompany the party.

Another problem with this is that many of the worst types of DMPC don't match your definition. They don't follow the rules and limitiations placed on PCs . . . because they get to ignore them. They don't take a share of rewards . . . because they don't need them or get much better stuff. Finally, your definition would include henchmen-types that the PCs hire and that most people would not normally call a DMPC, even if they do join in discussions.

So your definition includes false positives (includes henchmen and hirelings that happen to talk) and false negatives (misses some of the worst types of DMPC who ignore the rules completely).Alright, I'll add that "emotional attachment" bit. However, everything else is covered under the second definition, and to an extent in the first - I never specify the amounts of things, so "more" and "less" are not excluded, although "according to the rules" is obviously specific to the second definition. I would probably only change the latter if someone can give me an example of a good or neutral DMPC that's made or played by different rules; otherwise, it still fits under "bad DMPC".
Henchmen-types, I'd need to have a better idea of what you mean (never had one in any of my games, as player or DM), but I think that's covered in the stipulation that they're the same as PCs except handled by the DM.

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, with comparable emotional investment to that of players for their characters, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).
2 perjorative a bad DMPC; a character run by the Dungeon Master with one or more of the following traits: is of a higher level/power level to other characters; takes a greater or unfair share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc); dominates, directs or determines party actions, discussions and/or decisions; takes a greater share of DM attention; breaks the rules PCs are bound to, in play and/or creation; is protected from death and/or misfortune to a greater degree than PCs; otherwise is subject to DM favouritism.

Player Character (PC) n A character run by a player; a player-run protaganist of a tabletop game.

[Saph]

Alright, I'll add that "emotional attachment" bit. However, everything else is covered under the second definition. Henchmen-types, I'd need to have a better idea of what you mean (never had one in any of my games, as player or DM), but I think that's covered in the stipulation that they're the same as PCs except handled by the DM.

From the Red Hand of Doom module, an example would be Jorr. He's a ranger/rogue NPC who lives in one of the wilderness areas, and the PCs have the option of hiring him as a guide. He contributes, has advice to offer, and shows the PCs around the main adventure areas of Chapter 1, but he's also forgettable and not very significant in the larger scheme of things.

[Serpentine]

Okay. Well, the "emotional investment"* addition would obviously eliminate him as a DMPC. Aside from that, would the party consider him as part of the party? If not, he probably isn't a DMPC. He could also be a temporary DMPC - it is quite possible for a character to go from one type to another, and I think it would be quite reasonable for a hireling or whatever to become a DMPC. I think it's reasonably unlikely for this one, however.



*I agree with the addition of this factor, it just feels like it's a bit of a loaded term. Might just be me, though. I don't suppose there's a slighly more neutral term?

[BishFish]

Thanks for the help bishfish but I'll be updating the definition if you don't mind.

On a that note valadil, when reading the definition do you assume a member of the adventuring party is contributing? or no? I'll pose that to everyone else as well...

Elan would argue otherwise.

[Indon]

So, if a DMPC is unnecessary, and the DM clings to it anyhow, then the DMPC is obviously not there for the benefit of the party, but for the benefit of the DM. This is why it needs to be killed with fire.

A story element does not need to be necessary to the story's function to be enriching to the story - and the same applies to tabletop campaigns.


If something is detrimental and unnecessary, it needs to be killed with fire.

The existence of a DMPC is not detrimental. The existence of a bad one is.

If a player breaks the game's implied contract to remove a harmless facet of the game that they personally dislike, the problem is not with that facet, but with the player.

The proper way for a player to address such a scenario is for the player to bring up their distaste of the technique to the DM and discuss if the DM might be willing to accomadate the players preferences.


A DM having a vested interest in a NPC would therefore turn it into a DMPC by my definition.

I have a vested interest in tons of my characters; allies, enemies, and neutrals alike.

*wuvs them all*

In practice, that just means I'm more a fan of periodically recurring characters. In my view, it increases immersion to let the PCs see the karma of what they've done in the past come back to help or harm them. I don't think that makes half the major NPCs in my campaign DMPCs.

[valadil]

Thanks for the help bishfish but I'll be updating the definition if you don't mind.

On a that note valadil, when reading the definition do you assume a member of the adventuring party is contributing? or no? I'll pose that to everyone else as well...

Good question. I'd assume a member of the party is attempting to contribute or believes he is contributing. Or, in the case of a PC playing a spy infiltrating the party, the PC may have set up a facade of contribution. But all this is way too tedious for the DMPC definition. Maybe it could be a footnote.

[Ormagoden]

Poor definition, IMO. It doesn't have any reference to the original acronym, includes loads of characters that most people wouldn't call a DMPC, and doesn't really touch on the whole reason that so many people dislike them in the first place.

That's because those things are opinions not definitions. Also as one might guess this is a work in progress. Other important definitions of DMPCs will be added as we begin to agree on them.
Also see my comment on Serpentine's definition below.


Your latter point is why I disliked your definition in the "Spot the DMPC" thread. As far as I, and many others, are concerned, "DMPC" is a neutral term.
Right then, my turn.

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most the rewards (treasure, XP, etc).
2 perjorative a bad DMPC; a character run by the Dungeon Master with one or more of the following traits: is of a higher level/power level to other characters; takes a greater or unfair share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc); dominates, directs or determines party actions, discussions and/or decisions; takes a greater share of DM attention; breaks the rules PCs are bound to, in play and/or creation; is protected from death and/or misfortune to a greater degree than PCs; otherwise is subject to DM favouritism.


Part 1 of your definition adds something that isn't always the case. I fixed it.

I'm not discussing part 2 yet, it is a can of worms that I want to open once the general term is agreed on. Although you are most assuredly on the correct track :smallwink:


As a VERY important note. I see alot of blah blah blah about "emotional investment" or "vested interest".

I'd just like to point out the following:
A DM that does not have emotional investment or vested interest in the characters that populate their campaign world is not in ANY definition of the word a Dungeon Master.
At least that's my personal opinion.

[Serpentine]

I, personally, would never make a DMPC that didn't adhere to the same restrictions and freedoms as a PC, and I don't know when or how, outside of "bad DMPCs", anyone would. Correct me?

Also, my understanding of "emotional investment" is more... "that character is the "me" in this world". If a D&D game were a fantasy inside my head, the DMPC (or PC) would be the one I identified as "myself". Would be identified as "my character", whereas NPCs are more "the world's character". If you know what I'm trying to get at...

[Yukitsu]

Emotional investment does not mean the character is your representation in the world. It simply means that you would prefer the character was around, and did not die in a fire (to the point that you'd feel some degree of upset if it happened). It is possible for a player to have an emotional investment in an NPC, another player's PC or his own character.

[Serpentine]

That doesn't sound right, to me. My DMPC has died twice, and I didn't mind. I haven't actually had any of my PCs die, but I wouldn't mind then, either. I'd be more "upset" about my NPCs dying in a fire, unless my plans call for it. And I always feel bad when I kill one of my PCs - more bad than my own PC or DMPC.

[Yukitsu]

Yes, and that's a pretty good indication that it's not a DMPC. If you make a PC, and you don't care if it lives or dies, it's a good time to ask yourself why you're playing that PC.

In any event, I view emotional attachment a necessary part of any PC, but I don't know if I'd bother putting it in, because it's not a very good indicator of a PC, as you can have emotional attachments to nearly anything in the game, like an item or a shrub.

I guess it's necessary to root out the supposed DMPCs who the DM would gladly and knowingly run into a fire for no particular reason because they don't care two wits about the character's well being, because frankly that's not what you see in PCs, or at least not ones the player wants to be playing.

[Serpentine]

Absolutely not, you're way off. It's not that I "don't care if she lives or dies", it's that one of her deaths was my own fault (as DM and player), and the other happened to be just that awesome. If my other characters, when I'm just a player, died in similar ways - and were quickly rezzed - I'd feel the exact same way. When other people's PCs have died, as far as I can tell they've been annoyed at worst. Especially when the same person's character keeps on dying...

[Mike_G]

I think it's just that the DM has more ability to screw things up than a given player.

Any badly played PC can wreck a game. Sir Stickarse the Paladin can turn a formerly fun game into an ethics class, Swipy McThief can easily wreck everything by stealing from or holding out on the group, anyone can Chaotic Stupid their way into trouble: "I just express myself through arson," and a overtwinked Wizard or CoDzilla can dominate any encounter and leave the rest of the party bored.

The thing is, if a DMPC does any of those things, it generally won't be solved by DM smackdown, and may, in fact, be exacerbated by DM rulings, and the rest of the party has less recourse with a DMPC than they do with a player PC.

A bad man is a problem, but a bad king is a crisis.

[dsmiles]

Yes, and that's a pretty good indication that it's not a DMPC. If you make a PC, and you don't care if it lives or dies, it's a good time to ask yourself why you're playing that PC.

In any event, I view emotional attachment a necessary part of any PC, but I don't know if I'd bother putting it in, because it's not a very good indicator of a PC, as you can have emotional attachments to nearly anything in the game, like an item or a shrub.

I guess it's necessary to root out the supposed DMPCs who the DM would gladly and knowingly run into a fire for no particular reason because they don't care two wits about the character's well being, because frankly that's not what you see in PCs, or at least not ones the player wants to be playing.

So, I make a PC. I play the PC. I don't particularly care if the character lives or dies, because in the end, it's just writing on a piece (or several pieces) of paper, and I can always make another that's just as interesting to play. It's not a PC?

[valadil]

Absolutely not, you're way off. It's not that I "don't care if she lives or dies", it's that one of her deaths was my own fault (as DM and player), and the other happened to be just that awesome.

I don't think it's a question of if you care. Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't be playing. It's a question of if you care enough to invoke your DMly privileges to prevent that death. In Serp's case, a death that's her own fault does not warrant fudging nor does a death that's awesome.

[Ormagoden]

Yes, and that's a pretty good indication that it's not a DMPC. If you make a PC, and you don't care if it lives or dies, it's a good time to ask yourself why you're playing that PC.

In any event, I view emotional attachment a necessary part of any PC, but I don't know if I'd bother putting it in, because it's not a very good indicator of a PC, as you can have emotional attachments to nearly anything in the game, like an item or a shrub.


I generally don't care if my PC lives or dies as long as I have a ton of fun. I mean its not like I'm going to run out of character's to play.

[Saph]

I, personally, would never make a DMPC that didn't adhere to the same restrictions and freedoms as a PC, and I don't know when or how, outside of "bad DMPCs", anyone would. Correct me?

Also, my understanding of "emotional investment" is more... "that character is the "me" in this world". If a D&D game were a fantasy inside my head, the DMPC (or PC) would be the one I identified as "myself". Would be identified as "my character", whereas NPCs are more "the world's character". If you know what I'm trying to get at...

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The DMPC is the DM's "avatar" - the DMPC strongly identifies with them, far more than the other NPCs in the game world, so much so that an attack on the DMPC is interpreted as a personal attack on the DM. This is why DMs will so often bend or break the rules to keep a DMPC alive - it's their character and they'll use their power as a DM to protect them.

By contrast, pretty much any D&D dungeoncrawl will involve the deaths of lots of sentient beings - orcs, goblins, kobolds, beholders, dragons, mind flayers, whatever - which the DM rarely gets upset about.


As a VERY important note. I see alot of blah blah blah about "emotional investment" or "vested interest".

I'd just like to point out the following:
A DM that does not have emotional investment or vested interest in the characters that populate their campaign world is not in ANY definition of the word a Dungeon Master.

First, stop shouting. Increasing font size doesn't make you more convincing, it just makes you loud.

Second, call me cynical, but I seriously doubt you maintain a deep emotional investment in every piece of humanoid cannon fodder inhabiting a dungeon. Unless you're seriously telling me that you react with shock, grief, and anger when Kobold Minion #45982 gets his head hacked off.

[Stycotl]

yukitsu, and anyone else that wants to provide their opinions, i am going to give a short rundown of one of my first DMPCs (first as far as i can recall, though there might be others). tell me what you think; does he count as a DMPC according to your personal definition of the term? why or why not?

but first, i just wanted to note that the current trend of the conversation seems to be a lot of people refusing to accept other people's definitions of the term (i've seen people on both sides of the argument doing it too). i think that this habit is going to be unproductive in the conversation.

i think that there are a few facts that we can clear up that might enable us to accept the idea that not everyone uses the same definition that we do personally, without having to undermine the points that we are trying to make.

1––obviously the definition is not set in stone anyway; there is no official source out there that i have been able to find that has a clear, proper definition as to what a DMPC is.

2––because of this subjective nature of the definition, everyone is going to have a slightly different view on what a DMPC really is, even people on the same side of the argument.

3––again, owing to the subjective nature of the term and the conversation, there is a wider range of possibilities that are acceptable to a reasonable mind; that is to say that none of these definitions are inherently wrong. they are just different takes on a very subjective topic (legal disclaimer: there certainly are possible wrong answers, and i did not go back through these 20 pages to see if there weren't any unreasonable, and therefore wrong, answers, but i am confident that you get my drift).

*****************************************

a number of years ago, my family moved, and my brother and i found ourselves to be the only gamers that we knew of within our town. so we did a lot of one-on-one stuff, usually using white wolf or d&d. we would take turns DMing, and when one would DM, his PCs became NPCs for the duration of his game, and when we would switch, they would revert to PCs.

they were clearly PCs when used as PCs instead of NPCs; they were written as such, built as such, cared about as such, had goals and backstories and actions as such, and were played as optimally and intelligently as the two of us could.

my primary character was a gish that was trying to become exceptional at both martial combat and magic. my brother's main character was a psychic warrior/kineticist that focused heavily on the ability to both dish out a lot of damage, and to take a lot of damage.

we started them at level 1, and went over the period of 2 or 3 years all the way to level 16 (his ended at level 17 because he didn't use xp for crafting, etc).

when i DMed, i made sure that my character was not stealing the spotlight, but i made sure that he would have as much of the spotlight as when he was normally being used as a PC.

my brother did the same when he was DMing.

there were no hard feelings between us, and no attempts to mary sue-ify our characters into godlings for a number of reasons: first, we were brothers and friends, and wouldn't have been that disrespectful anyway; second, we knew that as soon as one of us got done DMing, the roles would switch, and he would again be the player at the mercy of the other.

it did turn itself into a high-power, high-magic, high-treasure campaign, and if we had continued, we probably would have gotten to the point where we became epic and challenged the gods or something.

we employed a lot of houserules, homebrews, and DM fiat (but this was normal for our games even when we had a full crew), mostly because we thought that the d20 system was "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." (captain barbosa). but, again, we were pretty darn fair and trustworthy with our DM fiats, houserules, and homebrews, and there were never any complaints.

we even had the idea that eventually, our characters would turn on each other (they were thieving, murdering little bastards that were only tentatively capable of remaining friends themselves). but even before that point, we constantly set up situations where PVP happened to one degree or another, and often escalated the situations to the point where one of their deaths could easily have been the outcome. and we were fine with it.

further, we played them as if they were bored thrillseekers to a large degree, and had them attempt the most ridiculous stunts, stuff that could have easily gotten them killed.

we did DM fiat occasionally in favor of saving a PC or an NPC, though it was usually both (we'd never heard of the term, DMPC, back then), rather than letting it die. but we also made sure that it was understood that consequences happened, and that stupid actions would have stupid consequences.

so, what say you?

i am anticipating a mixed review; i am sure that there are some that feel that this situation did not include a DMPC, because they were not favored above the PCs. but that would be ignoring the non-pejorative definition of a DMPC, where the PC in question is fair and balanced, but happens to be played by the DM.

and i am sure that there are others that feel that this was the kind of DMPC that needs to be "killed with fire."

but i'm pretty confident that this was one of the moderate examples, where it was without question not a bad thing (to this day, that was the longest campaign i've ever been involved with, and tied for first place for the best and most memorable; we still talk about it sometimes, more than 7 years later).

curiously, these were only two of *many* DMPCs that we ran between the two of us. that campaign was the longest that we did by ourselves, but there were quite a few others. and still, never any complaints or bad experiences. we are no longer talking about the rare incidents of it being done well that some people on this thread are swearing by, but consistent play. the only rare thing, i think, is the fact that it seems few groups can pull it off without degenerating into fighting.

you guys can do what you will with that info, but i take this as more evidence that DMPC problems are more of a social issue than a bad DM/good DM issue. we trusted each other's judgment, even on the few occasions where houserules/DM fiat crossed the line into plot armor.

if the group works well together outside of gaming, trusts one another, and respects one another, i doubt that there is going to be much of an issue of DMPCs or other potential problems. doesn't mean that there won't be any problems, but that they will probably be fewer, smaller, and easily resolved with minimal hassle.

[Ormagoden]

First, stop shouting. Increasing font size doesn't make you more convincing, it just makes you loud.

Second, call me cynical, but I seriously doubt you maintain a deep emotional investment in every piece of humanoid cannon fodder inhabiting a dungeon. Unless you're seriously telling me that you react with shock, grief, and anger when Kobold Minion #45982 gets his head hacked off.

First, I'll "talk" how I please. As text can sometimes lose emphasis and meaning if inflection is not given to it; sometimes it is necessary to point out certain words or phrases. If you are angry at my "shouting" I really don't think this is the thread for you. Debates here have been fairly heavy handed and I don't think wearing your heart on your sleeve is going to help get your point across.

Secondly, you're cynical.
Kobold minion #45982 does not exist in my campaign.
She is Kacheek, hunter and scout for the Winding river tribe.

If someone is a DM and they don't care about what they use in their game I Pity them.

