PDA

View Full Version : The DM's PC: Why it works



Pages : [1] 2 3

YvizztX23
2009-12-18, 02:13 PM
So, when my group first started playing, the guy who was supposed to be DM was unable to play, and so we were left with the decision of who, in our group of people who had had no interest of DMing, would take up the task of running the game.

In the end, we drew straws, and I was chosen. This was unfortunate, because I had spent some time creating my Half-Elven Druid.

However, I decided that I could still have a character while DMing at the same time. It worked quite well, and after a few sessions, I discovered some bonuses.

• Obviously, a DM can play a character, if they want to.

• Because the DM has to suffer through the same challenges they do, the other players are less likely to have hostile feelings after a tough fight.

• When the DM has a PC as well, the other PCs can be nudged in the right direction without feeling railroaded.

There are some flaws to this, though.

• It can be difficult to role-play a character and an NPC without the other players being confused as to who is saying what.

• If the players get the feeling that the DM is favoring his character...calamity ensues.


Ultimately, though, the benefits outweigh the flaws. What do you people think?

Riffington
2009-12-18, 02:17 PM
If you must do this, I strongly recommend rotating the DM position so everyone has a turn. A few sessions from now, I suspect you'll see why.

YvizztX23
2009-12-18, 02:19 PM
If you must do this, I strongly recommend rotating the DM position so everyone has a turn. A few sessions from now, I suspect you'll see why.

Hmmm...I hadn't quite thought of that yet...

Douglas
2009-12-18, 02:19 PM
Ultimately, though, the benefits outweigh the flaws. What do you people think?
I, and probably the vast majority of people who will respond in this thread, think that the point quoted below applies far too often:

• If the players get the feeling that the DM is favoring his character...calamity ensues.

In fact, it is so prevalent as to make a large number of players automatically extremely suspicious of any DM-controlled party member that was not the party's own idea, often to the point of "kill on sight" the instant they think they can get away with it.

Kylarra
2009-12-18, 02:21 PM
• When the DM has a PC as well, the other PCs can be nudged in the right direction without feeling railroaded. Disagree.

If anything I'll be more suspicious of railroading from the "DM's PC" in the group than from random NPC <xyz>.

YvizztX23
2009-12-18, 02:24 PM
Disagree.

If anything I'll be more suspicious of railroading from the "DM's PC" in the group than from random NPC <xyz>.

Well, it's sort of a more subtle nudge, not so much the "come on, people, why not go with the scary looking barbarian into the old, abandoned mine? What could go wrong?"

That's what NPCs are for.

valadil
2009-12-18, 02:24 PM
• When the DM has a PC as well, the other PCs can be nudged in the right direction without feeling railroaded.

• If the players get the feeling that the DM is favoring his character...calamity ensues.


I disagree with your first point. They may not see through it immediately, but a DMPC is just another way to railroad. Once your players figure this out, they won't care if the railroad comes from you or your DMPC.

I do not disagree with your second point. I feel very strongly that a DM who favors his pet PC will ruin a game. Even if the DM doesn't actually favor the DMPC, if other players think he does, that can be just as bad.

That said, in your particular case I think that a DMPC makes some sense. You shouldn't have to lose the character just because you're not a PC anymore.

Emmerask
2009-12-18, 02:25 PM
Disagree.

If anything I'll be more suspicious of railroading from the "DM's PC" in the group than from random NPC <xyz>.

Agreed
I very very rarely use dm pcs and only if it fits in the setting (for example they are part of an organisation and must track something but don´t have anyone who can do this so a dmpc is send with them)
But I mostly play them relativly passive they don´t suggest anything and do what they are told...

jiriku
2009-12-18, 02:28 PM
As a member of the "Kill on Sight" group, I'll agree. When the DM introduces some new NPC who's traveling with us for no reason and has a character sheet of his very own, I start counting the minutes in my head. I usually don't get to 15 before the new guy reveals himself to be cocky and superior and Way Cooler Than All of You.

Then I roll initiative, and the new guy meets my two little friends, mister quickened true strike and mister sudden maximized heightened moilian slashing night's caress.

150 hp damage + 8 Con damage solves that little problem real quick.

It's better that way. Trust me.

golentan
2009-12-18, 02:29 PM
In fact, it is so prevalent as to make a large number of players automatically extremely suspicious of any DM-controlled party member that was not the party's own idea, often to the point of "kill on sight" the instant they think they can get away with it.

This. And the thing is that some favoritism is unconscious, some is perceived whenever your character gets a string of good luck, The "Subtle Nudging" often feels more railroad-ey than most other tricks because you've got a character as part of the group who can sign you up for things and who you're never sure whether their actions are truly character driven or you're obligated to listen because it's the dm.

I'm not saying it can't be done well. But don't be surprised if in a few sessions you start hearing muttered complaints about being "nannied" or "railroaded," or complaints of favoritism, or if you turn down any build component at any point in the future "But you're playing a DRUID!"

What I've found works is having 2 co-dms. They handle plot developments for each other's characters, split the workload on the rest, and thus neither is master of their own character's destiny. This doesn't work with long reaching pre planned plots, though, since the others still feel railroaded (sometimes moreso), just with character driven material, dungeon crawls, and or sandbox games.

Gamerlord
2009-12-18, 02:29 PM
I find the exact opposite, the cons far outwiegh the pros

Pros:
*In a super-small group, another member always helps
*Cheap target practice for your PCs

Cons:
*More work for me when I DM :smallannoyed:
*Makes every battle even longer :smallannoyed:
*Too much of a chance of having it turn out to be a pet NPC :smallfurious:
*We're forced to split the loot up even more so :smallfurious:
*Takes even longer to level up :smallannoyed:
*Gives the DM a cheap excuse to railroad :smallfurious:

YvizztX23
2009-12-18, 02:36 PM
Well, in reply to some of you, I probably wouldn't have a DMPC if there weren't only three people (including myself) in the group.

So it is slightly necessary.

Lapak
2009-12-18, 02:37 PM
There are two major problems. The first, which several people have covered adequately, is that the players are inclined to look for favoritism and railroading from a DMPC. Even if you avoid it - which is harder than it seems - they might STILL perceive it.

The other is that you have the same problems of player knowledge/character knowledge separation that players do, only magnified a hundred times by your complete knowledge of the situation. It's the next best thing to impossible to effectively keep that from influencing your actions, which means that either the DMPC becomes a non-entity in an effort to avoid influencing the outcome of the campaign or the character taints party decisions with DM knowledge.

Lysander
2009-12-18, 02:38 PM
The problem with playing the DMPC is that it puts you in an ethically dubious situation, since you're playing both for the PCs and controlling the enemy NPCs. It's like playing a chess game against yourself. Do you play both sides optimally? How do you avoid using secret information from one side on behalf of the other character? Will your beloved DMPC be able to kill your beloved recurring villain or will he "accidentally" let him get away?

What's probably best is playing a DMPC like a supporting character in a movie. He's there for a specific purpose, but he himself is a kind of plot point. It's up to the main characters to actually drive the plot forward. And that means not getting too attached to the DMPC because soon the plot will carry the PCs to another supporting character that you should play instead.

Mongoose87
2009-12-18, 02:38 PM
Has anyone ever tried using a DMPC to have an effect of reverse psychology for railroading? Nudge them in the direction you don't want them to go, so they'll in the right direction?

YvizztX23
2009-12-18, 02:39 PM
There are two major problems. The first, which several people have covered adequately, is that the players are inclined to look for favoritism and railroading from a DMPC. Even if you avoid it - which is harder than it seems - they might STILL perceive it.

The other is that you have the same problems of player knowledge/character knowledge separation that players do, only magnified a hundred times by your complete knowledge of the situation. It's the next best thing to impossible to effectively keep that from influencing your actions, which means that either the DMPC becomes a non-entity in an effort to avoid influencing the outcome of the campaign or the character taints party decisions with DM knowledge.

I have the other players decide when they want to make spot checks, which direction they want to go in if there's a fork in the tunnel, or stuff like that.

rezplz
2009-12-18, 02:40 PM
I find that the only time that I'll slip in anything close to a DMPC is for pure plot reasons - in which case its more like an NPC that joins them for one session, and will always be a lower level than the party - or if the party is missing in some crucial role (skill monkey, healer, etc) and they actually ask me to slip some guy in there. In which case I'd make it an NPC class, like an expert, or an adept, or a warrior, probably still a level or two lower than the PCs.

Only time I'd have a full-fledged DMPC is if we're doing round-robin DMing, and my group hasn't done that ever since I wanted to start moving into a more story-themed kind of thing that lasts for multiple sessions.

jokey665
2009-12-18, 02:40 PM
I don't use DMPCs. My group is big enough that they don't need one, and I just never liked the idea. The closest I've come to running a DMPC is in our current campaign, where there's a Healer that helps the party out, but doesn't actually participate in combat (She hangs out in their "base camp," so to speak). Although that character is probably going to be taken over by another player once we figure out if she's actually playing or not.

Kylarra
2009-12-18, 02:40 PM
Well, in reply to some of you, I probably wouldn't have a DMPC if there weren't only three people (including myself) in the group.

So it is slightly necessary.It isn't that it can't be done, it's that in practice it is rarely done well. In your particular case, it could probably work out fine, I'd try to work in that rotating DM idea that Riffington mentioned earlier.

valadil
2009-12-18, 02:54 PM
Well, in reply to some of you, I probably wouldn't have a DMPC if there weren't only three people (including myself) in the group.

So it is slightly necessary.

Small parties are one of the places where its justified. You could always introduce your character as an NPC for hire. When the players are the ones who choose to include the DMPC they're usually a lot more welcoming.

Slayn82
2009-12-18, 02:57 PM
As a DM that often uses a DMPC, i can only give you one advice:

Make him a support character, and either as neutral or as comic as possible. Resist the temptation of giving him best and best items. Actually, if you can make him a little sub optimal, better.

In my case, the DMPC is usually both, a very lazy mage, that will often be on his way to search for food or wine. He is more of a party companion, but does his assigned functions well : he can look at the mage's guild to get some amazing offers of magical items for the pc's, or selling those items for a little more gold, thanks to a not abismal charisma compared with the party mage. So if the players want to buy something, the DMPC checks if its disponible or not, if it can be made in a few days, if someone has a arcane lab/workshop to rent, etc. If someone asks his opinion, he gives, but he doesnt hinders the others in anyway. If the group wants that he only crafts magical items, he rebels about all the work until the other crafters take their share of work as well. If the Bugbear fighter of low charisma wants to find someone important and the diplomancer is not there, the DMPC boosts his charisma, alter his appearance, uses small spells to sugest impressive words, etc. so the fighter leaves a good impression.

The party actually has a lot of confidence in this DMPC, and know that some NPCs are nice, others not so much. In the end, works well for us.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-18, 03:05 PM
• Obviously, a DM can play a character, if they want to.


Well, you *can* do anything. Doesn't make it a good idea.


• Because the DM has to suffer through the same challenges they do, the other players are less likely to have hostile feelings after a tough fight.

Not a guarantee. For example, it's pretty much impossible for the DM to surprise himself.

Also can be handled in other ways. Ive had many a tough fight with no player-DM hard feelings. IMO, hard feelings come more from arguments and disagreements than they do from challenges per se.


• When the DM has a PC as well, the other PCs can be nudged in the right direction without feeling railroaded.

No, no, that is railroading. And it tends to be pretty obvious, too.


There are some flaws to this, though.

• It can be difficult to role-play a character and an NPC without the other players being confused as to who is saying what.

Can be. This probably isnt the biggest flaw, tbh, but players are often terribly lazy at even keeping track of NPCs.


• If the players get the feeling that the DM is favoring his character...calamity ensues.

Yes. This can wreck an entire campaign. It's also amazingly common. I tend to kill off DMPCs in completely unsurvivable ways asap as a result of seeing this so frequently.


Ultimately, though, the benefits outweigh the flaws. What do you people think?

The only benefit I have ever seen is that the DM gets to play a PC. The DM invariably thinks this is awesome, since he gets the benefit, while the flaws are shared.

This is why you so frequently have player/dm disagreement regarding DMPCs. You'll notice that most defendants of DMPCs are either A. DMs, or B. using a definition of DMPC so broad as to include most NPCs.






Alternate Suggestion:
Do round robin DMing. This not only trains up more good DMs, and gives players a healthy respect for the job of DMing, it lets you take turns playing. It's quite fair, and can work out wonderfully(in such a campaign myself, have been for 9 levels).

If the party is too small, or is lacking specific roles, let them hire hirelings, as per standard rules for this. They pick the chars, elite array, and run them. Only subject to DM interference if they try to make the hirelings do something insane/obviously suicidal. Do not use the hirelings for railroading.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-18, 03:13 PM
Having been annoyingly railroaded by DMPCs in the past, I can't help but be a little skeptical of this.

Mongoose87
2009-12-18, 03:18 PM
My DM actually did something brilliant with a DMPC once. He disguised her as the magically conceived daughter of my character (complicated to explain, but it made sense). When it call came to a head, it turned out that we'd be leading around the BBEG(G for girl) the whole time. No one saw it coming.

Ashtar
2009-12-18, 03:27 PM
For all these cries of DMPC = Instant Doom, I have but one message: As long as the players are happy with it then it's ok.

When we were on a small group, our DMs usually had a DMPC in with us. It all worked out as pretty well. Even now the group is larger (and I'm too far to play with them anymore), I hear there is often a DMPC or NPCs tagging along in their groups without any issues.

So it's possible for it to work. With the right kind of players and the right kind of DM.

And also, sometimes a little direction pointing (aka. railroading) is not so bad for a group who gets easily distracted... :smallamused:

Edit: DM rotation might be nice, too. We switched from time to time, allowing the DM time to recharge.

And I've also seen DMPCs done bad. One of the people we don't game with anymore had a tendency to make these ultracompetent DMPCs who would solve everything for us... making us basically useless. That example was so telling that we all consciously questioned our own DMPCing when playing to avoid that tendency.

dangerprawn
2009-12-18, 03:29 PM
If I found myself in the untenable position of needing a DMPC, I would make him (or her) suboptimal and show the reverse favoritism. The DMPC is unlucky, probably is a class 2 or 3 tiers below the PC's and is there mainly to provide one function the part lacks and a form of comedic relief.

Even then, I'd probably have my own DMPC die a horrible and tragic death soon into the adventure. DMPC's are like Thunderbird from Giant Sized X-Men. He was introduced to the story solely for the purpose of being killed, for dramatic purpose. That's how I view DMPC's. Their job is to advance the plot/drama through their death.

valadil
2009-12-18, 04:12 PM
Even then, I'd probably have my own DMPC die a horrible and tragic death soon into the adventure. DMPC's are like Thunderbird from Giant Sized X-Men. He was introduced to the story solely for the purpose of being killed, for dramatic purpose. That's how I view DMPC's. Their job is to advance the plot/drama through their death.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I'm planning one of these right now. He won't last more than a session, so I'm comfortable with him being more powerful than the PCs. The whole point is to show that he's more powerful than them and then get him shanked. Now the PCs have hard evidence that whatever shanked the DMPC is more powerful than them and is something to be feared.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-18, 04:21 PM
The "have someone helpful get wasted by the BBEG" is a pretty classic way to demonstrate power. And yeah, you have to try to give it a twist so it doesn't come across as stale.

But a plot device like that really isn't a DMPC. Though subverting the idea of a DMPC as a joke is amusing...

dangerprawn
2009-12-18, 04:23 PM
I feel the urge to make up rules for DMPCs...a la Fight Club.

The first rule of DMPC's is you don't have DMPC's.
The second rule of DMPC's is you don't have DMPC's.
If there is a DMPC, he gets shanked in the second session.
Only one DMPC in an adventure.

...and so on.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-18, 04:25 PM
If there is a DMPC, he gets shanked in the second session.

This only happens if the DM pulls out some serious fiat to save him from me in the first. :smallamused:

dangerprawn
2009-12-18, 04:26 PM
This only happens if the DM pulls out some serious fiat to save him from me in the first. :smallamused:

Touche. .....

Zeta Kai
2009-12-18, 04:31 PM
I only use a DMPC when the party is low on required roles, & needs someone to fill them (I don't make anyone play a role that they dislike). I make up for it by playing a character that I don't care about, that isn't crucial to the plot, & that is only marginally competent. They fill the role, do their job, & don't get in the way of the player's own goals. I usually have a stack of ready-made character sheets for NPCs, & if the PC's need some help, I'll employ on of the sheets to serve as a DMPC for a while. They tend to not last long, as my most dynamic & important DMPC died in a heroic sacrifice to buy the party enough time to save the world on their own.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-18, 06:07 PM
My only DMPC was an ex-cohort of one of the proper PCs. A "punishment" for the group because one of them took Leadership... :xykon:

But yeah, DMPCs are too much work. I'll stick to DMing; your petty politics and metagaming can stay far away from me.

Pluto
2009-12-18, 07:02 PM
I have a hard time justifying a DMPC in any case. I don't believe the group ever needs another member (assuming at least 3 people are seated around the table) and my experience with DMPCs has been invariably negative.

A few posters have implied that there are roles the party needs filled.
I don't buy that.

The Fighter/Thief/Magic User/Cleric quartet might be efficient (in that there's at least party member who is good at anything... theoretically), but efficiency has little to do with a fun game.

I've found it's the opposite.

As much as I love being able to cross out the appropriate spell from my list or succeeding on a skill roll where I have max ranks, a +5 item and every possible synergy, it's even more fun to not be competent at the task at hand (directly, anyway). Solving a problem where you have The Solution (be it Dispel Magic and Knock, +29 in Disable Device or a really high attack roll) is simple and dry: You run into The Problem say "I use [The Solution]" and move on. It's routine. You might go to some length to describe how you use The Solution, but it's cut and dry: you spent the spell slot, you hit the DC, you succeed.

A situation where you aren't prepared requires thought and group involvement. If the party Barbarian, Samurai and Monk are entrusted with two children who may or may not be demons in disguise, they can't just cast Detect Evil and call it a day. They need to pool resources and figure out a plan. The situations where the party doesn't have a tool are the situations that, as a DM, I see my players sit up, shuffle notes around and really get involved. As a player, these are the parts of the game I remember.

Holes in a party make the game interesting. A DMPC isn't needed to fill them.

...

I've never seen a DMPC done well for an extended period of time. The best ones were the ones that disappeared by the end of the next session. Every DMPC I've ever seen that's become a permanent party fixture has eventually stepped over the line. Maybe it's a conscious choice, maybe it's just that the DM knows the things that the DM will allow*, but the DMPC inevitably steals the show and saps the players' desire to continue the campaign.

*eg. No other player would have considered jumping from the tower window to catch both the falling princess and the party Rogue, arresting their fall with the rope clenched between the character's teeth. But that seems both reasonable and awesome to the DM, both as a player and a referee, so he allows it to happen.

Flickerdart
2009-12-18, 07:08 PM
The only DMPC I can see as working is a Bard. He's got mad buff action going on (your players will appreciate all the pluses) and when it turns out that nobody took Knowledge skills, Bard to the rescue to tell them what they need to know about the plot. Bards are also widely considered underpowered, so nobody will mind, whereas a Druid (two characters, in effect, both obscenely powerful) is evidently OP.
In fact, there's a fairly easy story justification: a minstrel tags along with the party to compose a song about their epic deeds. They don't have to know him backstory-wise, nor do they have to tag along with him on his epic quest and watch him solo the BBEG: they're the heroes, explicitly, and the Bard is there to watch.

Serpentine
2009-12-18, 11:36 PM
Blah blah blah, DMPCs are bad bad bad, yadda yadda yadda :smallsigh: Though more gently than usual, which is nice...

OP, I think DMPCs are fine, if they're done right - like nearly every other part of D&D. Almost all of my games have had one (my very first had the bad variety, but it didn't last much longer after he turned up), and I've never seen a problem with it. My present one, I'm going to remove, but only because my own lack of organisation skill is making it awkward and because I've already got more players than I need.
I'm sure you're well aware of all the things that make a DMPC bad, so as long as it's useful and fun for everyone, go right ahead.

suryasm
2009-12-19, 12:02 AM
In my game, my NPCs generally have their own motivations and desires, and often class levels and PC-grade abilities. But since they only stick around just long enough to advance the plot, I can't call them DMPC.

My first experience with a DMPC came when a player quit in the middle of a mission. I took over his character. Unfortunately, the guy had put his alignment down as Neutral Evil. So now I have a high-wire act in being true to his alignment while not making the party members feel I'm an evil DM out to saotage the mission. I can't wait for the mission to be over so I can put him on a bus. So, yeah, DMPCs are not a good idea. Use only in emergencies.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-19, 12:04 AM
Well, it's sort of a more subtle nudge, not so much the "come on, people, why not go with the scary looking barbarian into the old, abandoned mine? What could go wrong?"

That's what NPCs are for.
No, it's not. Players will be even more paranoid when they notice the DM's PC is trying to push them to the "correct path", no matter how you sugar coat it.
It's hard enough to separate PC knowledge from player knowledge. It's nearly impossible to separate DMPPC knowledge from DM knowledge. You know the whole game, story, NPCs, secrets, everything. You add a DMPC... well, you'll be playing with yourself (no pun intended). It's like when you make a scene with two NPCs in an argument in front of the PCs: If you let it go on for too long, it'll look like you just telling a story. In the same vein, adding your own PC just so it can kill off your other NPCs... well

And for the "same challenges" thing. As I said, it becomes more telling a story to the PCs, with maybe some random results with the dice, but still you either need to dumb down your character, or it'll look like your character is favored over the PCs. But in the end, you are just pitting a NPC you control, against another NPC, that you control

So, unless it's VERY well played in the hands of a skilled and experienced DM, really, don't do it. Players will feel the lights are not on them, and won't like it. As it was suggested, rotate DMs. In everytime adventure, the DM's character enters as a backstage NPC (he remains back in the city, working, researching, etc), while the previous DM's character returns.

Serpentine
2009-12-19, 12:10 AM
On the "railroading DMPC" thing, it's probably just as bad, but if anything my own DMPC is anti-railroading. If the other characters ask mine what they should do, unless they're really stuck and obviously fishing for a bit of railroading, I just get my character to say what she would think. For example, I recently wanted my party to find somewhere to hole up but stay in the dragon graveyard. My character, however, is rather cautious, so she recommended getting out of the place, resting and assessing, and then going in. They ended up ignoring this, so I think they understand that my DMPC isn't really a clue-dispenser.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-19, 01:11 AM
Will these threads ever go away? I have held my hand from the last few... Word bomb:


When the DM introduces some new NPC who's traveling with us for no reason and has a character sheet of his very own, I start counting the minutes in my head. I usually don't get to 15 before the new guy reveals himself to be cocky and superior and Way Cooler Than All of You.Your DMs blow. IMO Every DM should have a rough character sheet for EVERY NPC you meet... just in case you decide to attack. Otherwise:

DM: the NPC says "blah blah blah"
Player: Bored now. I'm going to roll initiative to stab him in the belly!
DM: I won't let you, I don't have the character stats.
Player: You mean I can't try to make the choices I want to in your campaign?
DM: No.

And yes I DMed they way I say is best. And the players (who had mostly been DMs) loved it.


I find the exact opposite, the cons far outwiegh the pros

Pros:
*In a super-small group, another member always helps
*Cheap target practice for your PCs

Cons:
*More work for me when I DM :smallannoyed:
*Makes every battle even longer :smallannoyed:
*Too much of a chance of having it turn out to be a pet NPC :smallfurious:
*We're forced to split the loot up even more so :smallfurious:
*Takes even longer to level up :smallannoyed:
*Gives the DM a cheap excuse to railroad :smallfurious:Don't forget
*Large groups are better.
*Turns should be short for any NPC, monster, or DMPC (because they are prerolled)
*Using WBL means no loot calculation
*Good DMs do not railroad.

But alas it is 1 more thing to stat. (Balance this by removing a monster every encounter)


Has anyone ever tried using a DMPC to have an effect of reverse psychology for railroading? Nudge them in the direction you don't want them to go, so they'll in the right direction?Nice post. You beat me to it. So essentially this forces good players to ignore the DMPCs wishes completely (and not to factor it in), which is easy if the DMPC isn't in the picture very much.


Small parties are one of the places where its justified. You could always introduce your character as an NPC for hire. When the players are the ones who choose to include the DMPC they're usually a lot more welcoming.Notice that smart PCs will welcome a DMPC rather than waste their money on the same thing. DM's should be sensitive to player's wants after all.


Not a guarantee. For example, it's pretty much impossible for the DM to surprise himself.Then the DM is being OOC. If he can't play well, he shouldn't DM.


The only benefit I have ever seen is that the DM gets to play a PC. The DM invariably thinks this is awesome, since he gets the benefit, while the flaws are shared.Nice economic analysis. So, what you need is a selfless DM if the DM is going to use a DMPC.


As a DM that often uses a DMPC, i can only give you one advice:

Make him a support character, and either as neutral or as comic as possible.This is easier, yes.


Having been annoyingly railroaded by DMPCs in the past, I can't help but be a little skeptical of this.Call the DM on it. If they don't stop (and you're not okay with railroading, leave). I hate railroading with a passion.


I have a hard time justifying a DMPC in any case. I don't believe the group ever needs another member (assuming at least 3 people are seated around the table)Aw big groups are fun (though having 2 DMs is a good idea).


No, it's not. Players will be even more paranoid when they notice the DM's PC is trying to push them to the "correct path", no matter how you sugar coat it.A DM should never have a correct path. Problem solved (with, or without DMPCs).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-19, 01:19 AM
But alas it is 1 more thing to stat. (Balance this by removing a monster every encounter)

This isn't balance. It results in either a weaker, less challenging encounter, or an equal ECL encounter consisting of fewer, tougher mobs. This results in a much higher likelihood of party deaths.

Removing mobs does not balance adding players.

(Notice that smart PCs will welcome a DMPC rather than hire one)

Hireling /= DMPC. A hireling is controlled by the player who hired him. The book has rules regarding hirelings, and they are significantly different from DMPCs.


Nice economic analysis. So, what you need is a selfless DM if the DM is going to use a DMPC.

Well, yes. Perfect people would solve a great many problems. No DM is perfect or entirely selfless. Hell, using a DMPC isn't a selfless act...it's fulfilling the desire to play. It's directly at odds with what you say is necessary.


Call the DM on it. If they don't stop (and you're not okay with railroading, leave). I hate railroading with a passion.

Railroading is terrible, and yes, it can definitely happen without a DMPC. However, using a DMPC does not in any way make railroading "better" or "more subtle". It's exactly as bad either way.

Large groups have a speed problem, usually. D&D, as well as many other systems, bogs down if you get too large of a group. Adding DMPCs to an already decently sized group will contribute to this effect.

Temet Nosce
2009-12-19, 04:46 AM
This only happens if the DM pulls out some serious fiat to save him from me in the first. :smallamused:

The first? Generally speaking its best to just start things off on the right foot... which is to say, kill it before it opens its mouth.

More seriously, DMPCs are bad and often a reason to quit a game immediately. However, I've noticed a massive tendency for people on this forum to be confused by the difference between a DMPC and an NPC, which I suspect is why there've been occasional positive posts.

Danin
2009-12-19, 04:51 AM
I make it a point to violently kill my DMNPCs if I am forced to use them. In fact, at one point I had collaborated with my DM before hand, helping him with the campaign and the fights. The second fight in this horror campaign was supposed to be terrifying and something you run from. I posed as a player and played a Paladin, and went and smote the evil beastie. It proceeded to smite me for 147 damage at level 6, literally consume my body, tear my soul from the astral plane, consume part of it, and then tie it around his axe. My damned, tormented soul was bound to his blade, constantly screaming in agony.

The DM looked satisfied, said he was wondering who was going to die first, and offered me a chance to run some of the encounters as a second DM. We had planned this in advance, but it really made it clear that the DM wasn't messing around. We started placing wagers on who would be next, seeing as the meatshield and secondary healer was gone.

Leon
2009-12-19, 05:20 AM
I feel the urge to make up rules for DMPCs...a la Fight Club.

The first rule of DMPC's is you don't have DMPC's.
The second rule of DMPC's is you don't have DMPC's.
If there is a DMPC, he gets shanked in the second session.
Only one DMPC in an adventure.
...and so on.

The first rule of DMPC's is you don't mention them on here...
They may very well work for you but mention it here and you'll be shot down down in flames for every possible reason mostly by those once bitten twice shy.

In the 2nd Ed Game that i play in there is a DMPC, he works very well in his role (pilot).
The majority of the time he's stuck on the ship while the party is off doing what we do but sometimes he gets to play with the rest of us when the ship comes under attack or we have a function on-board.
You could argue that the role could be done by a pure NPC and you may well be right but in this instance its not and it works well for us.

Triaxx
2009-12-19, 05:54 AM
I have a DMPC who's been in every game I've ever played DM as, but not every session. When I DM, we rotate every game so no one gets left out of playing or DMing, someone in the party always gets a ring of Deus Ex Machina, which will summon the DMPC to assist with the non-combat dilemma. Unless it's steampunk, in which case it's a litteral Ring of God From the Machine.

The character is currently level 43, and gains XP for assisting the players. I do not however, ever put in situations where they must summon him, but leave the option open for them to do so at any time. Things he's been called upon for: Casting True Sight when the solution required it and a fight prior had unexpectedly needed it and Batman had only one casting, with the rest being SOS and SOD's. And a time limit because the dungeon was falling so no eight hour rope trick available.

Stuck on an island in the middle of a sea that had just been turned to acid after they spent the first dozen sessions destroying the worlds only airships, the plans to go with them and killing the creators. And none of them were high enough for teleportation to reach the mainland. DMPC showed up, charged an outrageous fee, and took them back to the mainland.

That's what a DMPC should be for, to give the players an out back to the fun. But should never have any bit of the game written for them.

Zincorium
2009-12-19, 06:18 AM
From my PoV, there is a lot of 'but DMPCs work' stories that are actually an NPC, because I don't view it as a matter of making a character, but of intent.

To me, a character only becomes an NPC when the DM treats the character as a player treats their PC- roleplaying interactions with NPCs, taking the lead in the story, progressing in power by acquiring experience and treasure.

If a character doesn't display any of the above traits, they're not going to cause a problem. They're also not DMPCs. They don't have any of the DM's ego invested in them, they don't take the place of another player, they don't take the spotlight, they don't sole mysteries, and so on.


If, on the other hand, you take a character that you'd play as a PC, and then as a DM bring it in with the same mindset, then you deserve the scorn even if you're doing your best.

Any character who is there to fill a niche in the party is best served by giving one of your players an extra character, or playing something like gestalt where fewer characters are needed. Playing it yourself is like playing in a soccer game that you are also the referee for: no matter your excellence at referee-ing, your objectivity is now in question and you are distracted from doing your job as a referee.

Fishy
2009-12-19, 06:28 AM
I'm in a game that has a DMPC Archon.

I'll be honest, everything I've heard about DMPCs has been making me paranoid about the experience, but he's a helpful, friendly and LG ball of light that has no hands. I can't help but like the little guy.

Of course, if he starts with the "Hey! Listen!" routine, we're sticking him in the first glass jar we find.

paddyfool
2009-12-19, 06:49 AM
@OP,

I see five good options for you, from best to least good:

1) Shank your druid; large parties aren't that important, and the players would actually get to play more rather than watch you play.
2) Have him pick a fight with the rest of the party over some moral dilemma or something and walk off in a huff (has the advantage over 1 that at some point you might then be able to play him).
3) Hand control of the druid to one player, and his AC to the other.
4) Share the DMing.
5) Make him take some slightly modified VoP that means he doesn't take any share of the loot, and make him keep schtum unless the PCs ask his advice, and make him very easily led and responsive to PCs' suggestions & requests in combat (unless said suggestions are truly stupid), with, among other things, a spell selection focussed on healing and buffs, and never, ever take your time over his turns etc. or favour him. Deliberately disfavour him if anything.

Playing him as a straight PC, however, is just plain not good.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-12-19, 07:43 AM
I don't know if anyone else has done this, but back in high school my rather small group swapped the DM seat rather often, and we all ran characters to fill out the party.

But none of us had DMPCs. Rather, we were all PCDMs. Instead of railroading and gandalf syndrome, we had monty haul shenanigans, extreme power leveling, and the dumbest enemies in existence. It's pretty lollorific for a while, and it's probably preferable to the DMPC problem, but the novelty does fade.

Solaris
2009-12-19, 07:50 AM
Disagree.

If anything I'll be more suspicious of railroading from the "DM's PC" in the group than from random NPC <xyz>.

And I think the players, in the spirit of good gamesmanship, ought to be actively seeking clues and cues from the DM so as to not hose the adventure path he has set up. They can do their own thing, sure, but it's always nice to give the DM some advance warning if you want to set off on your own thing rather than just abandoning the adventure he spent all week working on.
Then again, I've never had complaints about my DMPCs. I don't do them as nameless, faceless characters (which is perhaps the biggest sin of DMs running party NPCs), I make sure they have something to distinguish them from the commoner down the road beside their better stats, I don't have them nudge (I just tell the players what they forgot when they start to wander aimlessly, but I can see the appeal in the DMPC reminding his fellow adventurers), and I keep them at the same level as the other characters. Perhaps my players are just an unusual group. They've never metagamed, nor have they made accusations to each other/me about cheating. They know I'll re-roll a die if I don't like the result, and usually laugh at it when I do (4! 3! 4! 15! HA!). They'll flake out about plotline and NPCs, but it's more frightening when players actually remember that stuff. They just regard the DMPCs as fellow PCs.

It's no harder to keep my DM knowledge separate from the DMPC's knowledge than it is to keep the BBEG's knowledge separate from my DMPC's knowledge, and if you've developed a personality for the DMPC it's a snap to run 'em. It's usually helpful to have a couple-three 'stock' personalities as engines to run characters off of. The only time you could run into a problem is when the DM thinks the PCs really want to see how awesome the character ten levels higher than they are is. Don't get me wrong - I used to do the ultracompetent character who knows the whole module. I did it once, for one session, and then I packed the DMPC on a bus until I got better at running a game. A rookie DM probably should not run a DMPC - it would probably be better if one or more of his players simply took on more than one character. I've played with two characters simultaneously since I started way back when you still consulted THAC0 tables - it's not as hard as people make out. Dual-wielding PCs may be a better solution to a shortchanged party than a rookie with a DMPC.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-19, 12:42 PM
I have a DMPC who's been in every game I've ever played DM as, but not every session. When I DM, we rotate every game so no one gets left out of playing or DMing, someone in the party always gets a ring of Deus Ex Machina, which will summon the DMPC to assist with the non-combat dilemma. Unless it's steampunk, in which case it's a litteral Ring of God From the Machine.

The character is currently level 43, and gains XP for assisting the players. I do not however, ever put in situations where they must summon him, but leave the option open for them to do so at any time. Things he's been called upon for: Casting True Sight when the solution required it and a fight prior had unexpectedly needed it and Batman had only one casting, with the rest being SOS and SOD's. And a time limit because the dungeon was falling so no eight hour rope trick available..

Level 43?

What level is the party? I have to presume much lower, because in epic levels, you have better things to spend your action doing.

I really don't see how he should be gaining xp from assisting the players. It can't possibly be a level appropriate encounter for him.

Also, a "get out of jail free" card is bad, imo. I'd rather players worry about getting into such a situation in the first place, and if they do, rely on their own resources and abilities, rather than merely paying a DM fiated price.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-19, 12:45 PM
I don't know if anyone else has done this, but back in high school my rather small group swapped the DM seat rather often, and we all ran characters to fill out the party.

But none of us had DMPCs. Rather, we were all PCDMs. Instead of railroading and gandalf syndrome, we had monty haul shenanigans, extreme power leveling, and the dumbest enemies in existence. It's pretty lollorific for a while, and it's probably preferable to the DMPC problem, but the novelty does fade.

This problem is pretty well known...being able to reward yourself is tempting to overdo. The easiest solution is to have whoever is DMing not play for that night. Now, it requires a bit of thinking up reasons as for why character so and so is out tonight, but I find that doing this actually results in more character development. It's only reasonable that each character has some individual desires and goals to fulfill.

Grommen
2009-12-19, 12:49 PM
As a member of the "Kill on Sight" group, I'll agree. When the DM introduces some new NPC who's traveling with us for no reason and has a character sheet of his very own, I start counting the minutes in my head. I usually don't get to 15 before the new guy reveals himself to be cocky and superior and Way Cooler Than All of You.