This is however a side track from my main goal which is still to define the DMPC in a neutral manner first and then add on its derogatory uses.

So thus far we have:

DMPC Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of the rewards.

Does this seem too specific or should I return it to my original definition...

DMPC

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a member of the adventuring party.


Or how about this


DMPC

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that acts as a full member of the adventuring party.

Is "acts as a full member of the adventuring party" too broad? Does everyone assume naturally that a "full member of the party" Contributes to combat, planning, ideas, and conversation. And also takes part of the reward? Or is it to vague or assuming that anyone reading the definition will understand what a "full member of the party" is?
Thoughts?

Also Stycotl

3––again, owing to the subjective nature of the term and the conversation, there is a wider range of possibilities that are acceptable to a reasonable mind; that is to say that none of these definitions are inherently wrong. they are just different takes on a very subjective topic (legal disclaimer: there certainly are possible wrong answers, and i did not go back through these 20 pages to see if there weren't any unreasonable, and therefore wrong, answers, but i am confident that you get my drift).

Well said sir, well said indeed.

[Jarawara]

Stycotl,

In review of your story, they are both clearly DMPC's who should be killed with fire. Furthermore, the anti-DMPC police shall be coming by your house today to take your books, as you are hereafter banned from playing D&D.

:smalltongue:

.... But seriously, no, of course there is no problem there. Call it what you will, PC, NPC, DMPC. I think they are best both called "characters", and your story was a perfect example of how the DM can play a character in the game.

Furthermore, this is a good example of the disconnect that I referenced in my other thread. It seems like all the anti-DMPC examples here start with an assumption of player joining a 'standard' group, with a new DM, running a 'standard' game, and then the DM pulling out his own PC to play and ruining everything.

After nearly 30 years of playing, I've think I've only ever seen two or three 'standard' playing groups. Most groups out there are too many players, or too few, or roundtable DM'ing, or internet-based play by post or instant messanger roleplay groups, or... well, anything but standard.

In fact, perhaps I would see the anti-DMPC group's point of view better if I limited myself to those three groups that were 'standard'. Two of the groups had no DMPC, and one of them sucked hard. The third did have a DMPC, and he did it all wrong. But then again, he did everything wrong.

So on a sampling of one experience, over nearly thirty years of gaming, I have to say that my experience in standard play D&D with a DMPC present points to the DMPC being bad when the DM is bad. And standard play D&D without a DMPC is a hit or miss affair.

Well, so much for that being conclusive.

But in the real world, with non-standard groups, to which most of my D&D experience has been about, I've seen DMPC's played several times without any problem. (I've also seen them get botched, yet still not be a problem.) Yours is an example of a perfectly good use for the DMPC, to the point that had you not used them, I doubt the game would have amounted to much at all.

I mean, think about it, would you have continued that game if every time you switched DMing, one PC would mysteriously disappear and the other would come out of the woodwork to continue the storyline? Back and forth the pair of PC's appear and disappear, because somebody elsewhere says that DMPC's are bad? No, you'd have gotten bored with that and gone and played parcheesi, I would think. So your example is not only of a DMPC that didn't hurt your game, it supremely helped, especially with the interplay between the two characters.

So lock your doors before the anti-DMPC police arrive, and keep on playing!

[Serpentine]

I don't think it's a question of if you care. Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't be playing. It's a question of if you care enough to invoke your DMly privileges to prevent that death. In Serp's case, a death that's her own fault does not warrant fudging nor does a death that's awesome.
This is why DMs will so often bend or break the rules to keep a DMPC alive - it's their character and they'll use their power as a DM to protect them.I've used more DM fiat to keep other characters alive than mine. If my character dies, it's my fault, I'm the only one who "suffers", and there's a nice little side-quest the rest of the party can engage in. If another person's character dies, it's my fault, they "suffer", and they have to make a whole new character if they're going to join the side-quest to bring themselves back.
The first death was silly (as DM I forgot to check how much of the ship the auras of two drowned would cover, as a player I forgot to give her a ranged weapon) and we were on our way to a big town with easy ressurection anyway. OH YEAH! That's why I got reincarnated... The Druid died, as well, so they just took us both to the nearest Druid grove. The head Druid was an elf of the variety with which Kariana's clan was feuding, so they had to... "persuade" him to do it. But I digress...
The second death involved Kariana doing her job: getting hit so the others don't. And boy oh boy did she get hit... Another character also died at about the same time, so I used a bit of DM fiat to save her (the Rogue climbed the minotaur, slit his throat, then leaped off his head at Tsaya's failing body, plunged his healing sword into her chest, and founded a new Legacy). At that point I needed to stop for a bit and do some planning for the next part of my game anyway, so another player (the Rogue, above) took them on a side-quest to find the materials necessary to bring Kariana back to life. (edit: might be worth pointing out that a big reason why I didn't think to do that same fiat to save my own character, is mine was split in two from head to toe. Messy messy messy...)
When someone else's character died (a centaur), that person wasn't terribly upset because they hadn't really gotten into him. I took that death as a lesson in taking care with Constitution damage.
When another person's character died, the player was very involved in her, and we were both annoyed and a bit upset, mostly because it was going to be a long time before we could resurrect her - also a pretty epic side-quest. This character was also significant for plot-related reasons: by that point, due to players coming and going for various reasons, she is the only character besides my own with links back to the original campaign quest.
When yet another person's character died, the player didn't give a damn, because the character was a bit too much of a jerk to work well with the other characters and he wanted a new one anyway. If he did care, I probably would've fudged rolls a bit if I was able.

Point being: just because I'm not so madly in love with my own character that I'll break rules just to keep her from harm, doesn't mean she's in any way less of a DMPC.

[Krazddndfreek]

{scrubbed}

[Stycotl]

But in the real world, with non-standard groups, to which most of my D&D experience has been about, I've seen DMPC's played several times without any problem. (I've also seen them get botched, yet still not be a problem.) Yours is an example of a perfectly good use for the DMPC, to the point that had you not used them, I doubt the game would have amounted to much at all.

similar story here; my gaming experiences have usually been pretty nonstandard––though nonstandard might in actuality be standard...


I mean, think about it, would you have continued that game if every time you switched DMing, one PC would mysteriously disappear and the other would come out of the woodwork to continue the storyline? Back and forth the pair of PC's appear and disappear, because somebody elsewhere says that DMPC's are bad? No, you'd have gotten bored with that and gone and played parcheesi, I would think. So your example is not only of a DMPC that didn't hurt your game, it supremely helped, especially with the interplay between the two characters.

So lock your doors before the anti-DMPC police arrive, and keep on playing!

it certainly would have been a lot more boring. solo games can be fun; i've done those too, and my brother and i did a number of them when we were a two-person gaming group. it just so happened that this one was the longest running and most successful game we ran.

come to think of it, i can only recall one of the names of the characters that i ever rolled up for a solo campaign.


{Scrubbed}

classy, dude. not only do you purposefully go around the filter, you try to tell people that they can't discuss an issue that you have grown tired of.

i suppose that you failed to notice the amount of actual debate and conversation going on here. you take the cake in this thread for generalizations and ignorant comments so far.

note also that you post in a thread that you wish would die, thereby helping to keep it alive.

[Saph]

I've used more DM fiat to keep other characters alive than mine. If my character dies, it's my fault, I'm the only one who "suffers", and there's a nice little side-quest the rest of the party can engage in. If another person's character dies, it's my fault, they "suffer", and they have to make a whole new character if they're going to join the side-quest to bring themselves back.

. . .

Point being: just because I'm not so madly in love with my own character that I'll break rules just to keep her from harm, doesn't mean she's in any way less of a DMPC.

Mm, I dunno. I think if you like a character, but treat them impartially, that's likely to disqualify them from DMPC status. The whole reason DMPCs get such flak is because players see them as a violation of DM neutrality.

Admittedly, though, there's a blurry line between "favoured NPC" and "minor DMPC", and there's a big area where you could reasonably call a character one or the other. I think the acid test is "would the DM let them die?" - ie, let them get killed off in a non-plot-scripted way, e.g. death by random encounter or by lucky dice roll from a dangerous enemy or due to betrayal by other party members. The quickest test of all is "if one of the other PCs tries to kill them, what will the DM do?"

• Run the encounter impartially, and whoever dies, dies - Not a DMPC.
• Get angry, treat it as a personal attack on them and their game, and give the DMPC plot armour to ensure they survive - DMPC.
• Something in between - Depends.

[pres_man]

What do you call it when a player points out a rule that is a detriment to the party? A detriment to the player's own character? Would cause the death of a player's own character? The player not going all "Blackleaf" when the character dies?

Personally, I call it being an honest gamer, but I can see how someone could call that the player not really "playing" a PC, but instead running an NPC. I wouldn't agree, but I could see it.

[Yukitsu]

So, I make a PC. I play the PC. I don't particularly care if the character lives or dies, because in the end, it's just writing on a piece (or several pieces) of paper, and I can always make another that's just as interesting to play. It's not a PC?

I'm tempted to say no actually, or possibly I'd have to say a problematic or not very good one. The only players that I've seen that literally don't care if they live or die are disinterested in the game, and tend not to contribute.


Absolutely not, you're way off. It's not that I "don't care if she lives or dies", it's that one of her deaths was my own fault (as DM and player), and the other happened to be just that awesome. If my other characters, when I'm just a player, died in similar ways - and were quickly rezzed - I'd feel the exact same way. When other people's PCs have died, as far as I can tell they've been annoyed at worst. Especially when the same person's character keeps on dying...

Considering I don't consider it valid criteria anyway, I won't go too deeply into this point, but I would like to say that you're awefully waffly about the particular nature of this particular character.

[Fhaolan]

I'm tempted to say no actually, or possibly I'd have to say a problematic or not very good one. The only players that I've seen that literally don't care if they live or die are disinterested in the game, and tend not to contribute.

Or they're treating the game as just a game. Like they would chess, or monopoly. They can be just as interested in the *game* aspects, rather than getting emotionally invested in a non-existant entity. Basically it's a skirmish-level wargame, where they control only one piece on the board rather than an array. I've gamed with lots of people like that, it's just a different style.

[Yukitsu]

Those people have a different but equivalent attachment to the character, or pieces. Irritation, because unlike in story driven D&D, you can in fact lose, with the general condition for losing, getting your character killed. I've yet to see even the best losers enjoy losing as much as winning at a game, so I don't think there is anyone out there with no preference to the outcome.

[Ormagoden]

*COUGH*

Thoughts on my previous post and the definitions there in?

[pres_man]

Those people have a different but equivalent attachment to the character, or pieces. Irritation, because unlike in story driven D&D, you can in fact lose, with the general condition for losing, getting your character killed. I've yet to see even the best losers enjoy losing as much as winning at a game, so I don't think there is anyone out there with no preference to the outcome.

NO, NOT BLACK LEAF! NO, NO! :biggrin:

[Stycotl]

Those people have a different but equivalent attachment to the character, or pieces. Irritation, because unlike in story driven D&D, you can in fact lose, with the general condition for losing, getting your character killed. I've yet to see even the best losers enjoy losing as much as winning at a game, so I don't think there is anyone out there with no preference to the outcome.

i can't presume to speak for dsmiles, but i am guessing that he wasn't trying to say that he has no preference, even though he did use the words, "I don't particularly care if the character lives or dies."

i would imagine that it isn't so much meant to imply that there is no investment at all, but to say that he is intelligent enough to realize that it would be pretty ridiculous to become too attached to his PC, to the point where the jack chick tract's scenario of a player becoming lost and suicidal because his character was killed. hyperbole aside, some people can play the game without feeling bad when something bad happens to their character, even if they still care for the story and the character that they play in it.

even the word, "particularly," that he used, implies that there is some level of preference, rather than none at all. it just might be different than the level of identification that you are used to seeing or feeling yourself.

unrelated, but i am still curious as to what your thoughts are about my earlier DMPC example. you are the primary one that has been dismissive, in my opinion, about the status of other characters. so i am interested to see what your thoughts are on my second or third to last post (whichever one it was that had the long description of how our DMPCs worked).

[Yukitsu]

They are far too inclusive, as any hireling, cohort or follower will fall into all of your categorizations, unless the DM lets the PC control the cohorts/followers, as opposed to RP his orders. Of them, the first is probably best, but does unfortunately include the afforementioned, because the presence of any volume of RP does not a PC make.

[Jarawara]

Those people have a different but equivalent attachment to the character, or pieces. Irritation, because unlike in story driven D&D, you can in fact lose, with the general condition for losing, getting your character killed. I've yet to see even the best losers enjoy losing as much as winning at a game, so I don't think there is anyone out there with no preference to the outcome.


See, another disconnect has appeared in the discussion.

When I play a game, I play it to tell a story. Win or lose, if the story is told, I'm happy.

This applies to non-D&D games as well. (In fact, since you said "games", not "D&D", I assumed your quote applies to non-D&D games *first*, and also to D&D).

If I'm playing a WWII wargame, and the allies are pressed to the limit, survive, fight their way back, and ultimately defeat the axis, that's a great story. The fact that I was the axis in that story is irrelevant to me.

In fact, since I'm often teaching new players, I would far, far prefer to be the loser, because that means my opponent has sufficiently learned the game enough to be a future challenge to me, and I can now teach them bigger, more complex games.

Everyone plays games with different intents, and that's one of the biggest disconnects I have with the anti-DMPC arguments. They tell me that 'players won't like this', and thus it's a bad risk to even try, but what they're really saying is that *they* won't like this. Well, if I have them in my games, I suppose I should reconsider, but not all players are as they are. I tend to find like-minded players, (and those not of like mind tend not to play in my D&D campaign), so the concerns often pointed out about DMPC's just don't come up in our games.

Bottom line: Don't assume everyone plays games for the same reasons.

[Yukitsu]

Considering the statement was explicitly "Or they're treating the game as just a game." which is to say, not one with a story or characters or drive or ambitions (I'd go so far as to say, no longer a Role Playing Game, but simply a combat simulator). I'd not consider teaching someone to be playing a game for the particular reason that you're simply not playing to win, or even playing to play the game, you're playing to teach people how to play and even then, I'd not consider it analogous to D&D, because either it's a monster grind, and it's the two of you vs. the monster manual anyway, or it's a real campaign where suddenly thoughts, emotions and story suddenly do matter.

I teach people how to play warhammer for example, and while I do have to lose from time to time to make sure they don't get frustrated, I would not say I'm really playing the game. Possibly, I'm playing a different one, where the game objective is to lose, where he still has a chance to learn something, but I'm not playing a game of warhammer when I'm teaching someone else how to play.

And that aside, what situation does a DMPC suddenly become some rose tinted awesome thing that makes the game infinitely better?

Teaching? No, a tutorial character that runs another character through the buttons in D&D isn't a PC.

When it's a good story for you to lose? That doesn't mean that you want it to happen to the character. Rei II may have died and that was good for the story, but that doesn't mean it didn't suck that it happened (depending on how you like the character)

[Raum]

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, with comparable emotional investment to that of players for their characters, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).
2 perjorative a bad DMPC; a character run by the Dungeon Master with one or more of the following traits: is of a higher level/power level to other characters; takes a greater or unfair share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc); dominates, directs or determines party actions, discussions and/or decisions; takes a greater share of DM attention; breaks the rules PCs are bound to, in play and/or creation; is protected from death and/or misfortune to a greater degree than PCs; otherwise is subject to DM favouritism.Reading your definitions, #1 appears to be a subset* of #2. Is that your intention?

*If a GM's "emotional investment" is equivalent to that of a player's in his character, it can't help but "take a greater share of DM attention".

I'm certainly no defender of DMPCs in general, but I do think it is possible to run NPCs with the group and not cause issues. To me it's a question of choice...can (did) the PCs hire and fire the NPC? Can the PCs fire this one and hire a replacement? Is the NPC a leader or a follower when compared to the PCs? (Note, a hired guide is still a follower. I'm using 'leader' in the sense of a directing authority.) If the NPC is a leader or cannot be fired without irritating the DM (in game or out of game), it's probably not one I want in any game I play...

Whatever you call the character, the underlying issue is choice. When NPCs infringe on the few choices normally relegated to PCs...eh, well why is the PC there anyway?

[Serpentine]

Mm, I dunno. I think if you like a character, but treat them impartially, that's likely to disqualify them from DMPC status. The whole reason DMPCs get such flak is because players see them as a violation of DM neutrality.I disagree, and this disagreement, really, is the fundamental issue of this discussion. You believe that one or more negative aspects is fundamental to the definition "DMPC". I disagree - I believe that this one or more negative aspects results in a bad DMPC, DMPC itself being a neutral term, boiling down, semantics and nitpicking aside, to "a PC played by a DM". You believe that DMPCs are always bad, and therefore your definition of DMPC includes the qualifier that they are bad. I do not. So, I made two different definitions in my above posts: 1. is a neutral DMPC, the starting point. 2. is a bad DMPC, the one that cops all the flak you're talking about. Both definitions can be equally valid - as much as "tip" can mean to knock something over, a bit of extra money, or a landfill. Not a bad example, actually: many people around the world don't recognise the word "tip" as "landfill". That doesn't change the fact that in Australia, for example, it is at least as common and legitimate as the other definitions. It would be absurd for you to try to tell me that "tip" never ever means "landfill", because in my experience it simply does.
So, any problems you have with my first definition being too neutral for you, please look at the second one before your criticise it, because it will almost certainly be covered there.
Furthermore, just because some, or even many, players "see them as a violation of DM neutrality", does not mean that all do, nor should that be part of the definition. If many people think that anchovies are disgusting, does that mean that "anchovies are disgusting" should be part of their definition?

I think the acid test is "would the DM let them die?" - ie, let them get killed off in a non-plot-scripted way, e.g. death by random encounter or by lucky dice roll from a dangerous enemy or due to betrayal by other party members. The quickest test of all is "if one of the other PCs tries to kill them, what will the DM do?"
• Run the encounter impartially, and whoever dies, dies - Not a DMPC.
• Get angry, treat it as a personal attack on them and their game, and give the DMPC plot armour to ensure they survive - DMPC.
• Something in between - Depends. Treat the situation exactly as they would if it were any player's character - DMPC.
How could it not be? Also covers DMs who are fine with PvP, and DMs who avoid PvP at all costs.
Actually, I don't know that this is a terribly good example... If a DM treats an attack on her character exactly as she would the same attack on another character, then that would be, in my view, an impartial treatment of a DMPC (unless other criteria ruled the character out as a DMPC, in which case it'd be PC-like treatment of an NPC).
If a DM treats an attack on her character differently to the way she would the same attack on a different character, then in my view that would be a sign of a bad DMPC. Or perhaps, if she cared less about or reacted more permissively to the DMPC attack than a PC attack, a sign of an NPC.

Considering I don't consider it valid criteria anyway, I won't go too deeply into this point, but I would like to say that you're awefully waffly about the particular nature of this particular character.How so? Everything I've said about my DMPC is true, although the context may mean that I don't go into all the detail. That she "doesn't make decisions" is probably a good example: at the point where that was originally brought up, I was arguing against the idea that DMPCs always lead parties around by the nose, so I mentioned that my DMPC almost never leads the party or makes decisions for the party. Something like that. However, there is a BIG difference between "tends to be towards the background and aquiesces to the decisions of others" and "sits in the corner silently like a soggy bathmat". If there is a discussion, she will say her piece - according to her personality and in-game knowledge - offer the occasional idea, offer an opinion if it's asked of her. However, she will not make plans, try to convince other characters to do what she wants, nor lead the way, because she's not that sort of a character - whether played by me as a DM or as a player.
If you really want me to, I can offer you a play-by-play of exactly what she's like in every game, but that would be a bit of a pain...


Reading your definitions, #1 appears to be a subset* of #2. Is that your intention?

*If a GM's "emotional investment" is equivalent to that of a player's in his character, it can't help but "take a greater share of DM attention".If anything, #2 was meant to be a subset and/or extreme of #1. And I believe I said comparable, not equivalent. If a DM has a similar degree and type of interest in her character as if she were a player, all that means is she considers it to be her character, or whatever else "emotional investment in her character" means when she's a player. It means that when she takes on the role of player within a game to run the character, she has the same attachment to it and treats it the same as if she were only a player. It does not mean that the amount of time spent on the character will significantly eat into time spent DMing, nor does it mean that the character will receive more "spotlight time" than other characters (the main thing, really, about "share of DM attention").
But if I have to explain all that, I think it's time to review the definition.

DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master at least nominally according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, with comparable emotional attachment to if the DM were a Player, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).
2 perjorative a bad DMPC; a character run by the Dungeon Master with one or more of the following traits: is of a higher level/power level to other characters; takes a greater or unfair share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc); dominates, directs or determines party actions, discussions and/or decisions; takes a greater share of DM attention; breaks the rules PCs are bound to, in play and/or creation; is protected from death and/or misfortune to a greater degree than PCs; otherwise is subject to DM favouritism.

Player Character (PC) n A character run by a player; a player-run protaganist of a tabletop game.
Party n the protaganists of a tabletop game as a group.

Alternate basic, neutral definition:
DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master that is a member of a party in every way the PCs are.

[pres_man]

Considering the statement was explicitly "Or they're treating the game as just a game." which is to say, not one with a story or characters or drive or ambitions (I'd go so far as to say, no longer a Role Playing Game, but simply a combat simulator).

Or maybe you are just mature enough and impartial enough to understand the difference between reality and a game. I've had characters I've run, that died, and I built another character in the span of a couple of minutes and got back into the game. I didn't cry over my dead character, because it was a fictional character. That doesn't mean while the character was alive, I didn't try to make the best decisions for that character, both in combat and in roleplaying. But once they are dead, oh well, looks like I get to make a new character using one of the many different character concepts I have on the back burning waiting. But again, I am not playing the character as suicidal just to get to play one of these other character concepts. There have been times when I had a character that turned out to be something I started to dislike playing (not hate, but just wasn't excited by it anymore), but couldn't justify for roleplaying reasons for it to leave the party and "retire". I secretly hoped the character would get killed, but again, I felt obligated to continue playing the character true to its nature. Not being overly reckless and not roleplaying it shallowly.

[Stycotl]

They are far too inclusive, as any hireling, cohort or follower will fall into all of your categorizations, unless the DM lets the PC control the cohorts/followers, as opposed to RP his orders.

is this directed at me? if so, explain.

i'm gonna assume that you were talking to me.

no.

they were not played the same as cohorts or followers. you are purposefully ignoring a couple of things that i told you.

they were made as characters. period. no ifs, ands, or buts about it, and no getting around it. that is strike one against your claim.

strike two: they were played as characters, not as support. they were not there to bolster PCs or to shine spotlights on PCs––they were PCs. they both had multiple quests and entire story lines that revolved around them. they both made critical decisions that directly affected the outcome of every adventure. every single one––and there were quite a few of them over the period of three or so years.

strike three: they literally were PCs for more or less 50% of the time. when i was DMing, my brother was actually playing his character, and vice versa. this goes back to the fact that they were made as PCs, with the intention of being played and treated as PCs.

you keep claiming that the other examples are not PCs because they were not treated like PCs, specifically that they did not act like them (making critical decisions, etc). now that you have a pair of them that meet those qualifications, you claim that those qualifications are no longer valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost


Of them, the first is probably best, but does unfortunately include the afforementioned, because the presence of any volume of RP does not a PC make.

i'm not sure what you are getting at here, but yes, the presence of any volume of RP does influence whether or not it is a PC or a DMPC or an NPC, and you yourself were one of the ones claiming that earlier in the conversation if i remember right: "one of the problems of DMPCs is that they detract from the PCs."

if according to you guys, one of the supposed rules of respectful NPCs is that they don't butt in and hog all of the roleplay from the PCs, all of the spotlight, all of the treasure, and all of the glory, then whoever is not obeying that rule is either a PC or a DMPC.

in this case, both characters hogged the spotlight, the treasure, the glory, and everything else, and they were both played by the DM and the player.

[Yukitsu]

they were made as characters. period. no ifs, ands, or buts about it, and no getting around it. that is strike one against your claim.

There is literally no difference in the creation process of an NPC, a PC, an encounter or a DMPC insofar as I can tell. You start with a concept, stat it out, and there's your character. That has no bearing at all on the type of character it is, and even then, a "character" is not the same as a PC.


strike two: they were played as characters, not as support. they were not there to bolster PCs or to shine spotlights on PCs––they were PCs. they both had multiple quests and entire story lines that revolved around them. they both made critical decisions that directly affected the outcome of every adventure. every single one––and there were quite a few of them over the period of three or so years.

That is not a part of your definition.


strike three: they literally were PCs for more or less 50% of the time. when i was DMing, my brother was actually playing his character, and vice versa. this goes back to the fact that they were made as PCs, with the intention of being played and treated as PCs.

Build has nothing to do with NPC, PC, DMPC or encounter classification, simply because the mechanical build process is the same or similar between all of them. As well, it has been noted that a PC can switch from one roll to any other, or the other way around.


you keep claiming that the other examples are not PCs because they were not treated like PCs, specifically that they did not act like them (making critical decisions, etc). now that you have a pair of them that meet those qualifications, you claim that those qualifications are no longer valid.

Those weren't parts of your definitions, simply because people can, and will interpret "Contributes" to mean anything as insignificant as standing in the party at the time whilst having a name as contributing, when rather obviously that's not a relevant factor in determining PCness. If you amended it to state that they partake in those activities to a certain, though unspecifiable degree, then I'd be more prone to agreement.


i'm not sure what you are getting at here, but yes, the presence of any volume of RP does influence whether or not it is a PC or a DMPC or an NPC, and you yourself were one of the ones claiming that earlier in the conversation if i remember right: "one of the problems of DMPCs is that they detract from the PCs."

That they do, and unlike a well RPed villain, NPC person whom you talk with or other useful tool, a DMPC is doing that all the time, and also detracting from wealth, XP and encounters. That aside, if I'm in negotiations with say, a king, and he's a major NPC in the world and the campaign, and I RP back and forth with him for 6 sessions, does that suddenly ascend it to DMPC status? No, it doesn't.


if according to you guys, one of the supposed rules of respectful NPCs is that they don't butt in and hog all of the roleplay from the PCs, all of the spotlight, all of the treasure, and all of the glory, then whoever is not obeying that rule is either a PC or a DMPC.

in this case, both characters hogged the spotlight, the treasure, the glory, and everything else, and they were both played by the DM and the player.

All is incorrect. Anything from a fair amount to all of it would be standard for a given PC. I explicitly have stated that an NPC that does get all of the wealth, EXP, encounters, spotlight time etc across many sessions is not a PC, because that's not something that a PC could ever manage.

[Yukitsu]

Or maybe you are just mature enough and impartial enough to understand the difference between reality and a game. I've had characters I've run, that died, and I built another character in the span of a couple of minutes and got back into the game. I didn't cry over my dead character, because it was a fictional character. That doesn't mean while the character was alive, I didn't try to make the best decisions for that character, both in combat and in roleplaying. But once they are dead, oh well, looks like I get to make a new character using one of the many different character concepts I have on the back burning waiting. But again, I am not playing the character as suicidal just to get to play one of these other character concepts. There have been times when I had a character that turned out to be something I started to dislike playing (not hate, but just wasn't excited by it anymore), but couldn't justify for roleplaying reasons for it to leave the party and "retire". I secretly hoped the character would get killed, but again, I felt obligated to continue playing the character true to its nature. Not being overly reckless and not roleplaying it shallowly.

You're exagerating the degree to which I am arguing one would be irritated if their character died, ignoring the fact that I explicitly stated that there is an exception for characters that you don't actually want to play, and trying to represent yourself as completely dispassionate to the degree of a computer, which I happen to find improbable. If you actually were as apathetic to competition, you wouldn't be here arguing with me, while maliciously misrepresenting my views. As such, I don't particularly care to go into this, especially because I explicitly stated it would not be an indicative criteria since it can apply to any and all characters.

[Stycotl]

There is literally no difference in the creation process of an NPC, a PC, an encounter or a DMPC insofar as I can tell.

that would imply once again that you don't seem capable of realizing that not everyone plays as you do.

if you have ever used an NPC right out of the box, without rolling its abilities, without coming up with its backstory yourself, it is not the same as a PC. unless you also only play PCs that were preboxed for your convenience.


You start with a concept, stat it out, and there's your character.

case and point.

further, generally, the DM and the players put much more attention into their characters and important NPCs than the DM does into the not-so-important NPCs. this is a generalization, but it is one of the items that specifically separates the multitude of character types in many games.


That has no bearing at all on the type of character it is, and even then, a "character" is not the same as a PC.

my bad. i said character, instead of player character. i was not implying that they are the same. you, on the other hand, seem to doing just that.

"There is literally no difference in the creation process of an NPC, a PC, an encounter or a DMPC insofar as I can tell."


That is not a part of your definition.

bull crap. you don't get to decide what is a part of my definition, bucko. characters being played as PCs definitely is a part of my definition, and the facts that i stated, that they were played as PCs, with PC plot hooks, PC rewards, PC challenges, and everything else, means 100% certain that they functioned as PCs, whether or not you like it.


Build has nothing to do with NPC, PC, DMPC or encounter classification, simply because the mechanical build process is the same or similar between all of them.

again, that might be true for your gaming experience, but that does not make it so for everyone else. if you consistently fail to recognize that, it means that you are having a difficult time separating reality from perspective.

the reality is that many people play different than you do, and refusing to accept that fact does not make it any more or less true.


As well, it has been noted that a PC can switch from one roll to any other, or the other way around.

yes, and what would the criteria be that determine its classification? according to most people earlier on in the thread, the way it was played would have a lot to do with that.

when i played my character as a PC, it was no different than when i played it as a DMPC, except that i didn't metagame the stuff that i knew as the DM.


Those weren't parts of your definitions, simply because people can, and will interpret "Contributes" to mean anything as insignificant as standing in the party at the time whilst having a name as contributing, when rather obviously that's not a relevant factor in determining PCness. If you amended it to state that they partake in those activities to a certain, though unspecifiable degree, then I'd be more prone to agreement.

i am not sure if you are now talking about my characters or those of someone else. if you are talking about serp's, or someone else's, you are going off on a tangent. i am not discussing them; i am discussing the ground rules that you, tynd, and a few others tried to set when arguing about the other PCs/NPCs/DMPCs.

if you are talking about my characters, and are going off about how insignificant contributions do not a PC/DMPC make, then i look suspiciously on your reading comprehension skills, as i specifically mentioned that they both contributed quite a bit, both when they were played as PCs, and as DMPCs.

and again, don't presume to tell me what is in my definition. i have not come out and told any of you what my definition of a DMPC is, but i have told you now, in the last post, that character contribution is a defining factor (and earlier in this thread, you seemed more than willing to refuse other characters based on their contribution levels).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost


That they do, and unlike a well RPed villain, NPC person whom you talk with or other useful tool, a DMPC is doing that all the time, and also detracting from wealth, XP and encounters. That aside, if I'm in negotiations with say, a king, and he's a major NPC in the world and the campaign, and I RP back and forth with him for 6 sessions, does that suddenly ascend it to DMPC status? No, it doesn't.

tangent. no one has ever claimed that this is the case, so you are either barking up the wrong tree on accident, or on purpose (straw man).

but again, the level of RP is an indicator, and is part of my definition (that you think you somehow get to give or withhold your stamp of approval on), whether or not it is a part of yours.

this is more proof that you are having some sort of issue that prevents you from acknowledging the subjective nature of this conversation, and are paralyzed with the idea that your perspective and definitions are what the rest of the world moves on.

unfortunately for your current argument, this goes directly against what you and tynd were saying earlier: that the DMPC hogs the spotlight and displaces valuable PC roleplay time.

your definition seems to runs something like this:

if the DM's character uses up roleplay time in a bad way: DMPC. kill with fire.

if the DM's character uses up roleplay time in a good way: NPC. carry on.


All is incorrect. Anything from a fair amount to all of it would be standard for a given PC.

ok, "all" was the wrong word. you were complaining that they "hog" the resources, both OOC and IC, so instead of "all" we'll use "an unfair amount." that ruffle your feathers less?

now, substitute those words for "all" in my statement and quit deflecting.


I explicitly have stated that an NPC that does get all of the wealth, EXP, encounters, spotlight time etc across many sessions is not a PC, because that's not something that a PC could ever manage.

nonissue. i don't think, barring solo games, that anyone is using a single PC getting all of the rewards as their arguments. quit deflecting and answer the quoted portion if you have the ability.

[Yukitsu]

that would imply once again that you don't seem capable of realizing that not everyone plays as you do.

if you have ever used an NPC right out of the box, without rolling its abilities, without coming up with its backstory yourself, it is not the same as a PC. unless you also only play PCs that were preboxed for your convenience.

Some NPCs, this may be the case, however that discludes the ones that are villains, antagonists, hirelings, cohorts, etc. You are completely missing the point that any character that happens to have a character sheet was essentially made the same way, or in a manner that will overlap with possible build processes of any other character type.


further, generally, the DM and the players put much more attention into their characters and important NPCs than the DM does into the not-so-important NPCs. this is a generalization, but it is one of the items that specifically separates the multitude of character types in many games.

That doesn't differentiate between NPC, poorly made PC character, DMPC character or a myriad of other potential types. What would a "built as a PC" creation process look like by contrast to "built as a cohort/villain/talky NPC/DMPC" look? Given how many ways each can be built, I'm assuming if I listed blind build processes, you'd never know which category to put them in, because there isn't a "PC creation process" that is specific only to PCs any more than there is a villain creation process who's steps only allow for the construction of villains.


my bad. i said character, instead of player character. i was not implying that they are the same. you, on the other hand, seem to doing just that.

"There is literally no difference in the creation process of an NPC, a PC, an encounter or a DMPC insofar as I can tell."

That's because I was simply going along with the argument, and only decided to point out an incongruency at that point.


bull crap. you don't get to decide what is a part of my definition, bucko. characters being played as PCs definitely is a part of my definition, and the facts that i stated, that they were played as PCs, with PC plot hooks, PC rewards, PC challenges, and everything else, means 100% certain that they functioned as PCs, whether or not you like it.

I certainly can tell you what's wrong with your definitions if you decline to include terms in specific. "n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of the rewards." is the exact definition given, and does not make explicit that it engages in anything in a PC capacity, unless it's implied, which definitions should not be.


again, that might be true for your gaming experience, but that does not make it so for everyone else. if you consistently fail to recognize that, it means that you are having a difficult time separating reality from perspective.

the reality is that many people play different than you do, and refusing to accept that fact does not make it any more or less true.

I invite you to see the difference between any relevant NPC, any sloppy or well put together PC or any DMPC, or explain in which way the build process differs such that it applies to all situations without overlap. You can build literally any character type using any method. There is no "PC build process" that is used for PCs, no "NPC" build process used only for NPCs.


yes, and what would the criteria be that determine its classification? according to most people earlier on in the thread, the way it was played would have a lot to do with that.

when i played my character as a PC, it was no different than when i played it as a DMPC, except that i didn't metagame the stuff that i knew as the DM.