Then I roll initiative, and the new guy meets my two little friends, mister quickened true strike and mister sudden maximized heightened moilian slashing night's caress.

150 hp damage + 8 Con damage solves that little problem real quick.

It's better that way. Trust me.

And you would get to meat my favorite friend. The door.

Human Paragon 3
2009-12-19, 12:56 PM
My group (almost) always has rotating DMs, so we (almost) always have a DMPC with the party, and it is (almost) never a problem. When it is a problem, it is a very minor problem.

I think what's worse is when PCs from campaigns past show up and show off their uber power in front of a group of low level PCs. We had a DM once who thought a fight was going on too long, so he had two characters from a previous campaign, who none of the players knew but he did, show up and trash the place. It was a lot worse than any DMPC I have ever seen, but they were just run of the mill NPCs.

I think DMPCs are fine as long as it's always the players doing the work. I never use a DMPC to tell the players what to do. My DMPC gives his two cents, and often times the players recognize, correctly, that he's WRONG about what they should do. I play DMPCs just like any other character. They have their own thoughts and feelings about what's going on, as a character, not as a mouthpiece for the DM.

Unless players get really, really stuck and need some gentle help figuring out what to do. I use this only when absolutely necessary to continue the game.

However, if I wasn't about going to be a player myself in a session or two, I probably wouldn't use one. Interesting-NPC-of-the-week is a little more fun than "the guy that hangs out with you for some reason."

DabblerWizard
2009-12-19, 03:49 PM
the DMPC becomes a non-entity in an effort to avoid influencing the outcome of the campaign or the character taints party decisions with DM knowledge.

^^ This is a good point.

Compared to the other players, the DM has an arsenal of NPCs to act out. These include everybody from nameless merchants that buy your loot, to pivotal plot centric BBEGs.

Functionally, a DMPC and an NPC don't necessarily differ in the kind of information they give a party. Whenever the group summons a mystic sage to figure out x, y, and z, they're receiving the information from the DM's mouth. DMPC knowledge also comes directly from the DM's mouth. Yet this information is much more acceptable, and expected from NPCs, than from DMPCs.

Why is that?

Any DM controlled character can be called an NPC. The major role of an NPC is to act as a plot device: to develop the story, and to aid or hinder the player's characters within that story.

A DMPC is a "special" NPC. Their major role as a plot device becomes secondary to their new role as an in-game adjunct directly in favor of the DM.

"But my DMPC doesn't play favorites!" you say:

What DM wants to make a character that tears apart his story and works against the plot he's trying to get the players to follow? No DM, that's who.

At best, as quoted above, a DMPC is a hyper-meaningless character that serves a very blunted roll. Why does this take place? The concerned DM doesn't want his special character to be too special. Ultimately, he often ends up limiting the DMPC even more than he would a regular NPC, making the DMPC useless.

At worst, they become a personal pet for the DM, overshadowing the players, and just giving the DM a power trip. "Look at how wonderful my character is... wow... he's so much better than you guys"

Any NPC could accidentally become a DMPC. All it takes is flushed out stats, more powers, more background, more everything.

Ultimately, this brings us to the point that any NPC, whether intentional DMPC or regular NPC, can be annoying to the players.

An NPC that overshadows, railroads, "nudges", or otherwise takes away a group's freedom to control the story, becomes a bother.

This Super-NPC problem can be circumvented in certain situations in-game. Especially for roleplay centric players, the loss of their beloved character is a tragedy.

There's nothing wrong with creating NPCs with special knowledge, or special power, as long as their role is transient (short lived), and as long as the players want the help.

Triaxx
2009-12-19, 09:01 PM
He's 43 independant of the parties. He's been around since the first game I played, back in 2e, and he developed so much character that when that game ended just shy of level 19, I decided to have him hang around.

He's not gaining XP from assisting the party. He's gaining XP from assisting the players by providing the tools to work out the situation.

The situation in detail: They had just fought a group of enemies using familiars to cast spells where the wizards weren't but hidden from view using mundane means. Since they only had one shot of True Sight and it was wasted since they weren't magically hidden, they were seriously distraught when the puzzle came up. It was three levers, three exits, and an illusion to cover them and the ropes running from the levers. The rogue made his spot check to see that they weren't real illusions. They had two minutes of timer to discuss the solution before the game ended. They took thirty seconds making rolls to disbelieve, but failed by one at least twice out of ten rolls.

At thirty seconds remaining, one of them suggested two plans. Each grab and pull a lever then dash out the exit, or pick one lever and run out hoping it was correct. That was when I offered them the chance to use the ring. They jumped at it, since True Sight had been suggested and discarded after they found it'd been used the one time it was available that day. So they summoned him with exactly that in mind. He appeared, and cast Heartbeat, like time stop, but it lasts as long as it's necessary but the only thing you can do during it is talk. They explained the situation and what they wanted. He took the shiny new breastplate, two expensive scrolls and a cloak of invisiblity, cast the Spell and left. It revealed that only one of the levers was correct anyway, the other two broken and useless. They grabbed the lever and hauled out with only ten seconds remaining.

Now, did they need the ring? No. The other two plans were sound and would have gotten them out. Either one of them would have grabbed the correct lever and opened the door, or the lever they picked would have been correct. Were they willing to pay the exorbinant price for a 'Get out of Jail Free' that they didn't need? Yes. Were they mad at themselves and promising not to use it again when they were finished? Absolutely.

A couple of things that keep it from being a 'oh no, trouble, use the POWAH ring' device. My Ring, My Rules. If I don't think it's a worthy use, or even a good idea, the ring simply won't work. They aren't allowed to write it on any inventory list, ever. So they mostly don't remember they have it at all.

It doesn't always work quite as intended. 'This is too dangerous, get us out of here.' Is likely to end you up somewhere less dangerous, but also likely to end you somewhere you aren't technically prepared for. Once the group tried to use it to escape some Werewolves they'd underestimated. They landed in the midst of a number of Silver Golems, immune to the weapons they were equipped with. They survived, but it reminded them the ring is not a Get out of Jail Free for every situation. Finally, I limit it to one use a session, but if they use it and then decide to refuse the assistance, they gain some XP.

So I totally admit to favoring this one character, but since he's not doing anything except providing a preparation for the unexpected, which we should all expect, I don't have to worry about backlash. He even fits nicely into Tomb of Horrors, where he's also trying to screw you over.

He's been summoned there. After the eighth set of characters bit it, to player stupidity, they used the ring and stupidly asked to live forever. I petrified the lot of them, then awakened them all. The next set tried to pry the ring from the old set and wound up with two, then tried to use both at once. They summoned a Sphere of Annihilation. You can guess what happened.

Serpentine
2009-12-19, 09:51 PM
From my PoV, there is a lot of 'but DMPCs work' stories that are actually an NPC, because I don't view it as a matter of making a character, but of intent.And most of the "DMPCs never work" stories are badly run ones.

To me, a character only becomes an NPC when the DM treats the character as a player treats their PC- roleplaying interactions with NPCs, taking the lead in the story, progressing in power by acquiring experience and treasure.Not all of my PCs take the lead in my stories. In fact, it's a bit of a problem how passive they are. Otherwise, yes, roleplaying, progressing in power and aquiring experience and treasure. OH THE HORROR!

They don't have any of the DM's ego invested in them, they don't take the place of another player, they don't take the spotlight, they don't sole mysteries, and so on.My DMPC... well I suppose she might have some of my "ego invested", whatever that means, but she doesn't take the place of another player, or take the spotlight for more than a moment, or "solve mysteries" - though she might give a few clues or suggestions. She's otherwise just the same as any other PC, though (though if I were a player, I'd be doing a pretty poor job of roleplaying her).

If, on the other hand, you take a character that you'd play as a PC, and then as a DM bring it in with the same mindset, then you deserve the scorn even if you're doing your best.You have no right to judge my DMing just because of your own narrow preconceived notions and inability to consider that, just maybe, what you'd do with a DMPC is not what everyone would do. Or with a normal character, for that matter.

No matter your excellence at referee-ing, your objectivity is now in question and you are distracted from doing your job as a referee.A player is expected to separate in-game knowledge from out-of-game knowledge. I do the exact same thing when I'm DMing. And I happen to be, in my opinion, quite excellent at it. If anything, I'm a touch too cautious, and end up ruling against my own character.


What DM wants to make a character that tears apart his story and works against the plot he's trying to get the players to follow? No DM, that's who.I wouldn't want any of my players to do that, either. In fact, I think that's a sign of an AWFUL player. They wouldn't last long in my game, if only because I'm nowhere near quick enough to keep up with them. Seriously, do you REALLY expect your players to do this? My God.

At best, as quoted above, a DMPC is a hyper-meaningless character that serves a very blunted roll. Why does this take place? The concerned DM doesn't want his special character to be too special. Ultimately, he often ends up limiting the DMPC even more than he would a regular NPC, making the DMPC useless.Yet again: Absolutely no middle ground. A DMPC MUST be either super-powerful or useless. I can say for a fact that this is blatantly incorrect.

At worst, they become a personal pet for the DM, overshadowing the players, and just giving the DM a power trip. "Look at how wonderful my character is... wow... he's so much better than you guys"See above: nup.

Any NPC could accidentally become a DMPC. All it takes is flushed out stats, more powers, more background, more everything.How terrible.

Ultimately, this brings us to the point that any NPC, whether intentional DMPC or regular NPC, can be annoying to the players.No doubt true. So could anything else.

Moofaa
2009-12-19, 10:31 PM
Using a DMPC succesfully entirely depends on the maturity of the group.

A DMPC that is a see-all/know-all/do anything type thats designed to be a extension of the DMs ego suggests that DM needs to grow up.

Likewise, those players with the "EWWW SHANK IT ON SIGHT" attitudes don't belong in the game. They should go play Halo on XboxLIVE or something so they can shout cuss words on the mic thinking they are cool.

Properly crafted DMPCs will:

Fullfill story-roles first and foremost
Fullfill strategic roles as needed (as in small party lacking healer, etc.)
Never steal the spotlight or glory from the players

I have a friend helping me playtest a campaign world with heavily modified d20 rules. Since its just the two of us, and he wanted to play a dual-wielding fighter I made 2 DMPCs, one is a healer, the other a rogue. Both characters aren't simple NPC tag-alongs or just stat blocks. Neither is nearly as optimized as his fighter, yet both have fully developed character backgrounds which the player(s) could explore if they wished.

In a recent session, for example, the player had some time to wait for an event. When asked if he had any plans until the event he decided to visit one of the DMPCs (the rogue) and went on a series of short adventures that ended up being tied into the main plot. Great fun, great roleplaying, and lots of hack and slash resulted in which the DMPC was able to fullfill both story and strategic roles.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-19, 11:03 PM
He's 43 independant of the parties. He's been around since the first game I played, back in 2e, and he developed so much character that when that game ended just shy of level 19, I decided to have him hang around.

He's not gaining XP from assisting the party. He's gaining XP from assisting the players by providing the tools to work out the situation.....stuff

Your players do not need a level 43 buddy. They just don't.

If you want some sort of mechanism like this, have them find a ring of wishes in the loot or some such. Or find out about pazuzu.

This sounds like a giant wad of fiat that's...dangerous.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-19, 11:06 PM
A player is expected to separate in-game knowledge from out-of-game knowledge. I do the exact same thing when I'm DMing. And I happen to be, in my opinion, quite excellent at it.

How many players have, in your experience, claimed to be bad at this? Including people who were in fact bad at this?

It's a fact of life that people tend to estimate their own abilities in a rather biased light.

Serpentine
2009-12-19, 11:12 PM
How many players have, in your experience, claimed to be bad at this? Including people who were in fact bad at this?

It's a fact of life that people tend to estimate their own abilities in a rather biased light.Quite true, but more importantly, so what?
My DMPC has NEVER used DM knowledge to her own advantage. Not once. Maybe to her disadvantage, occasionally, but never very much. If ever a piece of information could result in a certain action, I always first ask, "would my character, not having this information, do that?" If the answer is no, she won't. If the answer is yes, she may, or I may decide that she would do something else to avoid even the appearance of using OOC knowledge.
You also have not addressed anything else I've said.

That said, Triaxx's DMPC sounds like the bad sort to me. Maybe it works in practice, but as described it sounds like pretty much all the "don'ts" of DMPCs, with a twist... BUT. Just because that one is (or sounds) bad, doesn't mean that ALL are.

Solaris
2009-12-19, 11:16 PM
How many players have, in your experience, claimed to be bad at this? Including people who were in fact bad at this?

It's a fact of life that people tend to estimate their own abilities in a rather biased light.

I know I used to be bad at this. But see, doubting everyone's claims on the internet gets dangerous - I can say "How many DMs have, in your experience, claimed to be bad at DMPCs? Including people who were in fact bad at this?" and then call you a bald-faced liar when you reply with "X many".
In short, let's not play this game. I'd much rather we all accept the fact that some people simply ought not to be running D&D games, while some are good at it.

Some of us, after all, are capable of honest self-examination. Judging by all the posts I've seen from Serp, I'd call her one of them.

Serpentine
2009-12-19, 11:19 PM
Some of us, after all, are capable of honest self-examination. Judging by all the posts I've seen from Serp, I'd call her one of them.That's one of the nicest things anyone's said about me :smallsmile: Well, not the nicest, maybe... most believable compliments? If you know what I mean?

But yeah. If you want a list of my flaws as DM, Tynny, make yourself comfy cuz it's long. But I don't believe that's on it.

Zincorium
2009-12-20, 02:25 AM
@Serp-

You are seriously and confusingly defensive about this. By 'investing your ego', what I meant is that you like it when the DMPC does well and dislike it when the DMPC fails (which is how PCs are often viewed by players). If you definitely fall into that category, I'm not going to apologize, because I think you're hurting your own game. If you don't, please accept that my posts are not directed at you.

Player's go into D&D with a limited capability and try to do their best to survive with that capability. As a DM, your capability isn't actually limited anymore.

Imagine that you are a player in a game (not the DM), and another player is told they can do whatever they want by the DM. The DM states that it's okay that they can do this, while you cannot, because the DM trusts that person to not do anything that would make the game less fun than you.

Does that sound like a fun situation? Because you have put every single one of your players in that situation by having a DMPC. You trust yourself not to do anything that the players would resent, like powergaming this character or railroading, but everyone knows you could at the drop of a hat.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 02:44 AM
By 'investing your ego', what I meant is that you like it when the DMPC does well and dislike it when the DMPC fails (which is how PCs are often viewed by players).Not particularly. I get quite a lot of fun out of seeing my - and other - characters screw up. It's nice when my (DM or not) character does something cool, but I have the self restraint - more than that, it doesn't even cross my mind to try - to not have my DM character doing awesome things at every turn. In fact, my DM character is pretty much designed not to.

If you definitely fall into that category, I'm not going to apologize, because I think you're hurting your own game.You're wrong, and judging my DMing on this one factor, which CAN BE USED WELL, no matter what you all keep insisting, is offensive and wrong.

If you don't, please accept that my posts are not directed at you.You're blanket dismissing every single DM who runs their own character. It is directed at me, and I am offended.

Player's go into D&D with a limited capability and try to do their best to survive with that capability. As a DM, your capability isn't actually limited anymore.
Imagine that you are a player in a game (not the DM), and another player is told they can do whatever they want by the DM. The DM states that it's okay that they can do this, while you cannot, because the DM trusts that person to not do anything that would make the game less fun than you.

Does that sound like a fun situation? Because you have put every single one of your players in that situation by having a DMPC. You trust yourself not to do anything that the players would resent, like powergaming this character or railroading, but everyone knows you could at the drop of a hat.No, we don't, not necessarily. I treat my DMPC exactly the same (except, maybe, where it would be useful to the rest of the party) as any other character. That includes vetoing things I wouldn't allow other characters to do.
Unlike you, apparently, my players trust me to not abuse my power. They know I would never do that, and to the best of my knowledge it hasn't even crossed their minds that I could.
The lack of trust displayed here is staggering. How can you stand to play under these people at all?

Okay, many people here have obviously played alongside very bad DMPCs. Does that give you the right to declare and insist right to the hilt that every single DMPC that has ever or could ever exist is bad? That the only and immediate solution to the arrival of one in a game is death, preferably brutal and painful? Absolutely not. No more than having someone play a Druid, or a Monk, or being an optimiser or powergamer or roleplayer. Your experience does not dictate absolute reality.

Leon
2009-12-20, 02:57 AM
Okay, many people here have obviously played alongside very bad DMPCs. Does that give you the right to declare and insist right to the hilt that every single DMPC that has ever or could ever exist is bad? That the only and immediate solution to the arrival of one in a game is death, preferably brutal and painful? Absolutely not. No more than having someone play a Druid, or a Monk, or being an optimiser or powergamer or roleplayer. Your experience does not dictate absolute reality.

They would like to believe it does.

Myrmex
2009-12-20, 03:15 AM
They would like to believe it does.

They certainly have that right, at least in America. Unless it somehow falls under the Sedition clause, but I doubt that'd be the case.

Regardless, it certainly is a flawed argument.

Zincorium
2009-12-20, 03:47 AM
Not particularly. I get quite a lot of fun out of seeing my - and other - characters screw up. It's nice when my (DM or not) character does something cool, but I have the self restraint - more than that, it doesn't even cross my mind to try - to not have my DM character doing awesome things at every turn. In fact, my DM character is pretty much designed not to.


You're wrong, and judging my DMing on this one factor, which CAN BE USED WELL, no matter what you all keep insisting, is offensive and wrong.
You're blanket dismissing every single DM who runs their own character. It is directed at me, and I am offended.

Reading comprehension, please.

IF you are not invested in your character's future, and you're not, I was EXPLICITLY STATING that I am not saying anything bad about you.

I'm not a complete jerkass. You seem to be of the opinion that because I disagree with the use of MY DEFINITION of DMPCs (that does not include your character) that I'm calling you a bad DM. Get off the high horse already.

Frankly, you seem to be completely dismissing the possibility that a DMPC could ever, ever be anything less than completely desirable. In your perfect world, I'm sure there are are never any problems.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 03:54 AM
I'm invested in my character's future. I have long-term goals for her. She has a history, has made mistakes, has regrets, has things she wants to do someday. My exit strategy for her includes this. But my hopes for her future do not outweigh the needs of other characters, unless it would make an interesting side quest.