I never really claimed to know when precisely it moves from one category to another, much like I won't try to define what temperature "hot" starts at. I'm simply pointing out that switching player roles changes the nature of the character, partly because of effort the DM has to use running things, metagame knowledge, and differences between actions used against each of the party members by DM controlled NPC monsters or encounters.


i am not sure if you are now talking about my characters or those of someone else. if you are talking about serp's, or someone else's, you are going off on a tangent. i am not discussing them; i am discussing the ground rules that you, tynd, and a few others tried to set when arguing about the other PCs/NPCs/DMPCs.

if you are talking about my characters, and are going off about how insignificant contributions do not a PC/DMPC make, then i look suspiciously on your reading comprehension skills, as i specifically mentioned that they both contributed quite a bit, both when they were played as PCs, and as DMPCs.

and again, don't presume to tell me what is in my definition. i have not come out and told any of you what my definition of a DMPC is, but i have told you now, in the last post, that character contribution is a defining factor (and earlier in this thread, you seemed more than willing to refuse other characters based on their contribution levels).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

I'm talking about your definition, and as written, it's a poor definition because any contribution at all ascends the NPC in the party into a PC or DMPC.

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm simply stating that your definition is bad. You asked for my opinion, and my opinion is that it's too inclusive by an inability to clearly define the scope and type of contribution given.


tangent. no one has ever claimed that this is the case, so you are either barking up the wrong tree on accident, or on purpose (straw man).

Just to quote you on this point again:
i'm not sure what you are getting at here, but yes, the presence of any volume of RP does influence whether or not it is a PC or a DMPC or an NPC, and you yourself were one of the ones claiming that earlier in the conversation if i remember right: "one of the problems of DMPCs is that they detract from the PCs."

RP volume does not indicate anything. RP type may, and RP focus may, but by sheer volume, you can't gauge whether or not something is a DMPC or NPC or a PC.


but again, the level of RP is an indicator, and is part of my definition (that you think you somehow get to give or withhold your stamp of approval on), whether or not it is a part of yours.

See? You say it here again. I can RP a plot NPC that will never join the party, won't join the party, and whom could never be a party member who would firmly not be a PC. I could equivalently play a PC that doesn't RP much, where I give my opinion OOC, and assume that it was RPed in character somehow. (Bad RPing, but it's still something I see done.)


this is more proof that you are having some sort of issue that prevents you from acknowledging the subjective nature of this conversation, and are paralyzed with the idea that your perspective and definitions are what the rest of the world moves on.

Too many logic courses, where any definition can and will be used literally. Yours literally includes a shrub that happens to be in the party that helped inspire the bard to write a poem which he sings in the next encounter and is watered in return.


unfortunately for your current argument, this goes directly against what you and tynd were saying earlier: that the DMPC hogs the spotlight and displaces valuable PC roleplay time.

Tyndmyr says hogging. I state that merely taking it is sufficient to be irritating. Especially when it is strictly unecessary in all situations.


your definition seems to runs something like this:

if the DM's character uses up roleplay time in a bad way: DMPC. kill with fire.

if the DM's character uses up roleplay time in a good way: NPC. carry on.

I don't believe I ever specified RP when I stated it takes time. In fact, I'm pretty certain that I explicitly state that it increases time in combat, unless EXP awards and monetary awards are diminished due to a larger division of rewards without altering CR.


ok, "all" was the wrong word. you were complaining that they "hog" the resources, both OOC and IC, so instead of "all" we'll use "an unfair amount." that ruffle your feathers less?

now, substitute those words for "all" in my statement and quit deflecting.

Quit using the word "hogging", when I've never used the term except in response to others who have used it as my argument.


nonissue. i don't think, barring solo games, that anyone is using a single PC getting all of the rewards as their arguments. quit deflecting and answer the quoted portion if you have the ability.

Of course I can't answer it, because you wrote a statement, not a question. I was however pointing out that stating that the DMPC hogs the treasure is spurious as a definition, because it's not a PC ability. As stated earlier, anything grossly and illegally favoured by the DM, PC or DMPC, isn't a DMPC or a PC, it's a travesty.

[Saph]

I disagree, and this disagreement, really, is the fundamental issue of this discussion. You believe that one or more negative aspects is fundamental to the definition "DMPC". I disagree - I believe that this one or more negative aspects results in a bad DMPC, DMPC itself being a neutral term, boiling down, semantics and nitpicking aside, to "a PC played by a DM". You believe that DMPCs are always bad, and therefore your definition of DMPC includes the qualifier that they are bad.

Mm . . . not really true. Take a look at the definition you're written below.


DMPC (dee em pee see) acronym Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master at least nominally according to the rules and limitations placed on Player Characters, with comparable emotional attachment to if the DM were a Player, that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of all or most rewards (treasure, XP, etc).

Now if you compare this to the three-point definition I was using earlier, this is actually pretty similar, or at least close enough that I wouldn't disagree with it. You've got the 'played by the DM' bit, you've got the 'emotional attachment bit', and those two are the key ones. The bits about rules, limitations, contributions, and rewards are the bits I'd consider less important anyway, since it's easy to come up with situations where one or more isn't present and it doesn't make too much difference.

You're very focused on the positive/negative issue, but to be honest that's never one I've been all that caught up in. As long as DMPCs are differentiated from NPCs and cover the important types that people are talking about, I don't mind exactly where you put them on the good/bad scale.

As such, I'd probably drop the second definition, as it's a subset of the first. There's no need to have a second definition for 'bad DMPC' - if you want to mention it at all, just note that there are a lot of extremely well-known incidents of bad ones and hence 'DMPC' is often perjorative.

[pres_man]

I invite you to see the difference between any relevant NPC, any sloppy or well put together PC or any DMPC, or explain in which way the build process differs such that it applies to all situations without overlap. You can build literally any character type using any method. There is no "PC build process" that is used for PCs, no "NPC" build process used only for NPCs.

NPC wealth tables vs. PC wealth tables

[Serpentine]

Saph: You said that if a DM is impartial towards her DMPC, then that character is no longer a DMPC. That is making the definition of DMPC inheritently negative, and I disagree that a DM's character can only be a DMPC if she treats it unfairly.
Might also be worth pointing out that I don't consider "emotional attachment" to be a negative thing. It is perfectly possible to keep "emotional attachment" detached from practice.
I would perhaps compare it to a school soccer team with volunteer parent referees: A mother obviously has an "emotional" attachment" to her son. If she treats her son exactly the same as any other player on the field, that makes her a good referee, and does not mean her son is not a player. If she treats her son differently to the other players, then she is a bad referee, and the other players and observers would be justified in calling her on it.

I went back and looked at your original definition in the "spot the dmpc" thread (I assume that's what you were talking about?). You're right, your definition proper is perfectly neutral and I'd agree with it. It's the qualifiers and extras afterwards that I really disagree with, but we've already covered those specifics.

[Sequinox]

Over Christmas break, I DM'ed a semi-one shot adventure/campaign with some friends. It was set on the Isle of Dread, which I've been adapting to become a complete campaign setting. I played a DMPC (which everyone in our group does; we've all DM'ed games at one point, and usually we use the regular characters, DM included.) and had a lot of fun. There were no complaints or anything.

Of course, that might just be that I don't like playing attention hogging, badass characters. Plus, this particular adventure was an experiment in sandbox: "you're on a giant island filled with monsters. Cool locations are everywhere. What do you wanna do?"

So, basically, this was a character-driven thing with no big plotline. It worked out great. :smallbiggrin:

[paddyfool]

So, this thread has made me revise my opinion of DMPCs. In my opinion, now, they aren't all bad, but there's stuff about them that has the potential to go very bad. Here are, then, in my opinion, the seven deadly sins/commandments of DMPCs:

1) Thou shalt not have favouritism: The DMPC should not be more high-powered than the PCs, nor have better shineys than them. Share and share alike in shineys, and keep everyone in the game.
2) Thou shalt not put the players through an eternal escort mission: The DMPC should not be a drain on nor a hindrance to the party (the opposite extreme of favouritism).
3) Thou shalt maintain thy IC/OOC split: The DMPC should not act on the DM's nigh-total out-of-game knowledge. Avoiding this, and maintaining the split, is kind of essential (although the odd nudge when you really don't want the party to go totally off the rails might be all right)
4) Thou shalt not be a cheating bastard: The DMPC should not succeed, nor survive, by fiat, any more than the PCs (less, if anything).
5) Thou shalt not build the entire plot around thy avatar: The DMPC really shouldn't be that pivotal to the plot, or the players simply feel they're a sideshow to his/her story, whatever their power level.
6) Thou shalt not delay too long over thy DMPC's actions: Slow players are a drain on the game. A slow DM is even worse, even if they're also being a player.
7) Thou shalt not give the players a cakewalk: Remember which side of the screen you sit. Many/most players want to be challenged, surprised, made to think out of the box etc. at least on occasion; just because you've got a character on their side, doesn't mean you should make things too easy for them.

Fair enough? Not that I've ever used a DMPC myself, or seen a good one used, but I have seen a few bad ones, and heard of a fair few others.

[Yukitsu]

NPC wealth tables vs. PC wealth tables

To be technical, that's a difference in table values, not in the process.

[pres_man]

To be technical, that's a difference in table values, not in the process.

It is a difference in potential power/ability level, which does effect the process. Still, cut the hair as finely as you feel comfortable with.

[Yukitsu]

So you're saying that if you are playing a low wealth game, you're suddenly not using a PC build process? Vow of poverty build? If you're starting with mostly cash for a purchase later?

[pres_man]

So you're saying that if you are playing a low wealth game, you're suddenly not using a PC build process? Vow of poverty build? If you're starting with mostly cash for a purchase later?

If you are playing a non-standard game, then we would need to come up with different assumptions.

Your claim, "There is no "PC build process" that is used for PCs, no "NPC" build process used only for NPCs." Would seem to indicate that in all games, standard and non-standard, that there is no difference between PC and NPC design. Are you now suggestion that this is only in the case in very specific non-standard games?

[Yukitsu]

If you are playing a non-standard game, then we would need to come up with different assumptions.

Your claim, "There is no "PC build process" that is used for PCs, no "NPC" build process used only for NPCs." Would seem to indicate that in all games, standard and non-standard, that there is no difference between PC and NPC design. Are you now suggestion that this is only in the case in very specific non-standard games?

VoP, or saving wealth for later, or 4x standard wealth on NPCs aren't non-standard. So I don't actually know what you're getting at.

[pres_man]

VoP, or saving wealth for later, or 4x standard wealth on NPCs aren't non-standard. So I don't actually know what you're getting at.

Interesting, because I am looking through my 3.5 PHB CORE RULEBOOK, and I am not finding Vow of Poverty in it? Nope not in my 3.5 DMG CORE RULEBOOK, or even in my 3.5 MM CORE RULEBOOK. Hmmm, so when you use the word "standard", what meaning are you exactly using?

EDIT: I also find the bolded part kind of humorous.

Four times the standard wealth is not non-standard. Really? Because you seem to indicate that there is a "standard wealth" and that you are taking four times it, thus that answer would not be the "standard wealth" and thus would have to be non-standard. Well, unless of course the standard wealth is 0 since 4x0 = 0.

[Tyndmyr]

Not really intending to get sucked back into endless debating over definitions, but standard D&D does not mean core-only.

A VoP monk(or other class) is legal under standard D&D rules. It requires no variant rulesets.

[pres_man]

Not really intending to get sucked back into endless debating over definitions, but standard D&D does not mean core-only.

A VoP monk(or other class) is legal under standard D&D rules. It requires no variant rulesets.

So the standard game "is intended for mature audiences only"? Because that is what the BoED, you know where the rules for VoP are located, states for it.

You are actually claiming that if you joined a new group, the standard assumption would be that all things in the BoED would be allowed?

Maybe where you game, that is a standard assumption. Most of the people I've gamed with seem to have the assumption that things outside of the core are allowed on a case by case basis. Huh, oh well, different cultures I guess.

EDIT: You seem to be arguing RAW = Standard, while Yukitsu seems to be arguing Fairly Common = Standard. I on the other hand am arguing Default = Standard. The BoED is an optional book, thus in my understanding it is not part of the standard game.

[Yukitsu]

So "Standard" is simply whichever books you happen to find convenient for your argument, as opposed to the official 3.5 and 3.0 rule books? Sorry, but no. Core only is not the standard, and you aren't allowed to pick and choose which books are.

As for 4x standard wealth, that's actually stated out in the monster manual listings for a variety of creatures, several of which are viable PC choices. I did get the value wrong though, as it's supposed to be 3x wealth. And even then, you aren't changing the way in which the character is being made.

Edit: Any non-core book (and even the core books) are optional. There is not such thing as a mandatory book in D&D.

[pres_man]

So "Standard" is simply whichever books you happen to find convenient for your argument, as opposed to the official 3.5 and 3.0 rule books?

If you feel that the core rule books are too much of a stretch to be considered "standard", then I guess we will just have to live in our different worlds on that issue.

Still going back to your comment:


I invite you to see the difference between any relevant NPC, any sloppy or well put together PC or any DMPC, or explain in which way the build process differs such that it applies to all situations without overlap. You can build literally any character type using any method. There is no "PC build process" that is used for PCs, no "NPC" build process used only for NPCs.

You seem to be claiming that for all games, standard, non-standard, variant, house-ruled, core, non-core, etc, that there can't be different rules for building NPCs and PCs. So to clarify, are you now indicating that is not true, that there in fact can be different rules for building NPCs and PCs, even if just in what you, yourself might catagorize as non-standard, core only, games.

[Tyndmyr]

That particular label doesn't even make much sense. It does for BoVD, but much less so for ED. It certainly doesn't make any sense for VoP, and in any case, it's a label for marketting purposes, it's not a rule.

Standard D&D, so much as there can be a standard, consists of the rules found in official books published by WoTC for the version you're playing. An exception is for rules listed as variants. Gestalt is non-standard because of this.

High wealth, low wealth, etc are all found in the DMG. There really isn't a "right" one of those to pick, and even WBL is listed as guidelines.

I would, upon joining a game, inquire as to variants and house rules. If a WOTC source is not listed as banned, I will presume it is usable. This really doesn't seem unusual to me, and everyone else I've seen play follows similar conventions.

[Sliver]

You are actually claiming that if you joined a new group, the standard assumption would be that all things in the BoED would be allowed?

And here I thought that nothing was actually standard, and everything core wasn't the standard as well due to it's broken nature and you always ask a new group you join the sources allowed, so when it comes to books allowed, "standard" means quite.. Nothing.

[Yukitsu]

You seem to be claiming that for all games, standard, non-standard, variant, house-ruled, core, non-core, etc, that there can't be different rules for building NPCs and PCs. So to clarify, are you now indicating that is not true, that there in fact can be different rules for building NPCs and PCs, even if just in what you, yourself might catagorize as non-standard, core only, games.

I stated nothing at all about the rules of character creation. I stated that the process of creation has literally no differences. I can build a PC, NPC or DMPC using any number of creation processes, even if the numbers are slightly different.

[pres_man]

I stated nothing at all about the rules of character creation. I stated that the process of creation has literally no differences. I can build a PC, NPC or DMPC using any number of creation processes, even if the numbers are slightly different.

So they can be different, slightly or otherwise, between NPCs and PCs?

EDIT: And just to be clear, would you classify limiting some types of characters to NPC classes and allowing others to take PC classes, as a slight difference? What about say, giving some characters the array {13,12,11,10,9,8} or {15,14,13,12,10,8}, while allowing other characters a much more random or higher power array of abilities as a slight difference?

I'm just trying to see where the boundaries are.

[Yukitsu]

So they can be different, slightly or otherwise, between NPCs and PCs?

If you decide there has to be, but that is not in the rules. If you made a PC using any method, I'd be willing to use the same method to create an NPC, or to simply use that character as an NPC. If you made a relevant NPC, I'd be willing to use the same creation method to make a PC, and in some cases, even use that NPC as a PC.

[Tyndmyr]

There's no particular reason why NPCs have to be generated differently from PCs. Yes, they are more likely to have NPC classes, but even the DMG assumes that other NPCs use PC classes. See the city generation rules for details.

[pres_man]

If you decide there has to be, but that is not in the rules. If you made a PC using any method, I'd be willing to use the same method to create an NPC, or to simply use that character as an NPC. If you made a relevant NPC, I'd be willing to use the same creation method to make a PC, and in some cases, even use that NPC as a PC.

Just continuing on. On page 135 of the 3.5 DMG it says:

The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this "wealth by level" guideline as a basis for balance in adventures.
Now to be clear, we have proven that this is not a "rule" (according to your quote above), it is not the "standard", but instead the "baseline", but it is clearly not labeled a "variant" and thus is a "standard rule" (according to Tyndmyr definition). Am I getting all this right so far?

Also:

The one additional piece of information you need is the value of an NPC's gear. See Table 4-23: NPC Gear Value to find the total value of the NPC's equipment.
And again, not a "rule", not a "standard", not a "variant" (and thus a standard rule). So, am I following correct?

EDIT: Also, are we allowing Oberoni Fallacies?

Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

[Yukitsu]

EDIT: And just to be clear, would you classify limiting some types of characters to NPC classes and allowing others to take PC classes, as a slight difference? What about say, giving some characters the array {13,12,11,10,9,8} or {15,14,13,12,10,8}, while allowing other characters a much more random or higher power array of abilities as a slight difference?

I'm just trying to see where the boundaries are.

No. I use NPC classes when I make PCs, I use arrays, PB, rolled stats, a mix thereof or pregenerated characters. I make NPCs using any of those things as well.

[Yukitsu]

Just continuing on. On page 135 of the 3.5 DMG it says:

Now to be clear, we have proven that this is not a "rule" (according to your quote above), it is not the "standard", but instead the "baseline", but it is clearly not labeled a "variant" and thus is a "standard rule" (according to Tyndmyr definition). Am I getting all this right so far?

No. It's commonly done, but is not a rule. You can claim it's a standard perhaps, but I would not say that as a DM, I cannot completely ignore it, as it is not a rule.

Edit: Baseline values don't mean that you must adhere to that value, but that you should expect the best results to be in that region, with greater difficulties as you move above or below them.


Also:

And again, not a "rule", not a "standard", not a "variant" (and thus a standard rule). So, am I following correct?

No, as it has to be a rule for it to make sense to call it a standard rule.


EDIT: Also, are we allowing Oberoni Fallacies?

I don't believe we're moving into Oberoni fallacies, simply because you are no longer discussing the rules, but rather guidelines, which people are free to ignore without invoking the Oberoni fallacy.

[Solaris]

And here I thought that nothing was actually standard, and everything core wasn't the standard as well due to it's broken nature and you always ask a new group you join the sources allowed, so when it comes to books allowed, "standard" means quite.. Nothing.

You and your sensemaking get outta this thread. We won't be tolerating any of that 'round these parts, y'hear?
Frankly, I'm kinda amazed it's gone on this long. I thought we were abusin' the dead horse about ten pages back.

[Serpentine]

So, this thread has made me revise my opinion of DMPCs. In my opinion, now, they aren't all bad, but there's stuff about them that has the potential to go very bad. Here are, then, in my opinion, the seven deadly sins/commandments of DMPCs:

1) Thou shalt not have favouritism: The DMPC should not be more high-powered than the PCs, nor have better shineys than them. Share and share alike in shineys, and keep everyone in the game.
2) Thou shalt not put the players through an eternal escort mission: The DMPC should not be a drain on nor a hindrance to the party (the opposite extreme of favouritism).
3) Thou shalt maintain thy IC/OOC split: The DMPC should not act on the DM's nigh-total out-of-game knowledge. Avoiding this, and maintaining the split, is kind of essential (although the odd nudge when you really don't want the party to go totally off the rails might be all right)
4) Thou shalt not be a cheating bastard: The DMPC should not succeed, nor survive, by fiat, any more than the PCs (less, if anything).
5) Thou shalt not build the entire plot around thy avatar: The DMPC really shouldn't be that pivotal to the plot, or the players simply feel they're a sideshow to his/her story, whatever their power level.
6) Thou shalt not delay too long over thy DMPC's actions: Slow players are a drain on the game. A slow DM is even worse, even if they're also being a player.
7) Thou shalt not give the players a cakewalk: Remember which side of the screen you sit. Many/most players want to be challenged, surprised, made to think out of the box etc. at least on occasion; just because you've got a character on their side, doesn't mean you should make things too easy for them.

Fair enough? Not that I've ever used a DMPC myself, or seen a good one used, but I have seen a few bad ones, and heard of a fair few others.Great! The only thing I might add is:
Thou shalt not allow thy DMPC to do anything thy PCs mayst not.

[Stycotl]

Some NPCs, this may be the case, however that discludes the ones that are villains, antagonists, hirelings, cohorts, etc. You are completely missing the point that any character that happens to have a character sheet was essentially made the same way, or in a manner that will overlap with possible build processes of any other character type.

no, i'm not missing the point. i am not agreeing with you; there is a difference.

quite a few characters that are not played as PCs are made quickly, with no backstories, with no thought to overall goals (besides whatever their current role is in the 3-round encounter, and that's it), etc.

this often includes even boss NPCs.

it does vary by group, but that is the whole point. because it varies by group, it is worth noting. if you don't think it is worth noting, great. i'm not trying to dictate to you what your definition should be. i'd appreciate the same consideration.


That doesn't differentiate between NPC, poorly made PC character, DMPC character or a myriad of other potential types. What would a "built as a PC" creation process look like by contrast to "built as a cohort/villain/talky NPC/DMPC" look?

i've already answered that above: it varies by group.

some NPCs are made using only the 10 questions sketch, and work quite fine.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19713850/The_Ten-Minute_Background--Post_your_characters!

others are made with ten pages of fiction to go along with them. neither one is a wrong answer, and some PCs are still well-made even if using only a rough idea of a background.

despite your experience to the contrary.


Given how many ways each can be built, I'm assuming if I listed blind build processes, you'd never know which category to put them in, because there isn't a "PC creation process" that is specific only to PCs any more than there is a villain creation process who's steps only allow for the construction of villains.

true. that is why i told you that this is a subjective process with subjective definitions. it is not universal, no matter how much you want it to be.


That's because I was simply going along with the argument, and only decided to point out an incongruency at that point.

well, now it has been clarified; the creation process can be quite different.


I certainly can tell you what's wrong with your definitions if you decline to include terms in specific. "n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of the rewards." is the exact definition given, and does not make explicit that it engages in anything in a PC capacity, unless it's implied, which definitions should not be.

where was this "exact" definition given? i am telling you that you haven't seen an exact definition given by me. do you really want to keep arguing that?

back to the issue:

so you left something out in your definition, according to me. i added something in that doesn't need to be there, according to you.

so what?

fact is that the basis of this conversation is––once again––subjective. before we go any farther, are you still denying that?

my definition of a PC would most certainly include how they were played; earlier in the argument, when it suited your goals, you were more than happy to jump all over how the NPC/DMPCs were played.

now you backtrack because there is an example that fits your earlier definition that you don't care for.


I invite you to see the difference between any relevant NPC, any sloppy or well put together PC or any DMPC, or explain in which way the build process differs such that it applies to all situations without overlap. You can build literally any character type using any method. There is no "PC build process" that is used for PCs, no "NPC" build process used only for NPCs.

quite true. but that does not mean that there are not variations, and that does not mean that there are not general characteristics.

which screws your earlier arguments that they are all the same.

one of the characteristics of a PC in my book is that it is created and played more in depth than other characters.

look over almost any definition that has been produced on this thread, and you'll see similarities there; i am not the only one that thinks this.

[you, earlier]: "this is not a DMPC because it is not played like one; it isn't making the critical decisions, and isn't sharing the spotlight; therefore, it is an NPC."

[you, now]: "this is not a DMPC because all characters, PC, NPC, DMPC, and otherwise, are created and played the same, so it does not matter."


I never really claimed to know when precisely it moves from one category to another, much like I won't try to define what temperature "hot" starts at. I'm simply pointing out that switching player roles changes the nature of the character, partly because of effort the DM has to use running things, metagame knowledge, and differences between actions used against each of the party members by DM controlled NPC monsters or encounters.

hence the difference between PCs, NPCs, and DMPCs.


I'm talking about your definition, and as written, it's a poor definition because any contribution at all ascends the NPC in the party into a PC or DMPC.

you have yet to see my definition. all you have seen is a few examples that fit my definition. you're still trying to dictate to me what i think, and it doesn't work.


I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm simply stating that your definition is bad. You asked for my opinion, and my opinion is that it's too inclusive by an inability to clearly define the scope and type of contribution given.

you don't know my definition. i have not written it out for you.

what you are doing is saying that 100%, across the board, contribution does not mean anything. what i am telling you is that it does. it doesn't in and of itself define the character, but it is a part of the definition.

not to mention the fact that you were among those earlier arguing that DMPCs are bad because of how much contributing they do.


Just to quote you on this point again:

look closely:


i'm not sure what you are getting at here, but yes, the presence of any volume of RP does influence whether or not it is a PC or a DMPC or an NPC, and you yourself were one of the ones claiming that earlier in the conversation if i remember right: "one of the problems of DMPCs is that they detract from the PCs."

i italicized it last time, but apparently that was not enough––it's bolded now.

it does influence. it does not by itself define.

are you unable to understand this? do you still disagree with it?


RP volume does not indicate anything. RP type may, and RP focus may, but by sheer volume, you can't gauge whether or not something is a DMPC or NPC or a PC.

the presence or absence of a spinal column might not define a species as a cat, but it certainly does narrow down the possibilities.

take a dozen or more of those key components, and you just might prove that the animal you are studying is a cat.


See? You say it here again. I can RP a plot NPC that will never join the party, won't join the party, and whom could never be a party member who would firmly not be a PC. I could equivalently play a PC that doesn't RP much, where I give my opinion OOC, and assume that it was RPed in character somehow. (Bad RPing, but it's still something I see done.)

"indicator;" "part of my definition." is this really that confusing. never said anything about the idea that it makes 100% proof.

to your example: great. then that character does or does not count as a PC because of a whole slew of factors, not just quality and quantity of rp. that would be why i listed quite a few factors, that together, can make up a PC.


Too many logic courses, where any definition can and will be used literally. Yours literally includes a shrub that happens to be in the party that helped inspire the bard to write a poem which he sings in the next encounter and is watered in return.

no, not even remotely.

if, however, that bush is rolled up, outfitted, backstory-ed, played, rewarded, challenged, and a whole plethora of other things, like a PC, then yes, it is a PC.

hopefully it would be a mobile, sentient one, or it might not be that fun, but i've seen weirder things...

but no, i am not in any way arguing that a normal bush, doing bushy things (nothing), is a PC, even if it might happen to have inspired a bard once.

either way, your hyperbolic example is still missing something, because you are only concentrating on one definition at a time, instead of taking it in as a whole.


Tyndmyr says hogging. I state that merely taking it is sufficient to be irritating. Especially when it is strictly unecessary in all situations.


Quit using the word "hogging", when I've never used the term except in response to others who have used it as my argument.

if it makes you feel better, i will reference your arguments with, "takes sufficient to be irritating," or something along those lines.

either way, you can't claim with any sort of logical accuracy that it is "strictly unnecessary in all situations."

your continued use of generalizations only further proves that you don't understand the difference between your own opinion, and the reality of the world around you.


I don't believe I ever specified RP when I stated it takes time. In fact, I'm pretty certain that I explicitly state that it increases time in combat, unless EXP awards and monetary awards are diminished due to a larger division of rewards without altering CR.

then i will drop this in reference to you until i can go back and find who it was that was arguing it.


Of course I can't answer it, because you wrote a statement, not a question.

you're deflecting again. you can definitely answer a claim, an exclamation, a theory, or anything else.

"i can't answer your post because it isn't punctuated correctly," would be about as intelligent a deflection as you are making now.

you have certainly already answered dozens of points that i have made that were not in question form; i don't see it as traumatic or daunting that you should do so here.


I was however pointing out that stating that the DMPC hogs the treasure is spurious as a definition, because it's not a PC ability.

i'm not the one that used the phrase "hogging the treasure," in order to define a DMPC. that would be your allies, tynd, and whoever else was doing it way back on the single-digit pages.

your definition was apparently, "takes sufficient to be irritating," which amounts to the same thing, mood-wise, at the gaming table, i would wager.

but again, that is not my definition.

however, the acquirement of treasure certainly is a hallmark of a PC in d&d, more so than in most other roleplaying games that i have played, almost to the level that some of the computer "roleplaying" games are. and more so than it is for NPCs.

and one more time, because you seem to have problems with this, it is this way regardless of whether you agree or perceive it to be so.

in generalized terms, most NPCs own somewhere around their wealth-by-level, whereas, the PCs, if run long enough, will acquire much, much more than the standard wealth-by-level.

this obviously depends on the group, and yours certainly might not run that way, but you cannot intelligently dismiss the realities experienced by others simply based off of your own experience.


As stated earlier, anything grossly and illegally favoured by the DM, PC or DMPC, isn't a DMPC or a PC, it's a travesty.

agreed.

*****************************

to distill this down to a level that isn't just backtracking and forever trying to poke holes in earlier tangents:

your earlier arguments against some examples, Serpentine's in particular, were rejected by you because they did not act like PCs; did not make sufficient contributions either to decision-making, combat, etc.

correct? anything you'd like to add?

your current rejection of my example is based off of the idea that the contributions and development (both roleplay and creation) are not inherent to a PC.

correct? anything you'd like to add?

do you see the contradiction between your two arguments?


Frankly, I'm kinda amazed it's gone on this long. I thought we were abusin' the dead horse about ten pages back.

it was 22 pages back, actually.

[Serpentine]

your earlier arguments against some examples, Serpentine's in particular, were rejected by you because they did not act like PCs; did not make sufficient contributions either to decision-making, combat, etc.

correct? anything you'd like to add?

your current rejection of my example is based off of the idea that the contributions and development (both roleplay and creation) are not inherent to a PC.

correct? anything you'd like to add?

do you see the contradiction between your two arguments?Ah, good. I was going to respond to a particular point of his that you highlighted in your post, but you've just saved me the effort, thanks :smallsmile:
...
Ah, what the Hell.

RP volume does not indicate anything. RP type may, and RP focus may, but by sheer volume, you can't gauge whether or not something is a DMPC or NPC or a PC.Earlier - and repeated not very long ago at all - you rejected my character as a DMPC solely and exclusively on the basis of roleplay volume. If you now reject roleplay volume as a DMPC/NPC factor, then you must reneg on your earlier dismissal or be direly inconsistent.

[Yukitsu]

Earlier - and repeated not very long ago at all - you rejected my character as a DMPC solely and exclusively on the basis of roleplay volume. If you now reject roleplay volume as a DMPC/NPC factor, then you must reneg on your earlier dismissal or be direly inconsistent.

Please quote where this is stated, as I recall it, I stated your example was not a PC on account of it not participating, and not helping direct the party or make choices.

RP does not=participating, does not=decision making, does not=being a party member. Stop equivocating those terms.

[pres_man]

To further clarify, roleplaying =/= roleplaying. :smallcool:

[Yukitsu]

no, i'm not missing the point. i am not agreeing with you; there is a difference.

quite a few characters that are not played as PCs are made quickly, with no backstories, with no thought to overall goals (besides whatever their current role is in the 3-round encounter, and that's it), etc.

this often includes even boss NPCs.

That also includes PCs.


it does vary by group, but that is the whole point. because it varies by group, it is worth noting. if you don't think it is worth noting, great. i'm not trying to dictate to you what your definition should be. i'd appreciate the same consideration.

It doesn't even just vary by group. It will vary by character, even in the same campaign run by the same individual.


some NPCs are made using only the 10 questions sketch, and work quite fine.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19713850/The_Ten-Minute_Background--Post_your_characters!

Some PCs are made with that and a character sheet. Assuming the character is of any relevance, which I mentioned as a notable caveat, you'll want the sketch and a character sheet for the NPC as well.

Not all PCs, even made by the same individual are going to be artistic masterpieces which required eons of time and effort. Sometimes, an individual only has the time or desire for a short character sketch, and doing such a process does not suddenly render him "Not a PC."


others are made with ten pages of fiction to go along with them. neither one is a wrong answer, and some PCs are still well-made even if using only a rough idea of a background.

despite your experience to the contrary.

I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. I have explicitly said that either a PC or an NPC can be built in either way. You are the one stating that they are built in different and non-overlapping ways.


true. that is why i told you that this is a subjective process with subjective definitions. it is not universal, no matter how much you want it to be.

Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. There's simply no correct way to differentiate between a relevant NPC build and a PC build.


well, now it has been clarified; the creation process can be quite different.

Yes, but my point is that no creation process can apply only to PCs.


where was this "exact" definition given? i am telling you that you haven't seen an exact definition given by me. do you really want to keep arguing that?

Lostfang's definitions back on page 21 or so, which you for some reason have decided to flame me over during the course of my criticism of it.


so you left something out in your definition, according to me. i added something in that doesn't need to be there, according to you.

so what?

fact is that the basis of this conversation is––once again––subjective. before we go any farther, are you still denying that?

Of course I deny subjectivity. Subjective as to where the boundary is, but the nature of a DMPC as a "DM's PC" is not, in my mind at all subjective.


my definition of a PC would most certainly include how they were played; earlier in the argument, when it suited your goals, you were more than happy to jump all over how the NPC/DMPCs were played.

now you backtrack because there is an example that fits your earlier definition that you don't care for.

That's simply put, not my definition.


quite true. but that does not mean that there are not variations, and that does not mean that there are not general characteristics.

which screws your earlier arguments that they are all the same.

Please provide a quote indicating that I said that.


one of the characteristics of a PC in my book is that it is created and played more in depth than other characters.

look over almost any definition that has been produced on this thread, and you'll see similarities there; i am not the only one that thinks this.

What do you mean by "depth"? If you mean is played more often, certainly true. However, I disagree that anyone has said that a PC must have been created in a more in depth manner than an NPC except for you.


[you, earlier]: "this is not a DMPC because it is not played like one; it isn't making the critical decisions, and isn't sharing the spotlight; therefore, it is an NPC."

[you, now]: "this is not a DMPC because all characters, PC, NPC, DMPC, and otherwise, are created and played the same, so it does not matter."

Please quote where I have recently stated that they are "played" identically. I am merely stating that the creation process between them all is identical, and that the statement "It's a PC because that's how I built it" is useless.


you have yet to see my definition. all you have seen is a few examples that fit my definition. you're still trying to dictate to me what i think, and it doesn't work.

You're rather vehemently arguing in favour of Lostfang's definition, so I would assume that you are using it as well.


you don't know my definition. i have not written it out for you.

what you are doing is saying that 100%, across the board, contribution does not mean anything. what i am telling you is that it does. it doesn't in and of itself define the character, but it is a part of the definition.

not to mention the fact that you were among those earlier arguing that DMPCs are bad because of how much contributing they do.