I know there are bad DMPCs. Many, even. I've even played under one. But the default response here and in all other threads on this topic is "they don't work, don't do it, if someone uses one they're a bad DM". This is patently untrue.

The DMPC you described in what I believe is your first post is both what I do play, and, in my opinion, a description of a pretty reasonable one mostly. You said:
If, on the other hand, you take a character that you'd play as a PC, and then as a DM bring it in with the same mindset, then you deserve the scorn even if you're doing your best.You were talking about me. And you wonder why I got defensive. I have explained why I disagree.

You may not be one of those people who believe that it is impossible to have a good DMPC (though I think you're very, very close). I was, to a large extent, lumping you in with such people. In that case, I apologise. My point remain valid as responses to them.

Zincorium
2009-12-20, 04:40 AM
Serpentine:
If this is how you deal with disagreements and perceived slights, you'd have probably kicked me out of your game.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 04:50 AM
Replying to the post I saw, not the edit.
As best as I'm able to determine, your definition of a DMPC is "a bad DMPC", and anything that could be "a good DMPC" is not a DMPC. My DMPC is a character I would make if I were just a player, more or less played like I would play her if I were just a player, with all the limitations and leeway I would place on her if she were someone else's character. My previous DM's PC was a character he had played for quite some time. If that is not a DMPC, what is? If you like, we can start again with that: What is your definition of a DMPC, and how does that fit in with everyone else's?

If you cannot trust your DM to do something abusable without abusing it, and cannot give them the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're doing before they give you any reason to think otherwise, you probably wouldn't have joined my games in the first place.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-12-20, 05:38 AM
Your experience does not dictate absolute reality.That's because MINE does!

Anyway...

While I don't particularly like (and don't often read) the other cyclical, repetitive argument threads, DMPC arguments hold a soft spot in my heart for some reason. I guess I just derive some grotesque enjoyment out of reading an argument over, at its essence, how a made up gaming term is properly defined.

Triaxx
2009-12-20, 06:02 AM
Tyndmyr:Yours might not. Mine do. They're very knowledgeable (Read: Rules Lawyers), creative, and the point at which they get stuck always requires divine intervention.

We don't talk about the Ring of Wishes. We just don't.

Yes, but because it's a fiat, it can't be abused.

Serpentine: He works in practice, because: A) He doesn't flaunt that he's more powerful and then refuse to help. B) He doesn't come unless they summon him, so any complaints they have, they brought on themselves, and C) He leaves as soon as he's done what they've asked of him.

A truly bad DMPC: Tells you constantly he's super powerful, and then refuses to help, saying, 'You've got to do it yourself.' And once they show up, they never ever go away.

I've been on the other end of the DMPC and I'm well aware how bad it is when the fights are either tremendously harder because they're 'adjusting for the extra party member' (who doesn't do anything.), or boringly easy because the DMPC is Batman and kills everything before we get a turn.

I've walked out of over a dozen games that had a badly used DMPC, but I've never had anyone walk out when mine made an appearence. Think on that before you instantly declare them the worst thing since Pun-Pun.

pres_man
2009-12-20, 07:25 AM
You are seriously and confusingly defensive about this. By 'investing your ego', what I meant is that you like it when the DMPC does well and dislike it when the DMPC fails (which is how PCs are often viewed by players). If you definitely fall into that category, I'm not going to apologize, because I think you're hurting your own game. If you don't, please accept that my posts are not directed at you.

I might point out that I some times get a bit flustered when the BBEG that I worked on all week can't get a single effect to work (PCs make all their saves, concentration checks all fail, attack rolls and saves all fail). I dislike it when that happens. Does that make the BBEG a "DMPC" (derogatory definition)? I don't think so, I think it makes me human. Likewise a party NPC (DMPC non-derogatory definition) is going to have some interest from me. I like to see the rolls come out nice and find it frustrating when they don't. Of course I roll everything out in the open, so there is never any concern of "fudging" the rolls because I want a certain outcome. Emotional interest in a character and one's ethical game behavior need not be exclusive.


Player's go into D&D with a limited capability and try to do their best to survive with that capability. As a DM, your capability isn't actually limited anymore.

That depends on one's game philosphy I guess.


Imagine that you are a player in a game (not the DM), and another player is told they can do whatever they want by the DM. The DM states that it's okay that they can do this, while you cannot, because the DM trusts that person to not do anything that would make the game less fun than you.

Does that sound like a fun situation? Because you have put every single one of your players in that situation by having a DMPC. You trust yourself not to do anything that the players would resent, like powergaming this character or railroading, but everyone knows you could at the drop of a hat.

I personal wouldn't give such favortism to a single players, instead I basically give all the players free rein when it comes to their characters. You want to use a splatbook, go ahead, 3PP go ahead. Of course they are, and any party NPC (DMPC non-derogatory definition) as well does too, required to meet the character creation guidelines (appropriate ECL, wealth, point buy points or rolling in front of others, etc). Again, more freedom doesn't mean a total lack of restrictions or responsibilities for me the DM or the players. If you find yourself unable to trust the people you are playing with, perhaps you should find a new gaming group.

Life is too short to game with morons.

Nero24200
2009-12-20, 07:32 AM
• Obviously, a DM can play a character, if they want to. Just because you can do something doesn't automatically make it a good idea.



• Because the DM has to suffer through the same challenges they do, the other players are less likely to have hostile feelings after a tough fight. Not true, in fact one of the reasons why DMPC's get such a reputation is because rather than suffering the same challenges, they overcome them too easily with their Mary Sue degrees of power.



• When the DM has a PC as well, the other PCs can be nudged in the right direction without feeling railroaded. If you honestly feel this is true, would it apply any moreso than another NPC doing it? Wouldn't the PC's feel less rail-roaded if you sent them on quests that their characters would want to do themselves and don't require rails to try?

I don't feel the benifits outweight the flaws. There are some cases where, yes, a DMPC isn't that bad, but it's more of a case of specific group dynamics. I think alot of people fail to forget that just because something might work for their own group doesn't mean it works for others, and I think fewer are even familier with this conceapt of their group being a minority.

ErrantX
2009-12-20, 07:33 AM
In my campaign, my group has a small number of DMPC's that hang out with them from time to time, and generally only operate in a support capacity. In fact, outside of one of them that as a character is pretty ornery, they all get along quite well (and even enjoy the ornery one!). One is a sorcerer based gish, one is a warblade, and one is a bard. I also have a huge cast of major NPCs that are all in some fashion relevant to the plot. My PCs regularly accept missions and quests from these people, go to them for advice, and from time to time adventure with them. In combat situations, I find ways to either isolate the NPC from them, or have them busy with another situation (such as figuring out how to open a magical door while they fight the bad guy) or in the case of the bard, sing and provide additional buffs for them. DMPCs can add a great deal of depth to the world and to your story, provided that you have mature players that are there for a good story and a good time with friends.


As a member of the "Kill on Sight" group, I'll agree. When the DM introduces some new NPC who's traveling with us for no reason and has a character sheet of his very own, I start counting the minutes in my head. I usually don't get to 15 before the new guy reveals himself to be cocky and superior and Way Cooler Than All of You.

Then I roll initiative, and the new guy meets my two little friends, mister quickened true strike and mister sudden maximized heightened moilian slashing night's caress.

150 hp damage + 8 Con damage solves that little problem real quick.

It's better that way. Trust me.

{Scrubbed}

As a DM (I am my group's regular full time DM) for going on 20 years now, I have never allowed a DMPC to outshine my PCs or have them go out and act all superior. I'm sure some DM's do, but that's more of a fault of the DM then the play style.

-X

pres_man
2009-12-20, 07:38 AM
If you honestly feel this is true, would it apply any moreso than another NPC doing it? Wouldn't the PC's feel less rail-roaded if you sent them on quests that their characters would want to do themselves and don't require rails to try?

I would guess it has to do with consistency. Having a character at hand at all times to remind the party what they were doing in game, considering there may be breaks in real world time between sessions and individual players may have forgotten the current issue (my own group is taking a two week break for the holidays for example). It would seem alot stranger for Joe Pigfarmer to walk up to a random group of adventures and remind them of the quest they are on, then for Bob Songboy, the traveling bard with the group to remind them. Of course you could just deal with all of the details out of game, but really what fun is that.

GAThraawn
2009-12-20, 08:47 AM
I think that the main problem in any discussion that springs up around this topic is the constant and enduring double meaning of "DMPC". I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that any character the DM creates with the intent of being a long-term member of the party, who is in possession of skills and abilities far in excess of what the rest of the party have and who flaunts them regularly, is bad. This is the "Nightmare DMPC" against whom so many are rallying, and I concur with that.

Unfortunately, this seems to spawn widespread hatred for any party member created and run by the DM, and I am in complete agreement with Serp that it is possible to run a DMPC, a character similar to one you would play if you weren't DMing, whose story you are invested in and whom you enjoy seeing do well, without going off the rails. Such a character need be no stronger, unbalancing or annoying than any of the other PCs, and some people's insistance that it would is insulting to the abilities of competant and capable DMs.

I think this comes down to one of the most fundemental divides in Role-playing games: the people who value story, character and interaction over hard results, and the more utility-focused players who seek to do the absolute mechanical best in every situation. The former group are more likely to get involved in in-character roleplaying (although it's certainly not exclusive to them) away from combat, and advance their character's story and traits, even if doing so would seem to be to their detriment. My characters very seldom live up to their true potential, because I enjoy seeing them struggle against their weaknesses (even those that are solely role-playing flaws) and am entertained by deliberately making them screw things up, because it would be reasonable for them to do so in character. I actually have something of a reputation for reverse-metagaming, taking out-of-game knowledge and having my character do the worst possible thing with it, because there's no reason for him to know better, even if I do (Had several rogues try to sneak-attack undead, for example, only to be disappointed by the ineffectual results).

Players and DMs like this, like me and Serp, have no difficulty playing characters that fall far short of the potential unlimited cosmic powers they could theoretically have by being DMPCs, since we're more interested in having a fun game and telling an engaging story than trying to "beat" the game or the other players. It's mostly with the players who view D&D as one enormous maximization challenge that the problem of god-like DMPCs arise. I'm not critisizing the playstyle, because it's a perfectly valid one where something like D&D is concerned, but it will lead to scenarios in which the DM feels compelled to try and do the best they can with their DMPC, which can obviously lead to bad places. I do wish, however, that people could accept the fact that simply because they may have experience with utility-maximizing players doesn't mean everyone plays that way, and it doesn't justify making blanket statements about all DMPCs everywhere ever, or the DMs that may choose to run them.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 08:51 AM
Well said, Thraawn :smallsmile:

What he said.

mikej
2009-12-20, 09:36 AM
I don't like DMPC's and I'm fully aware that it's a poorly used deratory term. I fully understand that it has been done right before in other gaming groups. I've just never seen a actually DMPC played "correctly" before in my gaming group. I still really like to play with them, they're all good friends, but that's something that really bugs. Luckly, it's only one DM that does it. The other main DM has made them but were closet to being done right.

My first thread post here on GiTP was about one "DMPC" my at the time DM had hang out with out party. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97099) You'll see what I mean by "dislike," plus I was saying it nicely.

Zincorium
2009-12-20, 09:55 AM
GAthrawwn:

If you think blanket descriptions that might be insulting to groups of people are the wrong thing to do, edit your post. Just sayin'.

Giegue
2009-12-20, 10:25 AM
Coming from a person who has both played and DMed, I can say this, DMPCs have some limited uses but can easily be screwed up. However, I always end up having to play a DMPC because I am constantly cursed with having small parties.(My first ever D&D campaign I DMed was a solo game, with me as DM and one VERY powerful PC.)

However, if you are have a small party and thus the need to add a PC, here are a few tips, coming from experience...

- Have them be for the most part supporting rolls. Don't even bother to wrtie a backstory for them, because a DMPC's backstory should never become important. Try and make them just a supporting cast member and let the PCs influence the game while the DMPC just dose whatever everybody else needs him/her to do.

-Remember the ONLY use of the DMPC is to compensate for a small party or lack of rolls. That's all. That's the only good use a DMPC has. Other then that it usually ends up being an utter disaster that has no piratical use other then things that upset players. So if you have a large party, NEVER run a DMPC, EVER. It just is pointless in a big party.

-Don't optimize the DMPC. In fact, it may help with the favoritism thing to actually purposely gimp the DMPC in some way, though if you want to have them be able to actually help the party you may not want to hit their main stat.

- Don't use the DMPC to railroad or get the players where you want them to be in the plot. NPCs can do this effectively enough, so why have a DMPC do it and in more obvious ways, thus getting the party upset? Just remember the reason for a DMPC is a small party with lack of rolls. If you have a large enough party, don't use a DMPC, pure and simple.

- In combat, have the DMPC act as surprised as the players. If the DMPC is a wizard, have them prepare the spells they would prepair as if they where played by a PC rather then the DM. In fact, it would be wise for you to actually purposely have them prepare some spells that would be useless in the upcoming encounter to make it fair and to make it seam like you where not trying to play on prior knowledge.


Thats all I have to say. Just remember, a DMPC should only be used when it is absolutely necessary, and in your case it unfortunately is.

Also, for all those people that mentioned hirelings, hirelings don't work because they are HIRElings, as in you need GOLD to obtain them. A low level party of 2 people just won't cut it. You CAN'T have an effective 2 person party unless you go VERY easy on them, and thats no fun now is it? So, since hirelings cost money, at best they would need to be mid level to even dream of having one unless they work for cheap....and I must ask, why would ANYBODY risk their life for cheap?

While I do like the idea of the PCs deciding if the new member should join the party, I do NOT think their should be gold involved. Instead, introduce a NPC or DMPC who is looking for adventure or something else besides money. This allows for the PCs to have their party be fuller before they go fight stuff and thus prevents the DM from having to baby the party until they get enough gold.

-

Leon
2009-12-20, 10:49 AM
They certainly have that right, at least in America. Unless it somehow falls under the Sedition clause, but I doubt that'd be the case.

Regardless, it certainly is a flawed argument.

Having the Right to say it doesn't make it correct for every situation and as is very common on here the situation occurs rather often for a select number of topics and has the same outcome (more or less) each time.

Slayn82
2009-12-20, 12:00 PM
So, since hirelings cost money, at best they would need to be mid level to even dream of having one unless they work for cheap....and I must ask, why would ANYBODY risk their life for cheap?
-

All those Charm Person spells around are a good start. Thats how my DMPC entered the party. By being Charmed to sell a magic item, and then deciding to stick around. Those Holy Temples that PCs often go are also a good place to find people. The Key thing is that a DMPC must be introduced gradually to the parties. First the party must like the guy, then the guy must have a reason/excuse to go around. Just because "adventurers make lots of money" is not a very good one.

Having him simply apearing from thin air is as annoying as when in real life someone you dont know or like wants that you give him a ride to his home or job because its "on the way" without introducing himself, and then enter with a lot of baggage and changes the radio station disregarding your musical preference. Then goes talking about how your car is a piece of Junk, how his house is beautiful, how his job is awesome, etc, etc, fraking etc. Even gives the same homicidal urges, i bet.

Most people dislike strangers, and just because they do YOUR JOB better than you is not really reason to like them.

So, overpowered DMPCs is a full of problems. Stick with overpowered NPCs if you really need this kind of thing. And dont "save" your DMPC from the party stupidy, like "everyone falls in the trap, but the DMPC refused to enter the room and takes no damage". That kind of thing leads your players to relly in the DMPC behavior to decide their actions, for no good reason beyond "its the DMPC".

And there is the trouble of the treasure rolling. Its very suspicious when, at the end of an adventure, half of the magic items are only useable by de DMPC, or the DMPC just claims them because he is already the more powerfull party member. That can start wars.

For the DMPC vs DM knowledge issue, thats not all that bad. Think about how book writers have to balance the heroes and the villains, and separate their knowledges. The author knows everything, but the characthers usually not.

When you are planning an adventure, you must already plan your DMPC reactions in advance to certain plots, and decide what they Know or not. If you are making things on the fly it can be a lot more difficult, but try to resist the urge to make your DMPCs all powerfull. Make them act stupid sometimes, just like the PCs always do.

jmbrown
2009-12-20, 12:05 PM
While railroading with a DMPC is bad, they should be used for a second opinion when the party is stuck and frustrated. Let the PCs lead and do what they do. When they've hit a major roadblock (and by major I mean everyone at the table is flipping dice, texting on their cells, or showing total disinterest in the game) the DMPC should give his personal opinion on the situation then go back to shutting up.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-20, 12:58 PM
Hmm no one cared about my very different input. Oh well the thread started going down hill. Here we go


This results in a much higher likelihood of party deaths.I'm cool with that. If you don't wanna die as a PC just play batman :smalltongue:


Hireling /= DMPC.I know, but my advice doesn't change.


using a DMPC isn't a selfless act...it's fulfilling the desire to play.It need not be either. If you don't like playing the game, you won't be involved...


D&D, as well as many other systems, bogs down if you get too large of a group. Adding DMPCs to an already decently sized group will contribute to this effect.This is very true. But there are ways to minimize this. The problem is that many players aren't used to big groups (and feel cheated if they lose their turn for being too slow). I personally love time restrictions, as it forces everyone to pay attention.


there is a lot of 'but DMPCs work' stories that are actually an NPC...

To me, a character only becomes an NPC when the DM treats the character as a player treats their PC- roleplaying interactions with NPCs, taking the lead in the story, progressing in power by acquiring experience and treasure.This is silly. All NPCs should be roughly stated in case players initiate combat with them. Whether of not the PCs allow an NPC to travel with them should be up to the PCs, not the DM. If PCs allow NPC help and said NPC gains a level I don't see much distinction between DMPCs. NPCs should never take the lead in the story, though. Also the DM should never invest 'ego' in any character, NPC or DMPC. If it dies, it dies. Its not him, its just a character. He's the DM. He can make more (just as a player should be able to).

I stopped reading after this

Harr
2009-12-20, 01:05 PM
I've had pretty good success with DMPC's by following the following rules:

1) The DMPC is always a healer/buffer role, a role which my players always hate playing for some reason.

2) The DMPC always maintains themselves either at equal XP or slightly less XP than the least experienced member of the party; if that means he has to miss out on XP they should have legally gotten (for example if a player is abesnt from a game), so be it.

3) The DMPC is always true neutral and has all powers of decision-making and free will taken away from them. Basically at every point of important decisions of what to do, their stance is always, without exception to the lines of "Idono, I'll go along with whatever you guys decide *shrug* I don't really care as long as I stay alive and get paid at the end".

Following the above has led us to pretty good and fun games using a DMPC, with the players not only appreciating them, but a lot of times becoming downright protective and jealous over them.

So yeah, it can be done right. IF you're willing to let go of them to a certain extent.

Mercenary Pen
2009-12-20, 04:21 PM
I'll admit that I'm currently running a DMPC in 4e. On the other hand, this is everyone's first campaign of D&D at all (excluding neverwinter nights, which doesn't count). We're not able to get many campaign sessions in, so we're still running through Keep on the Shadowfell at the moment.

My reasons were as follows for creating him in the first place:
1- I felt we needed a fifth player to achieve proper balance against the pre-set encounters, and I was inexperienced enough that I didn't want to immediately start re-writing all the battles.

2- I wanted to get a feel for playing rather than just DMing.

3- Nobody had any previous experience of the game, and this guy comes in handy for demonstrating tricks that the players don't quite get.


What I generally do to keep him acceptable:
1- He's exactly the same level as the other PC's, his rolls are done on their side of the screen, and if they want, they get to see his character sheet. This means he fails as often as they do, and regularly takes his full share of the punishment the enemy deals out.

2- He's as passive as they are, so I'm only gonna start bringing out his character once my players (who are incidentally all family) start developing character traits for their own PC's (I let them hold off on that to start with, so as to ease them in gently)

3- I never use him to throw in plot hooks. If my plot hooks are good enough to have other people follow them, they're good enough to be set out properly, rather than randomly parroted by my PC.

If this offends people, then that's entirely their prerogative, but my current party are fine with this.

Myrmex
2009-12-20, 04:31 PM
{scrubbed}

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 04:45 PM
I dislike DMPCs. I've seen plenty of DMs who state that "mine are different!" with no sense of irony to it, who still made me rage for one of three reasons: They made the combat longer and more/less challenging depending on the DMs adjustment for them, they took portions of XP and money from the party, they took screen time without adding anything useful while breaking the rules (by not doing the second flaw).

So basically, while they were telling me that they did DMPCs properly, I still killed them off, even when on solo missions, because they added absolutely nothing that could not have been constructively implemented in more interesting or entertaining ways.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 06:59 PM
Serpentine:
If this is how you deal with disagreements and perceived slights, you'd have probably kicked me out of your game.

This. I have no idea why she's taking this all so personally.


If something leads to disaster two times out of three, doing it is generally a poor choice. Sure, there is an exception to nearly every rule, but pointing at the one exception doesn't really change the fact that you're aware that this choice frequently ruins games, and you decided to try it anyway.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 07:05 PM
Tyndmyr:Yours might not. Mine do. They're very knowledgeable (Read: Rules Lawyers), creative, and the point at which they get stuck always requires divine intervention.

Knowledgeable, creative, and stuck to the point of needing divine intervention don't really mesh well. Seriously, if you can't think of a way out of any situation in D&D, either you're not trying hard enough, or the DM is specifically trying to screw you.

Or you have a party of monks in an low magic world.


We don't talk about the Ring of Wishes. We just don't.

Yes, but because it's a fiat, it can't be abused.

Uh...anything can be abused or not abused. Making something wholly out of fiat doesn't fix that.


Serpentine: He works in practice, because: A) He doesn't flaunt that he's more powerful and then refuse to help. B) He doesn't come unless they summon him, so any complaints they have, they brought on themselves, and C) He leaves as soon as he's done what they've asked of him.

A truly bad DMPC: Tells you constantly he's super powerful, and then refuses to help, saying, 'You've got to do it yourself.' And once they show up, they never ever go away.

They can be bad even if they help. I, for one, hate seeing superpowered NPCs solve the party problems for us. If this is "necessary", someone screwed up horribly. By that, I generally mean the DM.


I've walked out of over a dozen games that had a badly used DMPC, but I've never had anyone walk out when mine made an appearence. Think on that before you instantly declare them the worst thing since Pun-Pun.

If you've left that many games over DMPCs, then wouldn't introducing a DMPC seem like a relatively bad decision?

Myrmex
2009-12-20, 07:07 PM
This. I have no idea why she's taking this all so personally.


If something leads to disaster two times out of three, doing it is generally a poor choice. Sure, there is an exception to nearly every rule, but pointing at the one exception doesn't really change the fact that you're aware that this choice frequently ruins games, and you decided to try it anyway.

2 out of 3 people can't swallow swords. Does that make it a bad idea for a professional sword swallower?

pres_man
2009-12-20, 07:08 PM
Two times out of three, players that kill characters for no in game reason are jackholes and probably should be avoided like the plague. Sure there are those exceptional cases, but rare exceptions don't change the fact that most of the time these people aren't worth gaming with. :smallcool:

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 07:14 PM
Also, for all those people that mentioned hirelings, hirelings don't work because they are HIRElings, as in you need GOLD to obtain them. A low level party of 2 people just won't cut it. You CAN'T have an effective 2 person party unless you go VERY easy on them, and thats no fun now is it? So, since hirelings cost money, at best they would need to be mid level to even dream of having one unless they work for cheap....and I must ask, why would ANYBODY risk their life for cheap?
-

Cheap for PCs and cheap for the general populace are very different things. In standard D&D, adventurers are wildly wealthy compared to normal folk.

A laborer, per DMG, pg 105, costs 1 sp a day. Mercernaries? 2 sp per day. Now sure, as you start adding class levels, or hirelings focused on specific skills, they get more expensive, but still...they're cheap enough to be an affordable option even at low levels.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 07:23 PM
2 out of 3 people can't swallow swords. Does that make it a bad idea for a professional sword swallower?

So, you're a professional DMPC player? Situations are not the same.



Pres_man, yes, people that kill for no reason in game DO tend to be jackholes. Avoid the classic "chaotic neutral" types. However, killing when a motivation is there is pretty much standard for D&D. It's generally remarkably easy to find a reason to slaughter DMPCs.

Myrmex
2009-12-20, 07:28 PM
Two times out of three, players that kill characters for no in game reason are jackholes and probably should be avoided like the plague. Sure there are those exceptional cases, but rare exceptions don't change the fact that most of the time these people aren't worth gaming with. :smallcool:

1. You're making a numbers argument with no numbers. Come back with a good sample size, please.
2. You're mixing up cause and effect. A DMPC doesn't cause problems; an immature DM does.
3. A DMPC is only a bad idea if you're an incompetent DM. You should offer caution to a DM thinking of running a PC, and the potential risks; not inform him that he is an egocentric asshat for even thinking of having a DMPC. A DMPC is a tool, and, like most tools, can fix problems or make problems.
4. Many of you are making the really, really poor argument that most of the time when they've played with a DMPC, the DMPC was a Mary Sue, so therefore DMPCs are always Mary Sues and Mary Sues are bad, so a DM with a DMPC is bad. I'm sure you can see the logical fail in that argument?

Personally, I try not to run too many NPCs at a time, as I end up feeling a bit schizophrenic. DMPCs are almost always support characters that cast mass buff spells, flank, or aid another. With smaller parties, players will often want a dedicated band-aid or magic-user, if they are lacking one.


So, you're a professional DMPC player? Situations are not the same.

I will generalize the statement for you, as you seem to have difficulty grasping the basic concept.

The majority of people are bad at X, therefore everybody is bad at X.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 07:33 PM
You're assuming it's a skill. A skill akin to sword swallowing, that some are good at, and some are not.

How exactly does one get good at a skill, hmm? By practicing, and generally, being bad at it for a long time.

I've yet to see any reason why a DMPC is desirable enough to risk a campaign over.

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 07:36 PM
Even of the ones that are not directly antagonistic to the enjoyment of the players, I've yet to even hear of one that was strictly speaking necessary, and more so, I've never heard of one that did not require time.

Myrmex
2009-12-20, 07:39 PM
You're assuming it's a skill. A skill akin to sword swallowing, that some are good at, and some are not.

How exactly does one get good at a skill, hmm? By practicing, and generally, being bad at it for a long time.

I've yet to see any reason why a DMPC is desirable enough to risk a campaign over.

{Scrubbed}

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 07:50 PM
Even of the ones that are not directly antagonistic to the enjoyment of the players, I've yet to even hear of one that was strictly speaking necessary, and more so, I've never heard of one that did not require time.

I'd go so far as to say that this'd be physically impossible. If you're not spending time on it, it can't really be a DMPC, can it?



The point with training up skills in the real world is that the end result is presumably worth the difficulty in getting there. If you acknowledge that poorly run DMPCs frequently ruin campaigns, you need a damn good payoff from well run DMPCs to make that worthwhile. I've never seen something that's worth that.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 08:56 PM
This. I have no idea why she's taking this all so personally.Because you're using absolutes, and he was saying I "deserve scorn" (his words) for the way I run my games.

If something leads to disaster two times out of three, doing it is generally a poor choice. Sure, there is an exception to nearly every rule, but pointing at the one exception doesn't really change the fact that you're aware that this choice frequently ruins games, and you decided to try it anyway.2 out of 3 is an entirely reasonable margin for me. That means that 1/3 of the time, DMPCs are fine - quite a hefty number, really, and a long, long, LONG way from "all DMPCs are terrible".

People used to consider it fundamental scientific fact that all swans are white. Then they discovered Australia, and changed their minds. I can only show you so many pictures of black swans before I realise that it is beyond my capabilities to argue against illogic.
I, and several others, have shown a number of examples of good DMPCs, and explained several ways they can work perfectly well. This comprehensively disproves your repeated statements that all DMPCs are bad, and no such thing as a good one. You finally concede a "1/3" of not-terrible ones. How kind. The fact remains: DMPCs can be fine, or at least acceptable. A DM who runs a DMPC is not automatically a terrible DM. A DMPC does not deserve nor warrant immediate execution, and any player who tried that in my game would be, if not kicked out, severely reprimanded and told in no uncertain terms that he will not judge anything I do until I do it wrong, that any concerns he has about my play style are to be addressed out-of-character, and if he does either again he's out.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 09:04 PM
A DMPC does not deserve nor warrant immediate execution, and any player who tried that in my game would be, if not kicked out, severely reprimanded and told in no uncertain terms that he will not judge anything I do until I do it wrong, that any concerns he has about my play style are to be addressed out-of-character, and if he does either again he's out.

Incidentally, that, right there, is one of the primary reasons that the DMPC SHOULD die.

He's not on the same playing field as the rest of the PCs. Nor is he a typical NPC. I presume your players can attempt to kill other NPCs without this reaction(though in some instances, doing so may be horribly foolish), and the other PCs likewise are at actual risk of death.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 09:15 PM
Incidentally, that, right there, is one of the primary reasons that the DMPC SHOULD die.

He's not on the same playing field as the rest of the PCs. Nor is he a typical NPC. I presume your players can attempt to kill other NPCs without this reaction(though in some instances, doing so may be horribly foolish), and the other PCs likewise are at actual risk of death.Not in my games, not unless they have a very, very good reason. The only incident it ever would've been acceptable that I've ever been witness to went like this:
Ginormous Red Dragon: IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.
Idiot Wizard: Well I don't know about that, but...
Rogue: >Should, and could, have slit his throat.<

Characters in my game do not wantonly kill other characters. Whether PCs, DMPCs or NPCs. Doing so for in-character reasons will have appropriate in-character consequences. Killing a character - any character - for out of character reasons, will have out of character consequences.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 09:32 PM
A sufficiently creative player can nearly always come up with an in character reason to kill someone.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 09:40 PM
A sufficiently creative player can nearly always come up with an in character reason to kill someone.A player who spends all their creativity thinking up ways to kill other characters has no place in my games.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 09:53 PM
Would it be possible for them to ditch the NPC in some non-lethal fashion, such as skipping town, or bluffing him into heading off on a fools errand perhaps?

There are many ways of separating from an NPC without violence.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 10:04 PM
If my players especially dislike the company of a particular character for out-of-character reasons, they can come to me and tell me so. I'll factor that into my game plan. If it's there for a particular reason, I'll tell them so, and assure them it'll be gone once it's fulfilled its duties. If it's not, I'll arrange to have it leave (or give them permission to do as they will).
If the characters dislike the character for in-character reasons then they can have their characters act appropriately. If I need the character for a particular reason, I'll either ask them to back off a bit, or arrange its presence some other way.

Incidentally, there's another semi-DMPC in my game, that is only a problem because everyone - including me - forgets about her. Poor girl.

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 10:04 PM
A player who spends all their creativity thinking up ways to kill other characters has no place in my games.

Well, I guess I'd be out. I mean, a massive point of the game is to find new and interesting ways to beat the bad guys.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 10:05 PM
Well, I guess I'd be out. I mean, a massive point of the game is to find new and interesting ways to beat the bad guys.You know what I meant.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 10:08 PM
If the characters dislike the character for in-character reasons then they can have their characters act appropriately. If I need the character for a particular reason, I'll either ask them to back off a bit, or arrange its presence some other way.

You have to get permission to play in character if it might mess up your plans for NPCs?

Wow. Yeah, this is pretty much one of the reasons why DMPCs should die. Because they are tools for railroading.

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 10:08 PM
DMPCs are bad guys in my book.

That aside, I don't think it's overly fair that if an individual dislikes the DMPC that it has to have some specific plot moving function (unless your definition of DMPC is NPC that incidently hangs with the party). I think if the player stated out of character that they disliked it, the plot shouldn't be an argument in its favour. That's pretty much the definition of railroading. "Plot guy says we're going this way, and he's not going away until you do, and I'm not letting you kill him."

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 10:30 PM
:sigh:

We were talking hypotheticals. I've actually never had a character join my party that was plot-essential. At the moment, the only thing my DMPC has to do with the plot is that, due to various losses and gains of players, she is one of only two characters that have a link back to the continent to which we're trying to return.

No, I would not require my players to ask my permission before doing in-game actions for in-game reasons. I may, if my story depends on it, ask my players to stop doing something if it's getting beyond my capacity to handle it. I'm more likely to come up with alternatives.

No, I do not use my DMPC, or NPCs, for railroading purposes. Yes, I probably do railroad at times, because unlike you apparently, I do not have incredible improvisation skills. Mostly, as I've said before, my character will offer her opinion if it's asked, whether that opinion is helpful to me or not.

If you consider DMPCs to be "bad guys" from the outset, without even giving the DM a chance to use it, then that's your own damn problem.

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 10:33 PM
So then, what do you use them for, and why could you not use a normal NPC, or allow a PC the honours?

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 10:42 PM
Because I want to have a DMPC. Simple as that. My players have not complained - and I've asked them several times if they have any problems with her. I like having my own character. She will soon ask the others to not bother resurrecting her if she dies (though I won't go out of my way to kill her), but instead return her gear to her homeland, because I am bothered by some things about her. My players, however, are fine with her, and the problems I'm having are because of my own flaws that other DMs would have no problem overcoming.
This character has been in the party since the beginning of my campaign. 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.
She is, in summary, a good DMPC. This is not an oxymoron, whatever you might like to insist.

http://www.australianfauna.com/images/blackswan.jpg

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 10:51 PM
Because I want to have a DMPC. Simple as that. My players have not complained - and I've asked them several times if they have any problems with her. I like having my own character. She will soon ask the others to not bother resurrecting her if she dies (though I won't go out of my way to kill her), but instead return her gear to her homeland, because I am bothered by some things about her. My players, however, are fine with her, and the problems I'm having are because of my own flaws that other DMs would have no problem overcoming.
This character has been in the party since the beginning of my campaign. 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.
She is, in summary, a good DMPC. This is not an oxymoron, whatever you might like to insist.

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.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-20, 10:59 PM
I answered, but no matter. Time for commenting!:


So yeah, it can be done right. IF you're willing to let go of them to a certain extent.Let the force flow through you!


I still killed them off, even when on solo missions, because they added absolutely nothing that could not have been constructively implemented in more interesting or entertaining ways.More interesting ways... interesting. This seems, well, interesting but somehow doesn't feel logical.


Killing a character - any character - for out of character reasons, will have out of character consequences.Pro.


semi-DMPC in my game, ... is only a problem because everyone - including me - forgets about her.This be the truth, having run a DMPC myself. Maybe I have limited experience but I have also seen them run by other DMs and have never seen but an iota of the problems mentioned/flamed about here. Maybe I'm lucky?


Well, I guess I'd be out. I mean, a massive point of the game is to find new and interesting ways to beat the bad guys.Good ridance to ya! Take VoNV or go with the n00bz!

:smallwink:

Seriously. You haven't lived until you play one of those builds. Oh, and purposely nerf the crap out of it too - but you must RP it hard.


You have to get permission to play in character if it might mess up your plans for NPCs?Fixed that for you; there should be no distinction between the two in a campaign.

That's actually pretty normal. Do a search on one of the boards for 'jerk-ass neutral' if you think the "imma just kill all my party members" is a normally accepted player practice :smallconfused:


So then, what do you use them for, and why could you not use a normal NPC, or allow a PC the honours?No reason... because of course in game they are the same thing? Um, why do you play a character? I guess the answer to that can be the same as the answer to your question...


She is, in summary, a good DMPC. This is not an oxymoron, whatever you might like to insist.Gj


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.That's like me in every campaign (except the time I was CoDzilla and the 1 DMPC). so... you talking about me here... that hurts, sniff.

I'm not a PC! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :smalleek: (no really, I play healbots... :( )

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 10:59 PM
Believe it or not, there is a middle-ground between "dominating the limelight" and "not getting involved at all". Her lack of roleplaying presence is one of the reasons I'm planning her exit, because at the moment I'm not good enough to give her the attention she needs and handle my DMing duties (I've said this before). If she was a character I had played before and had a good feel for, this probably wouldn't be an issue at all. Now, my lack of skill does not denote universal lack of skill. When I get some more experience and organisation skills, I pretty much guarantee I will return to this or another DMPC.
You're pretty much putting me in a no-win situation. If I have my character fade into the background, she is no longer a DMPC but an NPC. If I have her come to the foreground at all, then she is a Bad DMPC. Your definitions eliminate the possibility of there being a Good DMPC, because they define a Good DMPC as an NPC, and therefore ineligible for inclusion in the discussion.
My character has a character sheet, a history, a future, a role in the party, accompanies the party, and has a personality. The latter does not come out as much as it should because of my own limitations. However, even with that, I fail to see how she is any less a PC (played by a DM) than a block-of-wood Barbarian played by a powergaming rollplayer. At least she has a history and a personality.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn: Thanks. A clarification on my semi-DMPC: This is really more of an NPC meant as a bit of a liability. This little girl was meant to be something the party has to protect, with a role in a future campaign I have in mind. She got forgotten a lot for starters, and then because I forgot something extremely important (she's immune to magic), she was turned into a parrot. So now she's forgotten even more... Oh well.