I explicitly stated that the word "contributing" is useless because it could mean anything from opening a can of soup to defeating the BBEG, all his henchmen, and raising your children. Contributing when defined or clarified and not in isolation as a part of a definition does in fact mean something.


i italicized it last time, but apparently that was not enough––it's bolded now.

it does influence. it does not by itself define.

are you unable to understand this? do you still disagree with it?

Of course I disagree with it. NPCs can roleplay as much as half the time, NPCs getting half, and PCs getting the other half. Either side may RP less due to some preference, and you'll also get people like me who usually don't RP, instead saying "My character will try to do X", or "My character says Y". The nature of what RP there is may be influenced by PC or NPC status, but volume can and will vary by player, DM and character to such a degree that if I put the minutes of RP time for each character, you'd not have any correlation between their statuses and RP time. At all.


the presence or absence of a spinal column might not define a species as a cat, but it certainly does narrow down the possibilities.

take a dozen or more of those key components, and you just might prove that the animal you are studying is a cat.

And yet "spine" doesn't appear to be in the definition of a cat. It just says mammal instead, as that includes those parts that are shared by all mammals. Kind of like how RP time is shared between all classes of character types, forcing us to rely on what makes them different or unique for a definition.


"indicator;" "part of my definition." is this really that confusing. never said anything about the idea that it makes 100% proof.

to your example: great. then that character does or does not count as a PC because of a whole slew of factors, not just quality and quantity of rp. that would be why i listed quite a few factors, that together, can make up a PC.

Right, but I'm not agreeing that that is a factor. It can only be called a "factor" if it can be proven as a differentiating point between all of them to a statistically significant degree, and I don't believe you can do so in this instance.


no, not even remotely.

if, however, that bush is rolled up, outfitted, backstory-ed, played, rewarded, challenged, and a whole plethora of other things, like a PC, then yes, it is a PC.

hopefully it would be a mobile, sentient one, or it might not be that fun, but i've seen weirder things...

but no, i am not in any way arguing that a normal bush, doing bushy things (nothing), is a PC, even if it might happen to have inspired a bard once.

either way, your hyperbolic example is still missing something, because you are only concentrating on one definition at a time, instead of taking it in as a whole.

Definitions, by definition, are analyzed individually, or with the group that they are labelled under as opposed to considering multiple unlrelated categorizations.


if it makes you feel better, i will reference your arguments with, "takes sufficient to be irritating," or something along those lines.

either way, you can't claim with any sort of logical accuracy that it is "strictly unnecessary in all situations."

your continued use of generalizations only further proves that you don't understand the difference between your own opinion, and the reality of the world around you.

Then why has no one stated a time when they were actually necessary? People have said party balance, but many DMs don't require a balanced party anyway. Their games don't crash and burn, so obviously a lack of a party rogue isn't a reason for a DMPC. Some have said for plot, but those plot individuals need not be party members (and many of those wouldn't qualify as PCs anyway.) So when would they be essential?


i'm not the one that used the phrase "hogging the treasure," in order to define a DMPC. that would be your allies, tynd, and whoever else was doing it way back on the single-digit pages.

However, it does "answer" your statement.


your definition was apparently, "takes sufficient to be irritating," which amounts to the same thing, mood-wise, at the gaming table, i would wager.

I do not define DMPC in that manner, as it may not be the taking in and of itself that is annoying.


however, the acquirement of treasure certainly is a hallmark of a PC in d&d, more so than in most other roleplaying games that i have played, almost to the level that some of the computer "roleplaying" games are. and more so than it is for NPCs.

Correct. Any individual who partakes in treasure and EXP rewards is very likely a PC of sorts, even if they aren't taking annoying volumes.


and one more time, because you seem to have problems with this, it is this way regardless of whether you agree or perceive it to be so.

in generalized terms, most NPCs own somewhere around their wealth-by-level, whereas, the PCs, if run long enough, will acquire much, much more than the standard wealth-by-level.

this obviously depends on the group, and yours certainly might not run that way, but you cannot intelligently dismiss the realities experienced by others simply based off of your own experience.

The reality of the situation is, that has nothing to do with my arguments. At all.


to distill this down to a level that isn't just backtracking and forever trying to poke holes in earlier tangents:

your earlier arguments against some examples, Serpentine's in particular, were rejected by you because they did not act like PCs; did not make sufficient contributions either to decision-making, combat, etc.

correct? anything you'd like to add?

That's about right. I'd add that I'm not positive in this instance what sufficient contribution would be, so I'd not put it into a formal definition.


your current rejection of my example is based off of the idea that the contributions and development (both roleplay and creation) are not inherent to a PC.

correct? anything you'd like to add?

Incorrect. I am only stating that character creation is identical between the different classes of character types, and RP volume. Contributions to decision making, RP type, development may indicate PC/NPCness, but not RP volume and not creation processes.


do you see the contradiction between your two arguments?

No, because I'm not adding additional terms to the categories of identical that I've so far used.

[Yukitsu]

To further clarify, roleplaying =/= roleplaying. :smallcool:

While I suspect you think you're being clever, you're not.

Participating can be a part of roleplaying, but not all participating is roleplaying. Ergo, roleplaying is participating, but participating is not roleplaying. As such, they are not equivalent terms. Similar logic behind the other terms.

[pres_man]

While I suspect you think you're being clever, you're not.

Participating can be a part of roleplaying, but not all participating is roleplaying. Ergo, roleplaying is participating, but participating is not roleplaying. As such, they are not equivalent terms. Similar logic behind the other terms.

Perhaps your definition of roleplaying is just too narrow.

[Solaris]

Perhaps your definition of roleplaying is just too narrow.

I'm inclined to agree. How on Earth can a fictional character interact with other fictional characters in a way that can't be described as roleplaying? Heck, even combat is a form of low-grade RP.

[Sipex]

You know you could come up with undeniable proof that you're right and Yukitsu will just say you're wrong and then come up with some answer that you'll argue about for 2 pages.

I'd say this was settled several pages back with "It depends on the DM, there are good DMPCs and bad DMPCs"

[Solaris]

You know you could come up with undeniable proof that you're right and Yukitsu will just say you're wrong and then come up with some answer that you'll argue about for 2 pages.

I'd say this was settled several pages back with "It depends on the DM, there are good DMPCs and bad DMPCs"

Well, yeah, but it's fun to watch him do it. Like I said, this horse was dead ten pages back.

[Yukitsu]

Perhaps your definition of roleplaying is just too narrow.

If by "your definition" you mean the dictionary one, where it simply states that you assume the role of the entity you are intending to pretend to be, then sure, it's too narrow to include doing anything at all.


You know you could come up with undeniable proof that you're right and Yukitsu will just say you're wrong and then come up with some answer that you'll argue about for 2 pages.

The exact same can be said for pretty much everyone else, not just me. I would likely stop if people stopped equivocating my terms.

[Xenogears]

If by "your definition" you mean the dictionary one, where it simply states that you assume the role of the entity you are intending to pretend to be, then sure, it's too narrow to include doing anything at all.

So how exactly do you participate then? I mean anything your character does is a form of RPing. So that only leaves OOC actions. Is that the form of participation you mean? Munching the Cheetos?

[Yukitsu]

Die rolling is not an action where you assume the role of the individual you are portraying, yet can, depending on the situation, facilitate the movement of the game, nor are OOC actions such as "My character does X", nor is planning out loud for the benefit of the others then saying "We agree on plan Y.

[Xenogears]

Die rolling is not an action where you assume the role of the individual you are portraying, yet can, depending on the situation, facilitate the movement of the game, nor are OOC actions such as "My character does X", nor is planning out loud for the benefit of the others then saying "We agree on plan Y.

Unless you are rolling dice for no reason you are using them to gauge the success of an IC action. That is roleplaying. So is saying "my character does X." The OOC planning is helping you decide your future IC actions. So it planning for your RPing. Technically not RPing I suppose.

[Yukitsu]

If you want to redefine all of those things such that they fall under "
1 : to act out the role of " which frankly they don't, then sure, you could argue that anything at the table is roleplaying. However, resolution of IC actions through OOC means where you do not "act out the role of " your character does not fit the precise definition of the term. Neither does rolling dice to determing your results. Neither does OOC planning or decision making.

[Stycotl]

That also includes PCs.

it can include PCs, but it is not an inherent quality of them (none of this is, and that is one of my major points). the point is that it is different for every kind of character, in every group, in every game, by every player or DM.

on average, there are qualities that separate NPCs from PCs from DMPCs.


It doesn't even just vary by group. It will vary by character, even in the same campaign run by the same individual.

true. i'm not arguing against that.


Some PCs are made with that and a character sheet. Assuming the character is of any relevance, which I mentioned as a notable caveat, you'll want the sketch and a character sheet for the NPC as well.

Not all PCs, even made by the same individual are going to be artistic masterpieces which required eons of time and effort. Sometimes, an individual only has the time or desire for a short character sketch, and doing such a process does not suddenly render him "Not a PC."

i don't know what your point is here, except to bolster my own argument.

you are the one that is trying to convince me that my PC is not a PC. once again, i will say that none of these definitions work for every group or every game.

similar to the possession of merely a sketchy background, the change in status from player to DM does not suddenly render his player character "not a PC."

sure, it is now an NPC, but it can still have every defining characteristic of a PC except that it is played by a DM instead of a player.

hence, DMPC.

a PC is a character controlled by a player.

an NPC is a character controlled by a DM.

i am pretty sure that we agree with those definitions so far. if not, here is what wikipedia says about the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_character


A player character or playable character (PC) is a character in a video game or role playing game who is controlled or controllable by a player, and is typically a protagonist of the story told in the course of the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-player_character


A non-player character, often shortened to NPC, is a character that is controlled by the gamemaster in role-playing games.

if a DM controls a character, it is an NPC, pure and simple. however, sometimes that NPC crosses over into DMPC territory.

still agreeing with me?

where i think you disagree, as do saph, tynd, and some others, is the conditions that make it cross into DMPC territory.

some of us are saying that once a DM treats a character like a PC, and stops treating it purely like an NPC, then it becomes a DMPC.

what you guys are saying is pretty much the same thing, except that you do not recognize the positive or neutral aspects that can contribute to it becoming a DMPC. you only recognize the negative.

if the NPC is run well, but still levels up with the party, still gets its equal share of the treasure, still contributes to decision-making, combat, and general rp as much of the rest of you, it is still an NPC by your definition, so long as you remain content.

the moment that you become irritated by that NPC, you label it as a DMPC.

therefore, we cannot have an intelligent conversation about the subject because you still refuse to recognize alternate definitions. and by "recognize," i do not mean embrace or convert. i mean understand and admit that there are varying opinions out there, on a very subjective topic.


I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. I have explicitly said that either a PC or an NPC can be built in either way. You are the one stating that they are built in different and non-overlapping ways.

i have never said anything of the sort. your refusal to listen to or acknowledge opinions other than your own or those agreeing with you might have something to do with this confusion.


Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. There's simply no correct way to differentiate between a relevant NPC build and a PC build.

there are correct ways that depend on the defining factors of the game and the group playing it.

that makes it subjective. duh.


Of course I deny subjectivity. Subjective as to where the boundary is, but the nature of a DMPC as a "DM's PC" is not, in my mind at all subjective.

even using your own posts alone, your definition of DMPC seems very subjective. if it is still a benefit to the game, you don't define it as a DMPC. if it is annoying and not pulling its weight (or pulling too much weight), you label it a DMPC without a thought.


That's simply put, not my definition.

you say that now, but you admitted even in this post that you rejected serpentine's character as a DMPC because of the way it was played.

certainly seems a crucial part of your definition to the rest of us.


Please provide a quote indicating that I said that.


There is literally no difference in the creation process of an NPC, a PC, an encounter or a DMPC insofar as I can tell.

creation: check.


RP volume does not indicate anything. RP type may, and RP focus may, but by sheer volume, you can't gauge whether or not something is a DMPC or NPC or a PC.

rp volume: check.

the rest of your quotes are open to interpretation, and it is possible that they are being misunderstood––you inconsistently address things directly, so it makes it difficult to gauge with certainty. however, your entire argument seems to fall into this trap, and the direct quotes taken for creation and rp volume were just a portion of your thesis as to why there is no difference between my characters as PCs and as NPCs.


What do you mean by "depth"? If you mean is played more often, certainly true. However, I disagree that anyone has said that a PC must have been created in a more in depth manner than an NPC except for you.

again, volume has something to do with it. but quality and intent are also lumped in there under depth as well.


Please quote where I have recently stated that they are "played" identically. I am merely stating that the creation process between them all is identical, and that the statement "It's a PC because that's how I built it" is useless.

no, you have been arguing against my examples of both how they were created and played. big difference.


I explicitly stated that the word "contributing" is useless because it could mean anything from opening a can of soup to defeating the BBEG, all his henchmen, and raising your children. Contributing when defined or clarified and not in isolation as a part of a definition does in fact mean something.

in my case, i made it pretty clear what the contributions were, and detailed that they were different than the contributions of NPCs in the same games.


Of course I disagree with it.

seriously?

your argument is that there is no difference, ever, anywhere, between the amount of roleplaying done by PCs and NPCs? you are trying to tell me that it doesn't even influence it. right...

at the risk of being repetitive, your life experience does not determine the realities of the rest of us.

you are arguing that it doesn't happen, therefore it cannot define. in order to do that, you would have to successfully argue that it doesn't happen in the rest of the games across the plant that you have never attended.

all i am saying is that it does help define it in some cases, whether or not you have witnessed it.


NPCs can roleplay as much as half the time, NPCs getting half, and PCs getting the other half. Either side may RP less due to some preference, and you'll also get people like me who usually don't RP, instead saying "My character will try to do X", or "My character says Y".

interesting the number of subjective qualifiers in there.


The nature of what RP there is may be influenced by PC or NPC status, but volume can and will vary by player, DM and character to such a degree that if I put the minutes of RP time for each character, you'd not have any correlation between their statuses and RP time.

so, in your experience, quality of rp can be influenced by character type, but not quantity.

i really don't have anything to say except that your experience is pretty limited.


At all.

doubtful.

i'd say that it is a safe wager that your group's NPCs average about the same rp as most groups, that is to say a lot less than even the most stingily rp-ed PC.

it is funny though, that a big part of your argument seems to be that your group and your personal playing style are so different than the rest of the world:

in my group, PCs, NPCs, and DMPCs are all built the same way [meaning everything is completely interchangeable and used with the same frequency], 100% of the time, are all played the same, 100% of the time, are all challenged the same, 100% of the time, are all rewarded the same, 100% of the time, and everything else about them is always 100% the same. therefore, we set the standard for every other group across the face of the planet.

and before you jump on me and say, "i never said *always,* you'll just be proving my point. if it is not always, then there is variance. if there is variance, there is pattern. if there is pattern, there is precedent for categorization and definition.


Right, but I'm not agreeing that that is a factor. It can only be called a "factor" if it can be proven as a differentiating point between all of them to a statistically significant degree, and I don't believe you can do so in this instance.

i can only shrug and nod my head at this; that you think that quality and quantity of rp has *nothing* to do with the differences between character types.


And yet "spine" doesn't appear to be in the definition of a cat. It just says mammal instead, as that includes those parts that are shared by all mammals. Kind of like how RP time is shared between all classes of character types, forcing us to rely on what makes them different or unique for a definition.

actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat


The cat... ...is a small carnivorous mammal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal


Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate


Vertebrates are members of the subphylum Vertebrata, chordates with backbones or spinal columns...

yeah, it is in the definition. this is pretty basic biology, there, yuk. i am hoping that you were trying to be sarcastic or something, and that you really did know that a spinal cord is definitely in the definition for a species of cat.


Definitions, by definition, are analyzed individually, or with the group that they are labelled under as opposed to considering multiple unlrelated categorizations.

bull.

going back to biology, not every cat has a spinal cord, despite the fact that they are vertebrate species. do biologists throw out individual cats because they were born without a spinal cord? no, they analyze the rest of the *very easily related* evidence and proclaim that it is still a cat.

the singular piece of evidence has to make sense when it is incorporated into the whole of the discipline. if it does not, then there is something wrong with either that singular piece of evidence, or the entire discipline.

note also that the defining characteristics of a cat include "mammal," "vertebrate," etc. those would not be qualifiable defining characteristics if they all had to be definable by themselves.

this isn't even elementary biology; this is all of the way down to basic scientific method.


Lostfang's definitions back on page 21 or so, which you for some reason have decided to flame me over during the course of my criticism of it.


You're rather vehemently arguing in favour of Lostfang's definition, so I would assume that you are using it as well.

i have yet to read one of lostfang's definitions since the first one that he posted, and i have not even once given it my stamp of approval.

nice try.

further, i have not flamed you at all. disagreeing with you (if that is the case; honestly i don't even know which post you are referring to) is not flaming.

if you feel that i did flame you, then i would expect you to have the gumption to report me to the mods. notice that i am still here, without infraction, and without edited posts.


Then why has no one stated a time when they were actually necessary?

irrelevant frankly (though that was the jist of my entire post regarding my very necessary DMPC situation). you are trying to disprove the existence of situations that you were not there to witness. further, you are trying to disprove something to begin with.

doesn't work that way.

in my case, in order to play a one-on-one game, where both of us still felt like we were getting to play, rotating PCs and DMPCs was the best fit. therefore, DMPCs were necessary.

here come you and tynd, "but you could have done it this other way..." ad nauseam.

the point is that DMPCing your PC when it was your turn to DM was the best fit for the kind of game that we wanted. you can't really disprove that in any way, but feel free to continue trying.


People have said party balance, but many DMs don't require a balanced party anyway. Their games don't crash and burn, so obviously a lack of a party rogue isn't a reason for a DMPC. Some have said for plot, but those plot individuals need not be party members (and many of those wouldn't qualify as PCs anyway.) So when would they be essential?

when that is what the group (including DM) wants. period. there is no getting around this. even if they could solve things your way, that does not mean that it would work for them, or that it would work as well for them, or that they would all like it even if it did.


Correct. Any individual who partakes in treasure and EXP rewards is very likely a PC of sorts, even if they aren't taking annoying volumes.

holy crap, we have a concession of sorts!

you just defined it for me.

player = more likely to receive treasure/xp awards in d&d.

there is my influencing factor. it still does not define a PC, because i have certainly run NPCs that gained xp and treasure, but it is a solid foot to begin building a definition.


That's about right. I'd add that I'm not positive in this instance what sufficient contribution would be, so I'd not put it into a formal definition.

you had better be more positive than that; it was you that rejected her character because of contributions. therefore, you had better know what it is that you are accepting and rejecting.

i don't expect a clearly delineated definition; i myself don't have one befitting a dictionary (despite your repeated claims to the contrary). but i do expect you to be able to rationalize at least somewhat the decision you made without contradicting yourself every couple of words.


Incorrect. I am only stating that character creation is identical between the different classes of character types, and RP volume. Contributions to decision making, RP type, development may indicate PC/NPCness, but not RP volume and not creation processes.

first of all, another concession.

second of all, bull. you specifically rejected my examples entirely, including the contributions, etc.


No, because I'm not adding additional terms to the categories of identical that I've so far used.

"not a PC because it doesn't contribute."

"not a PC because contribution does not matter."

you can't have it both ways, dude. pick one and stick with it.

[Serpentine]

Please quote where this is stated, as I recall it, I stated your example was not a PC on account of it not participating, and not helping direct the party or make choices.

RP does not=participating, does not=decision making, does not=being a party member. Stop equivocating those terms.Participating and decision making are forms of roleplaying. At least, they are in my game. You said that my character was not a DMPC because they were not doing these enough, and because you considered "tending to the background" to be not roleplaying.


She has done her job - "get hit so others don't" - admirably, and has been the source of at least two quests (including the main one). She does not dominate the limelight. She is not uber-powerful. She does not get all the treasure. The treasure is not custom-made for her. She is near the bottom end of experience. She does not lead the party by the nose, although she may, if the party gets stuck, dispense a clue or two ("hey, what's this over here?"). She is not the face, or the ideas-man, or the big hitter. She is, if anything, the meat-shield, a role it does not appear anyone else wants to play. She is liked, although the fact I don't roleplay her much has been lamented a few times.So in essence, it's not really much of a presence at all, and is basically a small boost to party HP as a whole. I'll be honest that unless you're exaggerating her lack of input into everything, that I'd not consider that a PC.
You see, it's been stated repeatedly that she doesn't really contribute. She doesn't add skills, she doesn't heal, doesn't kill things, and just soaks a bit of damage here and there, or moves the plot along by pointing out things that you could have resolved by stating "Character X notices thing Y." Most importantly, it seems she doesn't decide what the party will do.You have decreed that because I don't do various things - many of which are forms of roleplay - enough, according to your own criteria, she is not a DMPC. As far as you are concerned, less than usual/my other characters/my players' characters is equivalent to none. You have made volume of roleplay a factor of DMPCs.

By the way, regarding the gripe that "contributes"/"X term" is not defined in my definition, Dictionaries Do Not Work That Way. That way lies infinite recursion. Go through your dictionary, find the definition for "contributes", and find the one that fits the best in context - like you would for any dictionary definition.

[Ormagoden]

I see now that I have been absent in this thread much too long as it seems to have derailed in its original intent.

I've read over the posts and sadly I see many things repeated yet again.
Putting my disappointment about this and the dismay at our poor definition being neglected and changed with bias; I further ask for comments on my last proposed definitions.




DMPC Dungeon Master Player Character
n 1 A character run by a Dungeon Master that is a member of a party, contributes to party actions, discussions and decisions, and takes a share of the rewards.

Does this seem too specific or should I return it to my original definition...

DMPC

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that advances with and is a member of the adventuring party.


Or how about this


DMPC

1. A character under the control of the dungeon master that acts as a full member of the adventuring party.

Is "acts as a full member of the adventuring party" too broad? Does everyone assume naturally that a "full member of the party" Contributes to combat, planning, ideas, and conversation. And also takes part of the reward? Or is it to vague or assuming that anyone reading the definition will understand what a "full member of the party" is?

Thoughts?


Sadly there were no responses to the above posed definitions. I would gladly hear from all trains of thought on this topic.

EDIT* Just in case some have forgotten I am in search of our first neutral definition of DMPC. I'm not looking to simply label it one thing and be done with it. I fully intend to represent the "DMPCs are awesome" and the "Kill it with fire" Camps along with our neutral definition.

[Yukitsu]

I see now that I have been absent in this thread much too long as it seems to have derailed in its original intent.

I've read over the posts and sadly I see many things repeated yet again.
Putting my disappointment about this and the dismay at our poor definition being neglected and changed with bias; I further ask for comments on my last proposed definitions.

Sadly there were no responses to the above posed definitions. I would gladly hear from all trains of thought on this topic.

EDIT* Just in case some have forgotten I am in search of our first neutral definition of DMPC. I'm not looking to simply label it one thing and be done with it. I fully intend to represent the "DMPCs are awesome" and the "Kill it with fire" Camps along with our neutral definition.

I pointed out the problems with your definition a while back. I'm currently arguing about it with Stycotl. I stated:


They are far too inclusive, as any hireling, cohort or follower will fall into all of your categorizations, unless the DM lets the PC control the cohorts/followers, as opposed to RP his orders. Of them, the first is probably best, but does unfortunately include the afforementioned, because the presence of any volume of RP does not a PC make.

Also, almost all of Stycotl's latest post can be summed up by me pointing out that he posted
Originally Posted by Stycotl
they were made as characters. period. no ifs, ands, or buts about it, and no getting around it. that is strike one against your claim.

To which my argument, there is no such thing as "created as a (player character)" argument is directed. His statement that I've quoted in full absolutely requires that there be differentials between character creations by type, which I'm arguing against, and he is now claiming he is also arguing against, and that I am arguing for them.

[Ormagoden]

They are far too inclusive, as any hireling, cohort or follower will fall into all of your categorizations, unless the DM lets the PC control the cohorts/followers, as opposed to RP his orders. Of them, the first is probably best, but does unfortunately include the afforementioned, because the presence of any volume of RP does not a PC make.

Hirlings, cohorts, and followers...

I've seen cohorts run by Players and DMs although that becomes irrelevant when you review the cohort rules. They don't get a share of the reward they don't count as a party member when determining the party's XP.

Hirlings aren't part of the party by definition as you are paying them to do something for you they don't get part of the reward.

Followers are DM run I'll give you that but they also don't get part of the reward...

So none of the things you mentioned falls into the definition at all. Sorry.



To which my argument, there is no such thing as "created as a (player character)" argument is directed. His statement that I've quoted in full absolutely requires that there be differentials between character creations by type, which I'm arguing against, and he is now claiming he is also arguing against, and that I am arguing for them.

I think "why a character is created" is a really poor foundation to prove a point. Why a character is created, its purpose, and its use can all change mid-stride.

I've been in a game where someone was taking extra long to generate a PC heard us all roleplaying and heard the description of a NPC ally and simply dropped their pen and said "can I play that guy? This is taking too long!" At which point the DM simply passed over the sheet and said "your father sent you to find these adventurers he needs their help in finding your missing sister." Does that example make sense? or am I misunderstanding the basis for your discussion with Stycotl?

[Yukitsu]

Hirlings, cohorts, and followers...

I've seen cohorts run by Players and DMs although that becomes irrelevant when you review the cohort rules. They don't get a share of the reward they don't count as a party member when determining the party's XP.


Yes, so the definition must change "reward" to "XP" and "wealth". They can in fact be rewarded (often times taking an item that would benefit them, but no other party member. They also gain XP just on the laurel of the PC gaining XP, but that's not much of a point otherwise.)


Hirlings aren't part of the party by definition as you are paying them to do something for you they don't get part of the reward.

Then you have to say "XP" and "wealth" and you have to state that they cannot be paid or hired by the party, which I don't fully agree with.


Followers are DM run I'll give you that but they also don't get part of the reward...

Amend reward to "XP" and "wealth". Or perhaps "treasure". Hard to get the precise term here.

Edit: Correction, hirelings do in fact get XP rewards.


I think "why a character is created" is a really poor foundation to prove a point. Why a character is created, its purpose, and its use can all change mid-stride.

I've been in a game where someone was taking extra long to generate a PC heard us all roleplaying and heard the description of a NPC ally and simply dropped their pen and said "can I play that guy? This is taking too long!" At which point the DM simply passed over the sheet and said "your father sent you to find these adventurers he needs their help in finding your missing sister." Does that example make sense? or am I misunderstanding the basis for your discussion with Stycotl?

Yeah, that's my exact point. Any character, PC, NPC or DMPC can be done in the same way. There's no such thing as "created as a PC character." that differentiates them, because you can immediately change its role, even if it was intended to be played another way, or you could make a PC in the "NPC" way.

[Serpentine]

"Rewards" aren't always XP and wealth. I think "reward" is a perfectly appropriate term - it includes XP, treasure, plot points, specific items, roleplay opportunities, and anything else considered a reward for encounter completion and/or roleplaying.

Also, it's my understanding that "created as a PC character" does not mean "created using the exact same mechanics as PCs as opposed to any other character" (which, as pointed out, may, depending on the game, be meaningless, as all significant characters are created the same way, or the same sorts of characters created different ways), so much as "created as though that person were playing the character as a PC, including mechanics, wealth, roleplay background and expectations, avatarism, and so on". To put it another way, it's about intent, not method.

[pres_man]

Edit: Correction, hirelings do in fact get XP rewards.

Interesting.

HIRELINGS
Unlike cohorts, ... Thus, even if they go on an adventure with the PCs, they gain no experience and do not affect calculations involving the party level.

But you know, it is not like it is a rule or anything. Just fluff text.


If by "your definition" you mean the dictionary one, where it simply states that you assume the role of the entity you are intending to pretend to be, then sure, it's too narrow to include doing anything at all.

Actually I was more thinking of the dictionary definition that says:

Roleplay
transitive verb
1 : to act out the role of
2 : to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>
intransitive verb
: to play a role

Technically, if you limit the definition to yours, "you assume the role of the entity you are intending to pretend to be", then perhaps only LARPerS would qualify as roleplayers for gaming purposes.

[Tyndmyr]

The xp issue is one reason that hirelings are generally quite distinct from DMPCs. The other is that the players are in the drivers seat. I mean...they hire them, they fire them. Simple as that.

Hirelings also do not come with crazy gear. If the players want the hirelings to be uber, they need to outfit them.

[pres_man]

Hirelings also do not come with crazy gear. If the players want the hirelings to be uber, they need to outfit them.

Wait just one gosh-darn second right there. I thought there was no rule difference in wealth between NPCs and PCs, are you now suggesting that there is?

[arguskos]

Wait just one gosh-darn second right there. I thought there was no rule difference in wealth between NPCs and PCs, are you now suggesting that there is?
Actually, there is such a rule. It's often overlooked, but NPCs technically have less money than PCs. Pg 127 of the DMG clarifies it with a handy table. :smallcool:

[Tyndmyr]

Wait just one gosh-darn second right there. I thought there was no rule difference in wealth between NPCs and PCs, are you now suggesting that there is?

Hirelings are a specific type of NPC. They have specific rules saying that you have to equip them...they don't come with all the stuff a PC of that level would have via WBL. See, SBG.

The reason for this is obvious. Otherwise...I spend a few gold to bring in Fighter McChump, spend his money on gear I want for my character...oh look, he *somehow* died. Looting, ho!

Cohorts are also NPCs, arguably, but they have special rules for them as well, making them distinct from hirelings. All NPCs and PCs do share the vast majority of rules yes, but some have their own special subsets. I don't believe I've ever said different, but if you want to conflate the arguments of all anti-DMPC people into some wierd mish-mash, go ahead.

[Serpentine]

I don't believe I've ever said different, but if you want to conflate the arguments of all anti-DMPC people into some wierd mish-mash, go ahead.You mean like "most pro-DMPC people will ban particular character types"?

'ello Arguskos!


Hey, I've an idea. Perhaps we should start from the very beginning. See if we can agree on a set of criteria for what constitutes a Player Character? Not a definition, a set of features. Dot-point, sort of thing. Maybe two sets: essential features (e.g. "played by a player"), and probable or "one or more of the following" or similar non-essential (e.g. "makes plans"). I figure, if we're taking this so far, we may as well get a bit of organisation. Thoughts?

[arguskos]

You mean like "most pro-DMPC people will ban particular character types"?

'ello Arguskos!
1. Hello Serps. Haven't seen you around much, but I'm probably just looking in the wrong places. :smallwink:

2. My my, this thread is STILL going? Man, I thought it woulda died ages ago. Guess it didn't. :smallsigh:

3. I see we still don't have a clear definition of DMPC. Oh well.

[Tyndmyr]

And now they want to define PC.

It never ends.

PCs, you know them when you see them. It's the character who's sheet is in the grubby hands of that player. They tend to act in specific ways. They are very easy to spot when actually at a table.

[Serpentine]

"DMPCs, you know them when you see them. It's the character whose sheet is in the grubby hands of that Dungeon Master. They tend to act in specific ways. They are very easy to spot when actually at a table."

If the basic definition of DMPC is "a PC that's used by a DM", and we know what "DM" and "used by" means, yet we keep on arguing over what the definition means, then we need to at least come to an understanding of what exactly constitutes "PC".

Also, I'm a plural now? Wooo! =D

[Jayabalard]

And now they want to define PC.It really wouldn't have ever been a question if we hadn't had people saying "that's not a DMPC" as the only argument against examples of well run DMPC's... so really, you can blame the folks who kept trying to play the no true Scotsman card for this particular turn of the discussion.

[Yukitsu]

"Rewards" aren't always XP and wealth. I think "reward" is a perfectly appropriate term - it includes XP, treasure, plot points, specific items, roleplay opportunities, and anything else considered a reward for encounter completion and/or roleplaying.

My point is that by Lostfang's definition, cohorts, followers and hirelings have a strong chance of being tangently rewarded simply due to the fact that rewards can be so all encompassing. If he restricts it to treasure and XP, then those categories don't fall under the category of "rewarded".


Also, it's my understanding that "created as a PC character" does not mean "created using the exact same mechanics as PCs as opposed to any other character" (which, as pointed out, may, depending on the game, be meaningless, as all significant characters are created the same way, or the same sorts of characters created different ways), so much as "created as though that person were playing the character as a PC, including mechanics, wealth, roleplay background and expectations, avatarism, and so on". To put it another way, it's about intent, not method.

As was pointed out by the Lostfang, intent doesn't negate that an individual is a PC, if the statement "a character who was intended for use as an NPC becomes a PC." is possible. You can't say that a PC is a PC merely because you intended to build it as one, as that forces one to assume that any character built as an NPC must be an NPC even if played as a DMPC or PC and vice versa.


But you know, it is not like it is a rule or anything. Just fluff text.

Huh, missed that. Point stands though that lostfang's definition needs to amend "rewards" to "EXP" and "wealth".


Technically, if you limit the definition to yours, "you assume the role of the entity you are intending to pretend to be", then perhaps only LARPerS would qualify as roleplayers for gaming purposes.

"To act out" still means it must be IC however, which means it isn't entirely my definition. You could also simply accept that some actions at the table are roleplayed and others are not.

[Jayabalard]

My point is that by Lostfang's definition, cohorts, followers and hirelings have a strong chance of being tangently rewarded simply due to the fact that rewards can be so all encompassing. If he restricts it to treasure and XP, then those categories don't fall under the category of "rewarded".This is only true if you if you are only looking at DMPC's in D&D, which to me seems to be narrowing down the discussion for no gain. DMPC's are conceptually identical to the more global GMPC's, and I'm pretty sure that a number of people use those terms interchangeably, just like they do with GM vs DM. This thread is not tagged specifically as D&D based, nothing in the OP is aimed at D&D, and nothing else in this thread other than this definition nonsense is specific to D&D.

[Tyndmyr]

The more we genericize the debate, though, the more difficult it is to come to useful conclusions or definitions.

A PC or NPC in D&D may not be the same at all as a PC or NPC in another game. They may be generated the same....they may be wildly different.

Likewise, even broad conclusions about the effect of a DMPC are hard to compare across games. Say, paranoia vs D&D...the games are just too different for most things to be the same between them.

[Yukitsu]

This is only true if you if you are only looking at DMPC's in D&D, which to me seems to be narrowing down the discussion for no gain. DMPC's are conceptually identical to the more global GMPC's, and I'm pretty sure that a number of people use those terms interchangeably, just like they do with GM vs DM. This thread is not tagged specifically as D&D based, nothing in the OP is aimed at D&D, and nothing else in this thread other than this definition nonsense is specific to D&D.

Right, but even without a D&D assumption, his definition still includes hirelings, cohorts and followers, whom most people don't consider to be PCs.