Fhaolan
2009-12-20, 11:05 PM
One of the odd things with these discussions is the issue of identifying a DMPC.

1) They have character sheets. This one is problematical in my games, because all the important NPCs have full character sheets. Why do I bother? Because at any point I may need to turn these NPCs over to the other players (either as replacement characters because theirs just died and need something to do for the rest of the session, or because they're turning into cohorts) and I'd rather not waste their time requiring them to make up character sheets for them. This has happened enough times that it *is* worth my effort to generate a char sheet for all of them. In fact, all the PCs also have a 'DM statblock' as if they were monsters, just in case.

2) They travel with the party. Well... yeah, NPCs might be travelling with the party for a variety of reasons. Cohorts, hirelings, henchmen, employers, friends, family, etc. Any character that would kill a relative for no reason other than showing up... is unlikely to work in a team environment and will likely be left behind by the other PCs. We don't do 'chaotic stupid' parties in any of the groups I play with.

3) They're forced upon the party. Many plots could revolve around the PCs having to deal with this unwanted NPC, either trying to get rid of them, or making sure they don't get hurt for the duration of the scenario. Now, if this if forced on the *players* that's different. But players are not the PCs, and PCs are not the players (this is an issue in itself that I've had to deal with multiple times over the years, players who are a wee bit unbalanced and have trouble separating IC and OOC.)

And no, if you randomly decide to off any NPC just because they have a character sheet in my gaming group and be generally surly and divisive, and threaten to light me on fire or other physical violence (which I've seen some of you advocate on occasion *in this thread itself*), I don't have to do a thing. The rest of the players will take exception and take steps to remove you from the group. And if you think that you're just that uber in RL that you can't be tossed physically from the house, (which in one case would be really unfortunate because it's a houseboat) you're really, really mistaken on that. My gaming group has at different times included cops, firemen, army rangers, competition martial artists, powerlifters, and others. And they, unlike you, will work as part of a team.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-20, 11:13 PM
One of the odd things with these discussions is the issue of identifying a DMPC.

1) They have character sheets....

2) They travel with the party....

3) They're forced upon the party....

...threaten to light me on fire ... I've seen some of you advocate ... My gaming group has at different times included cops, firemen, army rangers, competition martial artists, powerlifters, and others. And they, unlike you, will work as part of a team.In order:
Check, (because they are a character. "NPCs" should have sheets [too much work] basic stats too!)
Check, (aka party-member)
Check (because I prefer PCs to, um, adventure together. I mean you can split the party up, but we all know its a baaad idea, so I just say no)

It appears I concord to your definition. Does everyone else?

Yeah, I stopped reading in the middle there. It was zzzzzzz ... Who is you at the end there? (lol on your players though.)

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 11:16 PM
Believe it or not, there is a middle-ground between "dominating the limelight" and "not getting involved at all". Her lack of roleplaying presence is one of the reasons I'm planning her exit, because at the moment I'm not good enough to give her the attention she needs and handle my DMing duties (I've said this before). If she was a character I had played before and had a good feel for, this probably wouldn't be an issue at all. Now, my lack of skill does not denote universal lack of skill. When I get some more experience and organisation skills, I pretty much guarantee I will return to this or another DMPC.
You're pretty much putting me in a no-win situation. If I have my character fade into the background, she is no longer a DMPC but an NPC. If I have her come to the foreground at all, then she is a Bad DMPC. Your definitions eliminate the possibility of there being a Good DMPC, because they define a Good DMPC as an NPC, and therefore ineligible for inclusion in the discussion.
My character has a character sheet, a history, a future, a role in the party, accompanies the party, and has a personality. The latter does not come out as much as it should because of my own limitations. However, even with that, I fail to see how she is any less a PC (played by a DM) than a block-of-wood Barbarian played by a powergaming rollplayer. At least she has a history and a personality.


Because PCs relevantly participate in combat some form of non-combat encounter, they make decisions, their input is sought out by the party (or actively ignored depending). This character evidently does not. The powergaming wood barbarian likely is cleaning up encounters at least, and likely has input on what the party does. Basically, PCs, in a good game at least, participate in what happens.

When you are on the other side of the DM screen, would you ever play a character as you would that supposed DMPC? I know I wouldn't.

And yes, I'm putting you into a no win situation, simply because that's what DMPCs are. I am fine with NPCs that travel with the party, I'd prefer if everyone had stat blocks. What I'm not fine with is taking gaming time to let the DM talk to himself with a character that shares in the game resources (time, XP, treasure, spotlight) with the bias that a DM will have, conciously or unconciously, for his DMPC.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 11:21 PM
It's not the definition I'd go for*, but...
1) They have character sheets. Yep. 'Course, so do all my villians and some of the NPCs.

2) They travel with the party. Of course.

3) They're forced upon the party. I guess... But only in that they haven't voiced an objection at all. Right at the beginning they had the option to not bring her along, and they could have not bothered to resurrect her the two times she's died. No suggestion of a desire that she not be raised was detected by me.


*"A long-term character played by a DM, that that DM might play as a player." This incorporates the bad ones, as well as the good. To narrow it down a bit towards "Good DMPCs", I'd add "has all the limitations and leeway the DM would place on any other character".

Edit:
Because PCs relevantly participate in combat some form of non-combat encounter, they make decisions, their input is sought out by the party (or actively ignored depending).She does, she does to a degree (though some of my party members often don't), it is.

When you are on the other side of the DM screen, would you ever play a character as you would that supposed DMPC? I know I wouldn't.I've already said that I would expose her personality more, and I would also probably actually try to get her a mount. Other than that, yes.

And yes, I'm putting you into a no win situation, simply because that's what DMPCs are.Then that's a bull**** tactic, and I won't play that game.
http://charlesgoyette.com/uploaded_images/BLACK-SWAN-772887.jpg

I am fine with NPCs that travel with the party, I'd prefer if everyone had stat blocks. What I'm not fine with is taking gaming time to let the DM talk to himself with a character that shares in the game resources (time, XP, treasure, spotlight) with the bias that a DM will have, conciously or unconciously, for his DMPC.I've already covered this, over and over and over again. If you won't believe me, your problem.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-20, 11:22 PM
And no, if you randomly decide to off any NPC just because they have a character sheet in my gaming group and be generally surly and divisive, and threaten to light me on fire or other physical violence

Just having a character sheet is insufficient to be a DMPC. Heck, non-recurring villians sometimes get their own character sheet, if they are complex enough to warrant it. The character sheet is naught but a tool.

A DMPC is the DM's PC. That's it. It's a character that acts like one of the PCs, but is run by the DM.

Now, there may be some disagreement over exactly what constitutes a PC, but in general, we tend to know them when we see them. Things like "accompanying the party" are normal traits for a PC.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-12-20, 11:28 PM
Wow, these threads make me wonder what kind of horrible DMing I've never seen. I've never seen a Mary Sue/Gary Stu, and the worst that can be said of any DMPC I've seen is that they weren't strictly necessary. Which is a pretty low-resonance complaint in my book -- because we're playing a game, which by definition is completely unnecessary in its entirety.

Is it so hard to understand a DM's desire to play an adventurer of their own? DMing is a lot of work, and if having a thin slice of the PC pie helps keep my DM from burning out, I won't complain.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-20, 11:31 PM
I feel like Statler or Waldorf here. (its cool)


...The powergaming wood barbarian....

When you are on the other side of the DM screen, would you ever play a character as you would that supposed DMPC? I know I wouldn't.That first part... just sounds so dirty. Please, please tell me its not a grappler :smalleek:

That second one should be different by person right?


...Damn, nothing witty to say here. :smallannoyed:


Wow, these threads make me wonder what kind of horrible DMing I've never seen....the worst that can be said of any DMPC I've seen is that they weren't strictly necessary. Which is a pretty low-resonance complaint in my book -- because we're playing a game, which by definition is completely unnecessary in its entirety.

Is it so hard to understand a DM's desire to play an adventurer of their own? DMing is a lot of work, and if having a thin slice of the PC pie helps keep my DM from burning out, I won't complain.Okay, so it's not just my luck.

Lol to the necessity viewpoint!

DM burnout, the most common form of long-term campaign death. Please, won't somebody think of the DMs! THEY'RE DROPPING LIKE FLIES! (okay maybe their not)


DOH! Ho Ho!

Yukitsu
2009-12-20, 11:39 PM
Edit:She does, she does to a degree (though some of my party members often don't), it is.

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.


I've already said that I would expose her personality more, and I would also probably actually try to get her a mount. Other than that, yes.

I didn't say "Would you play that build as a PC if given the chance to play differently." I'm asking if you as a player, would play that character in that same way. Evidently, you wouldn't, so it's an NPC more than a DMPC.


I've already covered this, over and over and over again. If you won't believe me, your problem.

And yet you keep stating that you're DMPC doesn't take any of those, and that you wouldn't play a PC in that manner.

Serpentine
2009-12-20, 11:57 PM
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."I never said any such things. She adds as much in the way of skills as any other Knight would or could. She can pass Cure potions along if necessary, but what with being a Knight and all, she can't do much else, regardless of who's playing her. She does kill things, but other party members do it better, as well they should. Soaking up damage is what Knights are for. It's what they do, and it's what she'd be doing if she were played by anyone else. And finally, there is, believe it or not, more than one way of doing anything. Having a DMPC point something out is one way, and so is saying "you notice something". They're both perfectly acceptable.

I didn't say "Would you play that build as a PC if given the chance to play differently." I'm asking if you as a player, would play that character in that same way. Evidently, you wouldn't, so it's an NPC more than a DMPC.Because I have other duties and because of my lack of organisational skill, I neglect the roleplaying aspect of my character, and didn't bother with one of her trickier features (which she originally had, by the way. The horse drowned). Because of, you know, reality, my play style is slightly different. Big. Fricking. Deal.

And yet you keep stating that you're DMPC doesn't take any of those, and that you wouldn't play a PC in that manner.Fine, I'll address them again.

What I'm not fine with is taking gaming time to let the DM talk to himself with a character that shares in the game resources (time, XP, treasure, spotlight) with the bias that a DM will have, conciously or unconciously, for his DMPC.I minimise "talking to myself" by playing a character that isn't the face of the party. Attacking myself is a bigger problem, and one that worries me but not - from what THEY have told me - my players.
Time is one of the main reasons I'm removing this character, but if I were better at DMing it would not be a problem at all.
XP is not a big deal at all. Everyone gets a hundred or two less? So what? They can make it up by roleplaying better if they want. If anything, my party is levelling up quicker than I'd like. Crap, I'm going to have to take that into account once Kariana's gone...
My character never gets first choice of the treasure, the treasure is by no stretch of the imagination custom-made for her, and most of it ultimately goes into "party loot" anyway.
I minimise spotlight time by having a character that tends to stay in the background, in role and in personality.
All I can do is tell you, yet again, that any "bias" towards my DMPC is minor at worst, and more often used against her than anything. I had my character torn asunder, from top to toe, by a critical hit, and had her XP deducted accordingly. Her horse drowned because I didn't want to spend extra time dealing with mounted combat rules. I've had her give counter-plot advice, because that's what she would do.* If you don't believe me, or if that's not good enough for your exacting requirements, there's nothing more I can say or do.
http://arsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/blackswan.jpg
How many black swans do I have to show you before you'll acknowledge that they're not all white?

edit: Also, she's been elf'd. Considering she was kicked out of her dwarven homeland for consorting with elves, that's a pretty big problem for her, and something my "ego" would have preferred to avoid.

Yukitsu
2009-12-21, 12:15 AM
I never said any such things. She adds as much in the way of skills as any other Knight would or could. She can pass Cure potions along if necessary, but what with being a Knight and all, she can't do much else, regardless of who's playing her. She does kill things, but other party members do it better, as well they should. Soaking up damage is what Knights are for. It's what they do, and it's what she'd be doing if she were played by anyone else. And finally, there is, believe it or not, more than one way of doing anything. Having a DMPC point something out is one way, and so is saying "you notice something". They're both perfectly acceptable.

Considering it was explicitly stated that she's not a hitter, face person or ideas person that rather leaves less than is being stated here for her to be. Knights are an area denial class, which is pretty much how a lot of people play wizards. They aren't just tanks.


Because I have other duties and because of my lack of organisational skill, I neglect the roleplaying aspect of my character, and didn't bother with one of her trickier features (which she originally had, by the way. The horse drowned). Because of, you know, reality, my play style is slightly different. Big. Fricking. Deal.

From the sounds of it though, the playstyle between the two would be fairly radically different.


I minimise "talking to myself" by playing a character that isn't the face of the party. Attacking myself is a bigger problem, and one that worries me but not - from what THEY have told me - my players.
Time is one of the main reasons I'm removing this character, but if I were better at DMing it would not be a problem at all.
XP is not a big deal at all. Everyone gets a hundred or two less? So what? They can make it up by roleplaying better if they want. If anything, my party is levelling up quicker than I'd like. Crap, I'm going to have to take that into account once Kariana's gone...
My character never gets first choice of the treasure, the treasure is by no stretch of the imagination custom-made for her, and most of it ultimately goes into "party loot" anyway.
I minimise spotlight time by having a character that tends to stay in the background, in role and in personality.
All I can do is tell you, yet again, that any "bias" towards my DMPC is minor at worst, and more often used against her than anything. I had my character torn asunder, from top to toe, by a critical hit, and had her XP deducted accordingly. Her horse drowned because I didn't want to spend extra time dealing with mounted combat rules. I've had her give counter-plot advice, because that's what she would do.* If you don't believe me, or if that's not good enough for your exacting requirements, there's nothing more I can say or do.

I do believe you on those aspects.

However, that it's working out more like an NPC than anything I'd refer to as a player character is the more important issue. Especially in that this DMPC does not make decisions regarding party actions.


How many black swans do I have to show you before you'll acknowledge that they're not all white?

An infinite number before it changes my view on DMPCs. Changing the colour of it doesn't alter its inherent nature.

Fhaolan
2009-12-21, 01:40 AM
A DMPC is the DM's PC. That's it. It's a character that acts like one of the PCs, but is run by the DM.

Now, there may be some disagreement over exactly what constitutes a PC, but in general, we tend to know them when we see them. Things like "accompanying the party" are normal traits for a PC.

Right, so NPCs can't travel with the party according to that definition, because if they do, they're DMPCs. Which, in my opinion, is silly. NPCs accompany the party all the time in my games. The PCs may want them there, or not, depending on the storyline they're pursuing. My players usually trust me enough that if they can't see the thematic sense in why the NPC is accompanying them, that doesn't mean that there isn't any thematic sense, just that they can't see it with the limited information that they have at that time.

For the same reason that in my games all the *PCs* have thematic reasons for travelling as a party. Not just because they're PCs. I don't do 'that PC glow' crap that indicates that PCs are somehow immediately identifyable to each other for no apparant reason and they *must* travel together despite the fact that they are all emotionally distant lone-wolves that wouldn't even nod to each other if they passed in the street. If a PC proves to be a non-team individual, or has no real reason for being in the party, he or she will be left behind by the rest of the group. If a player goes 'but that's my character! I'm just playing my character!', the other players will look at him/her and go, 'Sure, and if you want to continue playing that character, go right ahead. We'll just be over here playing *our* characters. Let us know when you're done. Hey, while you're playing by yourself, maybe you can go pick up the pizza?"

This type of play will mean that the party will pick up NPCs throughout the campaign that in-character they will treat just as if they are PCs. As DM I have to take the effort of actually making up reasons for them to *not* accompany the party, as my players seem to enjoy dragging an unfeasable number of NPCs around with them everywhere they go. I think they get a kick out of watching me attempt to juggle a dozen or more NPCs on a semi-permanent basis.

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 01:42 AM
Considering it was explicitly stated that she's not a hitter, face person or ideas person that rather leaves less than is being stated here for her to be. Knights are an area denial class, which is pretty much how a lot of people play wizards. They aren't just tanks.When did I say she's not a hitter? I may have said that she doesn't deal out huge amounts of damage, particularly compared to other party members, but... well, most of the party members are spellcasters.

From the sounds of it though, the playstyle between the two would be fairly radically different.Because I'd pay my character more attention if I was only playing her? Hardly.
Say my group was short a person, so one of my players takes on an extra character. This is to be a long-term character who is an important part of the group, but the player's primary focus is on his original character. This new character is exactly the same in every way to the old one, except that the player pays more attention to and finds it easier to play the personality of the old one. Does that mean the second character is not a PC?


You know what? You're right. According to your definition of DMPC, only a badly run character is a DMPC, therefore all DMPCs are bad. Can't argue with that. Of course, by your very own definition, there are no really bad DMPCs, either...
Take a really bad DMPC. A character run by the DM as a member of a party, say, with a cheesy template, several levels and several degrees of power higher than other party members, with lots of uber treasure, who takes the limelight a lot and drags the party by the nose along the plot. First game I was ever in had one of these. Now, make that DM just a player now. There is basically no way in Hell any reasonable DM will allow that player to play that DMPC-come-PC. The now-player will have to severely alter their playing style, and change the crunch of the character a lot in order for it to be played. Because it's not being played as a PC exactly the same as it was when it was a DMPC, as you yourself have said, it cannot be a DMPC.
Meanwhile, my character that I run while I'm DMing, which has been a part of this campaign since the very beginning, which unless I choose to remove her or she gets killed will continue the campaign until the end, who is a core member of the party, who has a fleshed-out history, future, goals, personality and role, who takes part in basically every encounter and quest the rest of the party does, who is involved in party conflict and accomplishments and schemes and, yes, sometimes planning and decision-making, not much less so than the more passive PCs, who has a share in danger, XP, treasure and every other part of the adventure, who meets almost every condition I would expect of PCs and who I would play exactly the same if I were a player except for those factors that are different because of the practical requirements of DMing, remains firmly in the category of "NPC". All because of the very minor steps I've taken to avoid her being the Bad DMPC I've heard so much about.

Your definition of DMPC is no more reasonable than a definition of "red-head" as "person with red hair who's a douche", justifying the opinion that all red-haired people are douches.

Oh look, another black swan.
http://www.wildliferanger.com/users/www.wildliferanger.com/upload/Black%20Swan%20200.JPG
Silly Europeans, thinking all swans are white just because that's all they've ever seen first-hand, despite being shown swans that are quite obviously not...

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-21, 02:56 AM
An infinite number before it changes my view on DMPCs. Changing the colour of it doesn't alter its inherent nature.I think you missed the analogy...


The now-player will have to severely alter their playing style, and change the crunch of the character a lot in order for it to be played. Because it's not being played as a PC exactly the same as it was when it was a DMPC, as you yourself have said, it cannot be a DMPC.Clearly she this can't be right; it's just too logical. I call foul on account of ZOMGWTFBBQ1337HAXXORZLOLROFLROFLMAO logic.


Oh look, another black swan.YAY


Meanwhile, my character that I run while I'm DMing, which has been a part of this campaign since the very beginning, which unless I choose to remove her or she gets killed will continue the campaign until the end, who is a core member of the party, who has a fleshed-out history, future, goals, personality and role, who takes part in basically every encounter and quest the rest of the party does, who is involved in party conflict and accomplishments and schemes and, yes, sometimes planning and decision-making, not much less so than the more passive PCs, who has a share in danger, XP, treasure and every other part of the adventure, who meets almost every condition I would expect of PCs and who I would play exactly the same if I were a player except for those factors that are different because of the practical requirements of DMing, remains firmly in the category of "NPC". All because of the very minor steps I've taken to avoid her being the Bad DMPC I've heard so much about.Just some emphasis. I wanted them to be the same size... but as you can see all that PC-ish involvement is still bigger despite my efforts.

DOH! Ho Ho!

Zincorium
2009-12-21, 02:58 AM
Oy gevalt, serpentine, nobody cares about the black swans.

And for the last thread of sanity in the thread, if your DMPC is so in the background, so irrelevant to the PCs enjoyment, and so apparently vanilla that she could be replaced by a mop-

Why are you playing that character at all? It seems about as exciting as eating mashed tofu.

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 02:58 AM
Calm down, dear. You need to go have a lie down? :smalltongue:

edit:
Oy gevalt, serpentine, nobody cares about the black swans.

And for the last thread of sanity in the thread, if your DMPC is so in the background, so irrelevant to the PCs enjoyment, and so apparently vanilla that she could be replaced by a mop-

Why are you playing that character at all? It seems about as exciting as eating mashed tofu.The swans are an apt analogy. Exceptions to an assumed "gospel truth" have been amply demonstrated, yet their existance is persistently handwaved away or outright ignored. DMPCs are not always terrible, because I and several others have experienced a number that have worked well. A knee-jerk reaction against the presence of a DMPC in the absence of any evidence whatsoever beyond their mere existance is not automatically a reasonable response, because I and several others would find that unacceptable in our games. You are speaking in absolutes, we have demonstrated that these absolutes are wrong - just like Europeans used to speak in absolutes when talking about swans, and then evidence was found that demonstrated they were wrong. Unlike the people in this discussion, the Europeans abandoned their absolute statements in the face of conflicting evidence.
As for the rest, I've gone over and over and over this. She's not "so in the background", she's far enough in the background to make sure the players are at the forefront. She's not irrelevant to the player's enjoyment, I assume you mean, because they've told me a number of times that they quite like her. She's not "vanilla" of "mop" proportions, but not as well personified as if she was all I had to pay attention to. I can give you her entire backstory, future potential and personality if you like. I think it's one of the better character concepts I've come up with, and it's somewhat disappointing that my DMing duties prevent me from playing it to its fullest. Because I want to, there have been no serious negative consequences of her presence, and because she has been a beneficial part of the game thusfar.
If you don't believe me, then there's nothing more for me to say to you.

Quincunx
2009-12-21, 03:09 AM
Tyndymyr's right, Serpentine's trolling, Solaris is the voice of level-headed reason. . .ok, who opened up the breach to the zany opposites universe?

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 03:10 AM
I don't mean to troll, just to counter the illogic of absolutist statements.

Wait, so you truly believe that every single DMPC is terrible, every violent kneejerk reaction to the presence of something even resembling a DMPC is justified, and every single DM who uses a DMPC is worthy of ridicule and scorn? Because as best I'm able to tell, that's what Tyn is saying.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-21, 03:11 AM
nobody cares about the black swans.

And [thank you] for the last thread of sanity allowing PBMC's jokes in the thread. if your DMPC is so in the background plot, so irrelevantuninterfering to the PCs enjoyment, and so apparently vanillacomplicated that she could be replaced not be explained easily [then congrats]:smallfrown: I... I like them. :smallfrown:

Fixed that for you. I didn't even follow all that plot (I'm bad at that sorta thing - I'm an optimizer)


I don't mean to troll, just to counter the illogic of absolutist statements.Hey! HEY! No logic allowed. None of that.


Tyndymyr's right, Serpentine's trolling, Solaris is the voice of level-headed reason. . .ok, who opened up the breach to the zany opposites universe?I DID!

no really. It was me

In the kitchen

With the candlestick

(Professor Plum helped me, though)


Calm down, dear. You need to go have a lie down? :smalltongue:That's a great idea. My strange sense of humor always makes me tired... or maybe that the fact that its 3AM here...


DOH! HO HO!

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-21, 03:16 AM
arg late night double post

Quincunx
2009-12-21, 03:23 AM
I don't mean to troll, just to counter the illogic of absolutist statements.

Wait, so you truly believe that every single DMPC is terrible, every violent kneejerk reaction to the presence of something even resembling a DMPC is justified, and every single DM who uses a DMPC is worthy of ridicule and scorn? Because as best I'm able to tell, that's what Tyn is saying.

You are making his case for him very well. Had me convinced even before you reached for the retort-by-.jpg.

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 03:27 AM
I would have thought that you, of all people, would be averse to point-blank statements of universal and irrefutable truth. Oh well, shows what I know, eh?

Jarawara
2009-12-21, 03:30 AM
I for one love the black swans. Edit: For two! Some of the images aren't coming through, though. Am sad.

Serp, keep up the good fight. Seriously, I don't get the logic being bantered around here. DMPC is bad, because the defintion of DMPC is 'a badly run NPC'. So instead, only NPC's should be allowed, which of course the same immature DM would run them badly, thus the DMPC is automatically reborn. Did I follow that correctly?

The obvious solution is to not have any NPC's in any games whatsoever, to avoid the terrible danger of auto-spawning DMPC's. The world should be devoid of anything that could possibly be roleplayed. Or contribute. Or fight. There should only be empty corridors and depopulated forests.

But for the rest of us, we'll just continue running DMPC's just fine, and our players are still happy. Call them NPC's, call them PC's, call them DMPC's, whatever. If the players are happy, no problem.

*~*

Oh, and if the definition of the DMPC is not just a PC owned by the DM, but instead: 'a badly run NPC', then we should look again to the original poster, who seems to be running a PC, and not badly.

This whole thread is not about DMPC's. It's about DM's who run a PC. Why are we all still arguing an issue that this thread is not even about?

SurvivorX
2009-12-21, 03:34 AM
Wow, this thread looks like kindling to me...could erupt into flaming at any time 0_o

My group has used DMPCs quite a few times, and it always seems to work out okay, as long as the DM knows what he's doing, can be trusted, and follows a few simple rules:

- Don't keep the DMPC with the party 24/7. The DMPC should only be with the party a maximum of about 5-15% of the time. Any more than that and yes, it does take a good deal of spotlight, XP, and loot away from the party; but if you keep it under that, then for my group at least, it's a perfectly acceptable loss.

- Develop mild MPD. Keep your DM mindset and your PC mindset completely separate - make the DMPC's decisions entirely separately from what you, as the DM, want the PC to do. It takes practice, but I've gotten very good at this.

- Don't try to use the DMPC to advance the plot at all (corollary: unless the DMPC isn't with the party, and is instead doing something like, say, casting Sending to call the PCs for help. That's usually okay, since the PCs aren't in any way obligated to answer such a call, as long as you don't overuse it).

- The PC should make decisions based on what s/he would know, think and feel, and nothing else (so no rolling a Search check on a wall "because they have a hunch there might be a secret door here", unless they have a legitimate reason for thinking that, ie they've been here before).

- Make sure it's a well-developed character. Just throwing a random CoDzilla in the mix because you're tired of DMing and want to break some folks is a bad move all around. Have a good backstory for the DMPC. Have a reason in mind for why and how they do what they do. The DMPC should add to the overall storyline, just as any ordinary NPC would.

As long as the DM follows these rules, and the players feel like they can trust the DM to do so, a DMPC can actually be a really great boon to the game.

By following these rules, I'm actually running with two seperate DMPCs in this game - yes, two, and if they are detracting from the game, it's small enough that the players don't even notice it, much less complain about it, and these DMPCs are just as valued, relied upon, and looked up to as the other PCs. One of the PCs, the gnome bard, even managed to work one of them into his character's backstory a little bit, saying she reminds him of someone from the bard troupe he once ran with and thus explaining his irrational loyalty to and protectiveness of her.

So, my game stands as proof positive that it CAN be done right, as long as it's done right.

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 03:37 AM
- Don't keep the DMPC with the party 24/7. The DMPC should only be with the party a maximum of about 5-15% of the time. Any more than that and yes, it does take a good deal of spotlight, XP, and loot away from the party; but if you keep it under that, then for my group at least, it's a perfectly acceptable loss.This is the only part of your post I disagree with. I would consider any character that isn't as much a member of the party as any other character to be an NPC. But eh, that's just the sort of DMPC I've come across.

SurvivorX
2009-12-21, 03:40 AM
Actually, you'd be surprised how endeared the PCs can become to a well-played DMPC that spends only 5-15% of the time with the party. Try it and then tell me I'm wrong :P

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 03:47 AM
Nah, I already have enough trouble coming up with reasons for PCs to come and go :smallsigh: 2 were carted off somewhere by a trickster deity, one disappeared into the jungle, one returned some llamas or sent a message or something and didn't come back, and one went home. My dwarf has no reason to go anywhere, and would probably run into a lot of strife if she tried. Although I am intending for her to leave for the rest of the campaign at some point, so it could make for a lower-pressure replacement DMPC... I'll keep it in mind as a possibility.

Stycotl
2009-12-21, 03:50 AM
this argument seems to be devolving into crap rather efficiently.

obviously there is a wide range of personal experience here regarding dmpcs. however, that doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to try and run one; it just means you have to do it right.

going along with the "bad ideas" argument, based off of my experience, almost all pbp games are run disastrously, never get off the ground, die within 3-8 pages, and tend to make players irate. must mean that they are a bad idea to begin with according to some of you.

and those of you that do stupid stuff like this:


It's generally remarkably easy to find a reason to slaughter DMPCs.

there is a reason that i screen my real life gaming friends fairly thoroughly, and my pbp gamers as well as possible/reasonable.

if you are having issues with dmpcs, and you can't find a less passive-aggressive way to deal with it than killing the character, you have greater issues than a bad dm.

ooc reasons should never be the reason for ic choices. if i were a player using ooc info to decide which fork of the maze to go down, i'd be cheating. if i am using that same info in order to decide which of the individuals around me should live or die, for whatever reason, i'm still cheating.

if your dm sucks enough that you need to cheat in order to play, find a new game.

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

meanwhile, i am currently running one; happened kind of by chance––i had to take over dming a pbp game that i was already running a vow of poverty monk in. obviously, considering that he's vop, and a monk, he's had a fairly low level of impact in the game. he was the team leader for a while when all of the old players and the dm left, because it made sense in a military game. but that was rectified once the new teams had played a bit.

in the past, when playing rotating dm games, i have found dmpcs to be normally benign. there were a few times, under one or two certain dms, that i had issues with them. but that was an ooc issue that was dealt with in an ooc manner, and i haven't ever had to worry about it since.

sometimes, using the brains and mouths that we evolved so conveniently with is good sense. it will solve more real-life communication problems than will trying to derail a game by killing what might be a dmpc or might be an npc, for reasons that your character wouldn't understand anyway.

good grief. aaron out.

SurvivorX
2009-12-21, 04:00 AM
Well the way I run having one of the DMPCs come and go, is so far she's hired two of the party to help her with a dungeon crawl, and during that same crawl she got chucked into a trapdoor and ended up in a section of the dungeon that was way too high level for only two PCs to tackle at that time. The party bard spent the next six adventures or so getting all bent out of shape worrying about her, even going so far as to take the entire party back in to get her back (by which time she'd already found her own way out).

Awhile later, her own NPC nemesis came and conned/geased her into helping HIM with a little mission, and the PCs went along with it of their own free will, to make sure she got out of it okay. Afterwards, she just decided she wanted to hang out at home and rest for a few weeks.

After that, the PCs were halfway across the continent when they got a Sending from a cleric she'd hired to let them know she was on her way over, there having been some sort of huge calamity at the town she was at, and her letting them know where she'd be at until it blew over, and the PCs went completely out of their way (the main plot was taking them completely in the opposite direction) to go meet her there. Now she's with the party again, and probably will hang out with them until I find the next convenient spot to drop her off.

Sort of seeing where I'm going? She's with the party a fair amount of time, she's an integral part of the party while she's there and even when she's not there, what she's doing is important to the party (not by any DM nudging but simply by the DM keeping them updated from time to time on what's going on and the players making it their business to get involved in it), but I still find ways here and there to separate her from the party to let the PCs have their "alone time" away from the PC, to make sure they don't start getting uppity about favoritism or having their cut of the XP and loot start shrinking (the latter of which can even be mitigated by just facing them with higher-CR monsters, which you should be doing with a larger party anyways.)

GAThraawn
2009-12-21, 04:10 AM
DMPCs are not always terrible, because I and several others have experienced a number that have worked well.

I happen to be one of these others, and am confused and slightly incensed by the wierd strawman gangup that seems to be taking place here. I won't bother trying to defend Serp's example any further, although I agree with her, but I'll throw my experience in the ring as well, to provide another counter-example to "All DMPC's are evil. Always!!!"

In the last game I ran, I created what was originaly to be an NPC intended to be a recurring antagonist for my players. I wanted him to be a challenge, and a likeable character they wouldn't mind seeing again and again, and so I made him the same kind of character I normally play when not DMing. He had high computer skills (Star Wars campaign), strong social abilities, and an enduring ability to prepare for trouble, as well as an outgoing and charismatic personality. The first time the players encountered him, they walked into several traps he had set for them and almost died, before doing some off the walls thinking and capturing him. (You see, I planned before the session what traps and safeguards he would have in place, and then didn't deviate from that plan, so he wasn't benefiting from my god-like DM vision as the game progressed, even though he could have been.)

Once they aprehended him, I expected them to turn him over to the authorities or kill him, but they said they enjoyed the character so much they invited him to be a full-fledged member of the party (They were all rogues and con-artists, so asking another scoundrel to join them wasn't a stretch). I wasn't expecting that, but I accepted and ran him from then on as a DMPC. He was certainly the kind of character I enjoy roleplaying, and was in fact a couple of levels higher than them because I had meant for him to be an antagonist. None the less, I recieved nothing but positive feedback about him, and with the game starting back up next month with a new player removing the need for him party-balance wise, my players have been complaining about his upcoming absence. He certainly was not a background character, as you claim Serp's might have been: he possessed computer, mechanical and theft skills that no-one else in the party did, was often called upon to "aquire" items for the party, repaired things that broke and sometimes helped out bluffing officials and smooth-talking heists gone wrong.

Over and above being a useful skill-monkey, I didn't hold back in roleplaying him, presenting him as a wise-cracking rogue who always had a quip or sarcastic barb on his tounge, and was always willing to get into get into wacky situations, and often reappeared after a brief absence having just had a little adventure of his own, some of which never came to light. He was pretty much in every way the kind of character I would have played had I not been DMing, with the singular exception that I glossed over the scenes in which he was by himself, which happened a few times as my players split the party a lot. Likewise, however, he had no advantages over the rest of the group that allowed him to overshadow them or leave anyone feeling unnecessary. I slowed his development to let the others catch up to him in level, but even two levels higher he wasn't min-maxed, and had most of his talents either in skills the rest of the party didn't have, or skills they wanted in multiples.
He wasn't particularly handy in combat, but none of my group was, since we primarily roleplay, and average one combat every two sessions or so.
Being a theatrical improviser, I never DM with a plot, I always start a game asking my players where they are and what they want to be doing and build around that (In this campaign, they were a group of con-artists planning and executing various heists), so railroading is never a concern.
Even though he was supposed to be fairly good at preparing for the future, I never used my DM knowledge to assist him in being clever, which is easier than it sounds since I let my players drive the plot and half the time don't know what's coming next.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I see myself as the best DM ever; just like Serpentine said I have plenty of flaws as a DM, but I don't count running bad DMPCs as one of them, and my experience with my players backs me up on this one. I would have happily removed my DMPC from the game if they had said they found him annoying, but quite the opposite they were the ones that asked me to include him in the first place. I never let him overshadow the PCs, and they never felt that he was, but I was still able to involve him as a contributing and active participant in the group.

Please, you've spent enough time trying to tear Serp to shreds, since you have to disprove all counter-examples if you wish to maintain the premise that "All DMPCs are evil!!!", I think it's my turn. Tell me why I'm a terrible DM for forcing such an unholy abomination on my players.

Triaxx
2009-12-21, 06:26 AM
Knowledgeable, creative, and stuck to the point of needing divine intervention don't really mesh well. Seriously, if you can't think of a way out of any situation in D&D, either you're not trying hard enough, or the DM is specifically trying to screw you.

Or you have a party of monks in an low magic world.

What I'm saying, is that when they're stuck, they're really stuck.


Uh...anything can be abused or not abused. Making something wholly out of fiat doesn't fix that.

Sorry, but it does in fact do exactly that. That's the definition of Deus Ex Machina


They can be bad even if they help. I, for one, hate seeing superpowered NPCs solve the party problems for us. If this is "necessary", someone screwed up horribly. By that, I generally mean the DM.

I see you're not even paying attention to what I'm saying.


If you've left that many games over DMPCs, then wouldn't introducing a DMPC seem like a relatively bad decision?