[Jayabalard]

Right, but even without a D&D assumption, his definition still includes hirelings, cohorts and followers, whom most people don't consider to be PCs.No, I've had all of those things be PC's in games, where I was hired by another PC, or an NPC in the group, or where I was a sidekick (cohort) to another player or NPC, or where I was a follower to another player or NPC. It's only in D&D where you can make an argument that these things are not DMPCs, and that's because D&D has rules that specify how these types of people are treated by the system.


The more we genericize the debate, though, the more difficult it is to come to useful conclusions or definitions.It's only difficult if you hang your primary argument on trying define away someone's counterexamples. Or are making gross over-generalizations.

[Yukitsu]

No, I've had all of those things be PC's in games, where I was hired by another PC, or an NPC in the group, or where I was a sidekick (cohort) to another player or NPC, or where I was a follower to another player or NPC. It's only in D&D where you can make an argument that these things are not DMPCs, and that's because D&D has rules that specify how these types of people are treated by the system.


You're obfuscating the issue. A sidekick isn't the same thing as a cohort in the mechanical way in which I'm using it. If you'd like, I could simply errata my statement to say that his definition includes mechanically defined cohorts, followers and hirelings, who by definition are not PCs. Systems that don't have mechanically defined cohorts, followers and hirelings obviously cannot warrant the same complaint, but that still doesn't negate the fact that his definition does include mechanical cohorts, followers and hirelings.

And that you only have those in D&D is incorrect. I can use the same complaint in CoC, D20 modern, Inquisitor, WHRPG, and many other systems where there is a clear delineation between a DM controlled minion for the party, and a full member or present superior of the party.

At any rate, all you have demonstrated is that it is possible to be in the category of undefined hireling, cohort or follower by using a stretch in the definitions, and be a player character as well. However, his definition includes all of them, not just ones that happen to also be PCs/DMPCs. I'll admit I hadn't really considered falling into both categories at once, and see that that's possible.

[Tyndmyr]

It's only difficult if you hang your primary argument on trying define away someone's counterexamples. Or are making gross over-generalizations.

Then, by all means, try to make definitions that categorize what constitutes a PC, a DMPC, and an NPC in the following game types: D&D 3.5, Paranoia, Freeform

[Jayabalard]

Then, by all means, try to make definitions that categorize what constitutes a PC, a DMPC, and an NPC in the following game types: D&D 3.5, Paranoia, FreeformWhy would I need to? It's sufficient for me that anyone calls it a DMPC. I'm not trying to disprove someone's counterexample by defining those counterexamples as "non-DMPC's"


You're obfuscating the issue.No, I'm not, I'm objecting to you sliding game specific terms and rules into a discussion that has no reason to be game specific.

[Tyndmyr]

Why would I need to? It's sufficient for me that anyone calls it a DMPC.

So, if anyone, anywhere, calls something a DMPC, it must be one?

If you use this system of definitions consistantly, then clearly, you don't believe that any definitions are mutually exclusive.

This makes the entire discussion meaningless.

[Yukitsu]

Does it directly adress that individuals who clearly do not qualify under the definitions of the game as PCs qualify as PCs under his definition? No. Is it a complaint about semantics in a manner that detracts from the main point of the argument? Yes. Does your argument
"2. make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information. "?

Why yes, yes it does.

[pres_man]

Huh, missed that. Point stands though that lostfang's definition needs to amend "rewards" to "EXP" and "wealth".

What if they take Vow of Poverty? The definition would then fail if "wealth" was in there, correct?


"To act out" still means it must be IC however, which means it isn't entirely my definition. You could also simply accept that some actions at the table are roleplayed and others are not.


act
transitive verb
1 obsolete : actuate, animate
2 a : to represent or perform by action especially on the stage b : feign, simulate c : impersonate
3 : to play the part of as if in a play <act the man of the world>
4 : to behave in a manner suitable to <act your age>
intransitive verb
1 a : to perform on the stage b : to behave as if performing on the stage : pretend
2 : to take action : move <think before acting> <acted favorably on the recommendation>
3 : to conduct oneself : behave <act like a fool>
4 : to perform a specified function : serve <trees acting as a windbreak>
5 : to produce an effect : work <wait for a medicine to act>
6 of a play : to be capable of being performed <the play acts well>
7 : to give a decision or award <adjourned without acting on the bill>

While some definitions certainly support that view, others such as to take action, perform a specific function, and produce an effect, might indicate that it is possible to act out a role without being IC at the time.

[JohnnyCancer]

I'm currently playing once a week with a group that has two DMs, they switch off every module (we're playing a Pathfinder adventure path). Both use their PCs while they DM, both play Clerics. They roleplay their characters: one a good hearted older gentleman who worships the sun goddess and the other a naieve, casually yet innocently racist teenage cleric of the beauty goddess. They don't use their characters to steer us this way or that and they let the rest of the group deal with NPCs unless our plans require otherwise (we had the teenage cleric chat someone up while we set an ambush in one instance), and they don't really need to because none of the players try to disrupt the adventure by being difficult. In this instance, the DMPC has worked out. This is my first experience with DMPCs.

[Stycotl]

Also, almost all of Stycotl's latest post can be summed up by me pointing out that he posted

how does that sum up "almost all" of my previous post, when most of it had nothing to do with character creation?

what you should say is that it sums up the only part of the discussion that you are willing to recognize. that hardly makes it comprehensive.


To which my argument, there is no such thing as "created as a (player character)" argument is directed.

there are templates and patterns, even in character creation.


His statement that I've quoted in full absolutely requires that there be differentials between character creations by type,

straw man again. i have not argued that even one time.

i have argued that the creation process has patterns, and that intent matters.

further, i have argued that none of these traits by themselves make an accurate definition. interestingly enough, it was you that was arguing the ridiculous statement that evidence needs to stand on its own without considering the context or environment.


which I'm arguing against, and he is now claiming he is also arguing against, and that I am arguing for them.

again, no i am not. are you purposefully straw-manning the entire conversation, or does it come without conscious thought?

my argument has always been that there are multiple factors that must be determined; that are subjective in their worth, depending on which group, campaign, game, etc, we are talking about; that must be considered as a group, rather than singularly.

i have never once said that there is a clear, objective difference between character creation processes, or that every group of gamers out there uses the same process.

i have claimed that every group uses different methods, and the intent behind those methods is different in every occasion.

it was you that was trying to convince me that your groups have *no* discernible difference between PC and NPC creation. while that is possible, i highly doubt it.

anywhere there are preferences, there are patterns––even in your group, yukitsu.

but again, character creation is not the only factor that i was talking about; you seem to conveniently ignore the rest though, and then pass your half-assed judgment anyway, using multiple logical fallacies in order to support your initial claims.

facts are (again):

i created those characters with the intent to be used as PCs, and using the formulas that i normally (at the time) used for PC creation––not NPC creation.

i roleplayed those characters as PCs, not as NPCs; even when i was the DM, i roleplayed them as PCs. they did not sit in the background as support to the PCs––they were the PCs. they did not default to the opinions and decisions of the PCs––they were the PCs. they did not take the leftover scraps of treasure, xp, glory, and story spotlight that remained after the PCs were satisfied––they were the PCs.

the story was about them.

for more or less 50% of the time, they were strictly PCs, played by a player, not the DM. then, when it was my turn to DM, they became DMPCs, you know, PCs played by DMs. novel concept, eh?

and lastly, for now, it was fun. it worked. it was successful. it is in the top 5 easily for the best campaigns that i or my brother have ever been in. and this is despite the fact that there are other ways to handle small gaming groups, other ways to introduce plot, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

despite all of your objections, DMPCs worked very well here.

i don't recommend them for everyone, or in every situation. but they certainly can be useful and fun when played correctly with intelligent, mature groups that get along with each other.

[Ormagoden]

I consider the term rewards to mean both EXP and Wealth... Is it too much to assume that everyone also thinks the same of the term? If so I'll definitely amend as I don't want any confusion with the neutral definition.

My listing of cohorts, hirelings, and followers are all correct in their relation to rewards. Specifically

Cohorts do not get a share of the treasure and do not count as a member of the party for determining the amount of EXP earned.

Hirelings do not get a share of the treasure and do not earn exp for being part of an adventure.

Followers also do not get EXP or any wealth for being part of an adventure.

Of course that doesn't prevent a PC from giving them part of their reward or equipping them as they wish.

Jayabalard you are indeed obfuscating the current train of thought we are all on. I do not mean to put you off but you are injecting yet another topic into this thread and its convoluted discussions. If I might be so forward as to ask you to hold off on your topic until we get the basic definitions done. I don't mind attempting additional definitions for other games but now simply doesn't seem to be the time.

[Yukitsu]

What if they take Vow of Poverty? The definition would then fail if "wealth" was in there, correct?

No, because the feat explicitly states that you must take your percentage share. You simply can't use it for yourself.


While some definitions certainly support that view, others such as to take action, perform a specific function, and produce an effect, might indicate that it is possible to act out a role without being IC at the time.

Which definition is that?


I consider the term rewards to mean both EXP and Wealth... Is it too much to assume that everyone also thinks the same of the term? If so I'll definitely amend as I don't want any confusion with the neutral definition.

I'm not certain that I agree that rewards are exclusively money and XP.

[Ormagoden]

that's how rewards are defined in Dnd no?

Wealth (objects, coin, magic items)

Experience points.

I merely use the term wealth because after all...every object in dnd is basically liquid assets isn't it?

[Yukitsu]

I mostly use the SRD, so I'm not positive about this, but does the DMG actually define reward as such anywhere? If so, I'd accept the definition at this point in time, but if it's not, then I'd have to say I don't.

To quote Serp:

"Rewards" aren't always XP and wealth. I think "reward" is a perfectly appropriate term - it includes XP, treasure, plot points, specific items, roleplay opportunities, and anything else considered a reward for encounter completion and/or roleplaying.

I am tentative to say that a gain in any of these categories, as an even share or not, should ascend the character to PC status.

[pres_man]

Cohorts typically get a 1/2 share of the loot (so 4 PCs and 1 cohort would divide the spoils 4.5 ways). Cohorts are not typically PCs.



While some definitions certainly support that view, others such as to take action, perform a specific function, and produce an effect, might indicate that it is possible to act out a role without being IC at the time.

Which definition is that?

See the definition of "act" above. As the commericials say, "it's in there".

[Yukitsu]

Cohorts typically get a 1/2 share of the loot (so 4 PCs and 1 cohort would divide the spoils 4.5 ways). Cohorts are not typically PCs.

Right, so I guess I have to have a problem even if it does include wealth as a reward. Damn. I kinda wanted to support that definition.


See the definition of "act" above. As the commericials say, "it's in there".

So not in the dictionary one then.

Both :"1 : to act out the role of
2 : to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>" mean that you are acting it out, not describing. Unless there's some odd, funky definition of act that is identical to describing that I'm unaware of.

[pres_man]

So not in the dictionary one then.

Both :"1 : to act out the role of
2 : to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>" mean that you are acting it out, not describing. Unless there's some odd, funky definition of act that is identical to describing that I'm unaware of.

From Merriam-Webster DICTIONARY online


act
transitive verb
1 obsolete : actuate, animate
2 a : to represent or perform by action especially on the stage b : feign, simulate c : impersonate
3 : to play the part of as if in a play <act the man of the world>
4 : to behave in a manner suitable to <act your age>
intransitive verb
1 a : to perform on the stage b : to behave as if performing on the stage : pretend
2 : to take action : move <think before acting> <acted favorably on the recommendation>
3 : to conduct oneself : behave <act like a fool>
4 : to perform a specified function : serve <trees acting as a windbreak>
5 : to produce an effect : work <wait for a medicine to act>
6 of a play : to be capable of being performed <the play acts well>
7 : to give a decision or award <adjourned without acting on the bill>

[Yukitsu]

Ah, you mean for act.

Well you can argue that when a character takes an action it is synonomous with the player acting, but if you asserted that, I'd probably assume you were on drugs. The intransitive verb definitions only apply to characters (in this context), not to players.

Edit: Actually, you can use the intransitive verb definitions, but not in the way you want.

The key part of the definition of "role-play" as a term is the statement "In the role of" as opposed to act in isolation. When you "perform a specified function in the role of" you can't really argue that it's out of character, because it is not defined as "performing a specified function to direct the."

[Ormagoden]

Cohorts typically get a 1/2 share of the loot (so 4 PCs and 1 cohort would divide the spoils 4.5 ways). Cohorts are not typically PCs.


Could you hit me with a page number on that one? I'm curious, I thought that was just a Living Greyhawk ruling.

[pres_man]

Could you hit me with a page number on that one? I'm curious, I thought that was just a Living Greyhawk ruling.

page 105, 3.5 DMG

Treasure: Although the PCs can work out other deals, their cohorts usually get only a half share of any treasure the party gains. Sometimes a cohort seeks no pay, only the opportunity to serve alongside the PCs. Such cohorts require only living costs. However, they are not common.

[Jayabalard]

So, if anyone, anywhere, calls something a DMPC, it must be one?I'm fine with that. It's possible to have a perfectly reasonable discussion on how DMPC's work or don't without having a concrete definition, as long as everyone is clear on where they are coming from and don't try to impose their definitions on top of someone else's comments by insisting that thier definition is the correct one..


This makes the entire discussion meaningless.If you're referring to all of this "define DMPC" nonsense, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said.


Does it directly adress that individuals who clearly do not qualify under the definitions of the game as PCs qualify as PCs under his definition? Yes; I'm saying that you're trying to narrow down the definition in a way that isn't meaningful, that DMPC is a much more loosely defined term than you want it to be. Any useful discussion on "The DM's PC: why it works, or doesn't" is going to need to address a wide range of definitions for DMPC's, because people use it to mean lots of different things.

Jumping in with "that's not a DMPC because it does not qualify under the definitions of the game as PCs" is simply not useful to that discussion. It's tangential at best.


If I might be so forward as to ask you to hold off on your topic until we get the basic definitions done. I don't mind attempting additional definitions for other games but now simply doesn't seem to be the time.No thanks. I find that whole line of discussion to be rather off-topic, so I'll continue to disagree as I see fit.

[Ormagoden]

No thanks. I find that whole line of discussion to be rather off-topic, so I'll continue to disagree as I see fit.

Ahh then I'll ignore your suggestions and input as I see fit.

I find it funny that you point fingers at people for "tangential" topics when you enter the fray late and derail our current discussion. I see your lament that this topic is game specific. Fortunately jumping in and spitting fire and wishing it so, doesn't make it so.
DM is a term that is rather specific to dungeons and dragons. Specifically it stands for Dungeon Master.

If you were reading anything except for the last few pages you'll see that we aren't specifically champion our own ideas but through discussion coming to a term we can for the most part all agree on. It's just a matter of establishing our opinions and then analyzing the opinions of others for consideration.

You basically entered a section of the thread about establishing a definition and said "I don't like it! There shouldn't be a definition! This discussion will stop now."

Honestly I find your posts rather off-topic.

The point of starting at a basic simple definition is so we can branch off to other definitions of the term. Had you read my posts you would have known that.


***Also TY pres_man! I missed it.

[Solaris]

I was always fond of "An NPC of level equivalent to the party who travels and adventures with the party for a substantial amount of time, yet is not a cohort, hireling, or follower. The DM runs this character as his own much like a player runs a PC as his character."
It doesn't have to be defined so tightly in legalese. We're all people with functional brains, aren't we? We all understand what it means, so let's drop the "Oh, but that could include any and all NPCs!" for the sake of the argument.

[Yukitsu]

If you want to define anything, and if you expect anyone to care two wits about the definition when we argue about DMPCs being good or bad in the future, then it has to be fairly precise.

[Zaydos]

I was always fond of "An NPC of level equivalent to the party who travels and adventures with the party for a substantial amount of time, yet is not a cohort, hireling, or follower. The DM runs this character as his own much like a player runs a PC as his character."
It doesn't have to be defined so tightly in legalese. We're all people with functional brains, aren't we? We all understand what it means, so let's drop the "Oh, but that could include any and all NPCs!" for the sake of the argument.

I like this definition. If you throw in a character 4 levels higher than the party with extra powers and abilities then they aren't being treated as a PC they're just a Mary Sue power trip.

[Serpentine]

If you want to define anything, and if you expect anyone to care two wits about the definition when we argue about DMPCs being good or bad in the future, then it has to be fairly precise.Precise? Sure. Hyper-pinpoint-defined with the apparent assumption that it will be used by idiots who see the world through a tiny hole in a cardboard box to the point of an infinite recursion of definition? Not so much.

And yeah, that definition works pretty well for me. Well, unless we need to start defining "NPC", "equivalent", "travels and adventures", "time"...

[pres_man]

How about:
DMPC: a character run by the DM that functions as a party member and earns a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other party member does.

[Yukitsu]

Precise? Sure. Hyper-pinpoint-defined with the apparent assumption that it will be used by idiots who see the world through a tiny hole in a cardboard box to the point of an infinite recursion of definition? Not so much.

And yeah, that definition works pretty well for me. Well, unless we need to start defining "NPC", "equivalent", "travels and adventures", "time"...

I don't think changing "reward" to something less all encompassing is being too precise.

Besides, we do have individuals who come in and assert that player controlled NPCs are DMPCs, so I think that there will be idiots that come in asserting that an NPC that happens to have been given a pat on the head for their contribution fits the definition.

@Pres_man: Looks reasonable, but I'll need to take a closer look at it later.

[Ormagoden]

Precise? Sure. Hyper-pinpoint-defined with the apparent assumption that it will be used by idiots who see the world through a tiny hole in a cardboard box to the point of an infinite recursion of definition? Not so much.


That's why definitions exist...for people as you describe.

[Ormagoden]

So what new DMPC thread did everyone migrate to?