Yes, it would, except that I'm specifically avoiding all those difficulties by doing it in a completely different manner.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-21, 06:52 AM
Right, so NPCs can't travel with the party according to that definition, because if they do, they're DMPCs. Which, in my opinion, is silly. NPCs accompany the party all the time in my games. The PCs may want them there, or not, depending on the storyline they're pursuing. My players usually trust me enough that if they can't see the thematic sense in why the NPC is accompanying them, that doesn't mean that there isn't any thematic sense, just that they can't see it with the limited information that they have at that time.

Well, travelling with the party is trait of PCs, yes. However, it's not the only factor that makes a character a PC.

For example, nobody would call a hireling a DMPC. Or even a PC, likely. Sure, there may be a few instances where a beloved and lucky hireling develops character on their own and really becomes part of the party, but they tend to have a short lifespan, and are less well developed than the other PCs. Typically being an NPC class, less powerful, too.

There are times when an NPC will accompany a party. There are times when a PC will not accompany the party. One occurrence is obviously not sufficient to change the definition of the character.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-21, 07:19 AM
this argument seems to be devolving into crap rather efficiently.

Certain topics tend to do that. I should start a topic on why 4th ed DMPCed monks are superior to pun pun. Catgirls will die by the thousands.


obviously there is a wide range of personal experience here regarding dmpcs. however, that doesn't mean that it is a bad idea to try and run one; it just means you have to do it right.

It's interesting how the defense for DMPCs invariably stems from those who play DMPCs. There is only occasional support for them from players, who almost invariably describe an NPC in the belief that it's a DMPC.


going along with the "bad ideas" argument, based off of my experience, almost all pbp games are run disastrously, never get off the ground, die within 3-8 pages, and tend to make players irate. must mean that they are a bad idea to begin with according to some of you.

Happens a lot, yeah. If you have a choice between playing in person and playing by post, I recommend the former. It's usually easier and better. If you don't have a choice, though, for whatever reason, Pbp is an acceptable substitute.

DMPCs don't really fall into this category. I mean, you could say "better a game with a DMPC than no game at all", but that really doesn't make sense, since you don't need a DMPC to play.


there is a reason that i screen my real life gaming friends fairly thoroughly, and my pbp gamers as well as possible/reasonable.

if you are having issues with dmpcs, and you can't find a less passive-aggressive way to deal with it than killing the character, you have greater issues than a bad dm.

The reason for ending it quickly with overwhelming firepower is that leaving it around a while, and trying to act gently, etc towards it generally results in the DM finding ways to keep it with the party. It tends to develop slowly into a very messy situation.

Best to kill them. Then trap the soul. The idea is to avoid the character coming back over and over again by fiat, or at least to make doing so as obviously outside the rules as possible.


ooc reasons should never be the reason for ic choices. if i were a player using ooc info to decide which fork of the maze to go down, i'd be cheating. if i am using that same info in order to decide which of the individuals around me should live or die, for whatever reason, i'm still cheating.

It's different if you can come up with IC reasons. Which I explicitly said would be part of this. DMPCs are ridiculously easy to come up with reasons to kill, IC.

And we all justify OOC decisions with IC stuff all the time. I mean, seriously, most characters would settle down and enjoy their wealth long before epic levels. We justify ours being the few who really do actively seek out adventures because we want to play that. We don't want to play the retired guy who doesn't actually do anything, no matter how realistic that may be.


if your dm sucks enough that you need to cheat in order to play, find a new game.

Me killing an NPC does not constitute cheating. You may not like it. In certain instances, it may be a bad tactical decision. However, killing things is well within the rules of D&D.

dsmiles
2009-12-21, 07:40 AM
Hey...I think I'm going to have to say that some people can make DMPCs work and some can't. I, for one, don't use them as a DM, as I would rather let the PCs sink or swim on their own merit. If they forget to bring a healer or thief or whatever, they always have the option to hire one, or take a one as a cohort when they can take leadership.

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 07:43 AM
It's interesting how the defense for DMPCs invariably stems from those who play DMPCs. There is only occasional support for them from players, who almost invariably describe an NPC in the belief that it's a DMPC.Have been a player with a DMPC, no problems with it, players aren't being told that they deserve scorn. My players have no issue with them, but, well, they're not on these forums.

The reason for ending it quickly with overwhelming firepower is that leaving it around a while, and trying to act gently, etc towards it generally results in the DM finding ways to keep it with the party. It tends to develop slowly into a very messy situation.

Best to kill them. Then trap the soul. The idea is to avoid the character coming back over and over again by fiat, or at least to make doing so as obviously outside the rules as possible.Not all DMPCs end up terribly, would not stand for this in my games.

It's different if you can come up with IC reasons. Which I explicitly said would be part of this. DMPCs are ridiculously easy to come up with reasons to kill, IC.Unacceptable in my game. "Coming up with IC reasons" to excuse OOC reasons is just twisting words around. It is unnecessary, and unless your character has genuine IC reasons to be rid of another character, this is still metagaming of the worst type.

And we all justify OOC decisions with IC stuff all the time. I mean, seriously, most characters would settle down and enjoy their wealth long before epic levels. We justify ours being the few who really do actively seek out adventures because we want to play that. We don't want to play the retired guy who doesn't actually do anything, no matter how realistic that may be.Not at all the same and you know it. "Going adventuring" is helping the DM. "Killing a character just because you, OOC, don't like it" is not.

Me killing an NPC does not constitute cheating. You may not like it. In certain instances, it may be a bad tactical decision. However, killing things is well within the rules of D&D.Not in my game.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-21, 07:49 AM
However, killing things is well within the rules of D&D.

Not in my game.

Seriously?

Serpentine
2009-12-21, 08:10 AM
Killing party members, or (important) NPCs for OOC reasons? Absolutely. In-game reasons will be met with appropriate consequences.

Yukitsu
2009-12-21, 08:25 AM
When did I say she's not a hitter? I may have said that she doesn't deal out huge amounts of damage, particularly compared to other party members, but... well, most of the party members are spellcasters.
Because I'd pay my character more attention if I was only playing her? Hardly.
Say my group was short a person, so one of my players takes on an extra character. This is to be a long-term character who is an important part of the group, but the player's primary focus is on his original character. This new character is exactly the same in every way to the old one, except that the player pays more attention to and finds it easier to play the personality of the old one. Does that mean the second character is not a PC?

First, why would the group be "short a person?" Campaigns are not irrefutably designed for a 4 person party, and it's certainly not mandatory. Second of all, I've never said a fleshed out personality is essential to being a PC. I stated that you would need to contribute, and more importantly, decide party actions. If one character is used only in combat to shore up some gap that they have, and does not contribute to the party's decision making processes (which he won't, the player will use his primary to make a decision, and use the other character to "democratically" boost that course of action, unless it's a really good RPer) then he'd be a cohort to the party.



You know what? You're right. According to your definition of DMPC, only a badly run character is a DMPC, therefore all DMPCs are bad. Can't argue with that. Of course, by your very own definition, there are no really bad DMPCs, either...

Pretty much.


Take a really bad DMPC. A character run by the DM as a member of a party, say, with a cheesy template, several levels and several degrees of power higher than other party members, with lots of uber treasure, who takes the limelight a lot and drags the party by the nose along the plot. First game I was ever in had one of these. Now, make that DM just a player now. There is basically no way in Hell any reasonable DM will allow that player to play that DMPC-come-PC. The now-player will have to severely alter their playing style, and change the crunch of the character a lot in order for it to be played. Because it's not being played as a PC exactly the same as it was when it was a DMPC, as you yourself have said, it cannot be a DMPC.

That'll vary by group actually. Some groups wind up with pretty bad disparities based on resurrection or dying rules, and I know my group doesn't ban any of those cheesy templates, such as anthropomorphic bat. I've personally wound up with 5 times the recommended wealth by level, because party members kept getting killed off and I'd take their gear. Frankly, despite my protestations of DMPCs, I've never actually seen anything that bad either though.


Your definition of DMPC is no more reasonable than a definition of "red-head" as "person with red hair who's a douche", justifying the opinion that all red-haired people are douches.

Actually, my definition is simply "A player character that is controlled at all times by the DM." My definition of red haired person is "a person with red hair." which is a similar tautology.

Dausuul
2009-12-21, 10:14 AM
I never use DMPCs. If there aren't enough players at the table, I'll give everybody a cohort instead. It's more fun for all concerned; the players get to try out some new character concepts without giving up their old ones, and I don't have to deal with the hassle of running a PC - running the monsters and the NPCs is quite enough work for me, thanks.

I don't think it's impossible to do a good job with DMPCs, but count me in the "instant suspicion" camp. My bad experiences with DMPCs greatly outnumber the good ones.

shaddy_24
2009-12-21, 11:17 AM
I guess I should count myself among the many other terrible DMs on this board, despite having upwards of 15 people say that I do an excellent job. After all, I played an NPC with a character sheet that joined the party for a long term adventure, had his own history, plans, goals, future and experiences. He traveled with them for some time, helping them in and out of combat.

On the other hand, when I tried to give him a reason to split and go to do his own thing, the party started insisting that he come along with them. Even though they'd recently picked up a few new players and there was now 7 PCs. They wanted to bring along an NPC as an 8th party member, but not as a hireling.

He was the same level as them, and didn't just sit in the background, adding nothing to anything. I role-played him fairly often, mostly with the party, but he'd occasionally talk with NPCs. He didn't have any social skills, so he wasn't the party face, but he wasn't some block of wood that wandered along and only contributed in the fights.

He was originally supposed to be my PC, and I rolled him up with the party, but the person who was going to DM changed their mind, and he ended up being mentioned as an NPC when I started DMing. The party picked him up because they had been caught up in a large force that was escaping a destroyed town, and he was one of the surviviors. They took a liking to him, and he joined at their insistance.

However, according to some people on this thread, that makes me a terrible DM. I guess I need to go tell my players that they're not actually having fun, that they've just been cruely tricked by me and my evil DMPC.

Darn. I enjoy playing with them.

pres_man
2009-12-21, 11:57 AM
However, according to some people on this thread, that makes me a terrible DM. I guess I need to go tell my players that they're not actually having fun, that they've just been cruely tricked by me and my evil DMPC.

Darn. I enjoy playing with them.

If running characters, as a DM, that my players enjoy traveling with and treating as an equal is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Gnaeus
2009-12-21, 12:16 PM
There are 2 problems with the use of DMPCs in situations where it is running in a well-functioning game.

1. How do you know your characters are OK with it? Are you sure? I have seen lots of games where the players didn't like the way the DM was running the DMPC, but were afraid of hurting feelings or reprisals if they said anything about it.

2. If it goes wrong, it can go badly wrong in a hurry. When that party conflict comes up, or the NPC makes a decision favoring one player or another, or allows someone to die in combat, or whatever hacks people off, you suddenly have hurt feelings. There isn't anything about a DMPC (other than use for dramatic death) that can't be done with a lower level hireling or cohort who isn't the DMs pet, with a much lower chance of bad blood.

pres_man
2009-12-21, 12:34 PM
There are 2 problems with the use of DMPCs in situations where it is running in a well-functioning game.

1. How do you know your characters are OK with it? Are you sure? I have seen lots of games where the players didn't like the way the DM was running the DMPC, but were afraid of hurting feelings or reprisals if they said anything about it.

While it is true that it is ultimately impossible to tell if someone is lying to you or being honest about how they feel about something. You can look at their general attitude that they are displaying and see if they match the attitude they are saying they have. For example, if someone says they are fine with DMPC, but is constantly taking deep breathes, rolling their eyes, and other such none verbal signals whenever the DMPC does anything, that is probaby a good sign they are not being honest about their feelings.

So if a group on their own decides to ask an DMPC to accompany them, pays to have the character resurrected, cheers when the DMPC succeeds on a roll after a string of bad luck, etc. Those might be pretty good indications that they in fact do like having a DMPC in the party. But yes, you are right, they could just be being deceptive the entire time. In the end though, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.


2. If it goes wrong, it can go badly wrong in a hurry. When that party conflict comes up, or the NPC makes a decision favoring one player or another, or allows someone to die in combat, or whatever hacks people off, you suddenly have hurt feelings. There isn't anything about a DMPC (other than use for dramatic death) that can't be done with a lower level hireling or cohort who isn't the DMs pet, with a much lower chance of bad blood.

Hirelings, especially lower level ones, might be ill prepared for the dangers the party will be facing. In the end they either become dead weight (that the group spends too much time protecting and saving) or dead meat (that the party treats as a nothing and sacrifices whenever it is convient), neither is what I would view as desirable. Also hirelings only motivation usually is getting paid. When the danger outweighs the pay, it is only logical for them to desert the party. A character that is treated as an equal is more likely to have social bonds that go beyond just merely a bit of pay and thus are more dependable and ultimately more capable of aiding the party.

Though even with hirelings, if a DM puts too much "interest" in developing the character, some people are going to still feel that is a bad thing. That is because the (derogatory) definition of a DMPC has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the character itself, merely the percieved treatment of the character by the DM.

Stycotl
2009-12-21, 12:40 PM
It's interesting how the defense for DMPCs invariably stems from those who play DMPCs. There is only occasional support for them from players, who almost invariably describe an NPC in the belief that it's a DMPC.

invariably is not the word that you are looking for. i am pretty certain that reading through half a dozen pages here, there were a handful of those that haven't played them that opined in favor of flexibility. even if i am wrong, and there are only one or two, that still screws the invariable theory.

it is interesting that *almost* invariably, it is people's negative personal experience that leads them to say that a positive experience is impossible through a game that includes a dmpc.

on the contrary, most of those that have supported it have mentioned that it *can work* if done right, not that it auto succeeds. absolutes generally suck absolutely.


Happens a lot, yeah. If you have a choice between playing in person and playing by post, I recommend the former. It's usually easier and better. If you don't have a choice, though, for whatever reason, Pbp is an acceptable substitute.

DMPCs don't really fall into this category. I mean, you could say "better a game with a DMPC than no game at all", but that really doesn't make sense, since you don't need a DMPC to play.

that is still falling into the absolute thinking that pbp games just suck. lately, despite setbacks, i tend to favor pbp games over tabletop.

again, it all depends on the group, and the individuals that make up the group.

either way, my example of absolute judgments still holds.


The reason for ending it quickly with overwhelming firepower is that leaving it around a while, and trying to act gently, etc towards it generally results in the DM finding ways to keep it with the party. It tends to develop slowly into a very messy situation.

Best to kill them. Then trap the soul. The idea is to avoid the character coming back over and over again by fiat, or at least to make doing so as obviously outside the rules as possible.

except that you are causing more problems than you are solving.

a) using OOC info ICly. bad in and of itself, your later justifications notwithstanding.

b) you really have no clue in a good game whether an npc is really just an npc or is a dmpc, and you run the risk of over and over again making the wrong decision.

c) even without the inevitability of paranoid you trying to plot the deaths of any npc that seems to develop too much of a personality, you already run the risk of alienating people and making a fool of yourself.

d) part of this is because killing people IC because you have a problem with them OOC is passive-aggressive and just plain cowardly. if you have an issue with people in real life, develop your real life social skills and take care of it like an adult (or a proto-adult if you are still an awkward youth).

there is no difference between the bad form of killing a player character because you hate the player in real life, and the bad form of killing a dm's npc/dmpc because you have issues with the dm. they are both bad form, and they are both disruptive to the game.


It's different if you can come up with IC reasons. Which I explicitly said would be part of this. DMPCs are ridiculously easy to come up with reasons to kill, IC.

bull. trying to cover up real life issues with a thin veneer of plausible IC action is ridiculous for all of the above reasons.


And we all justify OOC decisions with IC stuff all the time. I mean, seriously, most characters would settle down and enjoy their wealth long before epic levels. We justify ours being the few who really do actively seek out adventures because we want to play that. We don't want to play the retired guy who doesn't actually do anything, no matter how realistic that may be.

...

seriously? out of everything that is realistically wrong with a fantasy adventure game, whose only purpose is to further the fake adrenaline rush of the players, this is your example?

i think that you are stretching the definitions in order to suit your argument.


Me killing an NPC does not constitute cheating. You may not like it. In certain instances, it may be a bad tactical decision. However, killing things is well within the rules of D&D.

i never said anything about killing things as constituting cheating. go look up logical fallacies, specifically straw man arguments, and get back to us.

i have however, stated as cheating the usage of OOC info in order to make IC decisions with the specific goal to undermine and derail a game.

bottom line: if you don't want your dm to derail the game with stupid decisions, give them the same respect. if you have an issue with one of the dm's npcs, talk to him or her about it. if you both aren't mature enough to handle a real-life conversation about it, then you're probably not having the greatest of games anyway, and breaking out of your passive-aggressive tendencies will be expose you to bigger and better things gamewise, and be healthy for you in the long run anyway.

i realize that this is all my opinion. but take it as the opinion of someone that plays the game to have fun. if you don't want to have fun, and relish the petty conflicts of OOC-IC conflicts, have at it.

aaron out.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-21, 02:18 PM
No replies to this sweet wit and counting. But wow I'm on a roll!:


- Develop mild MPD? mpd = mock pudding disorder?


there is a reason that i screen my real life gaming friends fairly thoroughly, and my pbp gamers as well as possible/reasonable.Tru


Sort of seeing where I'm going?Oh I know... you're in the twighlight zone! How else could you defend an icke DMPC? Shame on you! :smallsmile:


Please, you've spent enough time trying to tear Serp to shreds, since you have to disprove all counter-examples if you wish to maintain the premise that "All DMPCs are evil!!!", I think it's my turn. Tell me why I'm a terrible DM for forcing such an unholy abomination on my players.Alright. You smell. There fear my anti-DMPC rationale!


Yes, it would, except that I'm specifically avoiding all those difficulties by doing it in a completely different manner.You can't make your completely theoretical and customizable character different! What's wrong with you? They must all be the same.


Catgirls will die by the thousands.Wow, I knew I forgot something. Just wait, it will come.


It's interesting how the defense for DMPCs invariably stems from those who play DMPCs.Everyone who plays DnD must be a satanist! You see, only those who play the game bother to defend it!

Happens a lot, yeah. If you have a choice between playing in person and playing by post, I recommend the former. It's usually easier and better. If you don't have a choice, though, for whatever reason, Pbp is an acceptable substitute.


I mean, you could say "better a game with a DMPC than no game at all", but that really doesn't make sense, since you don't need a DMPC to play.Better play DnD than not play DnD, but that doesn't make sense because you don't need to play DnD anyways? Um wait...


Best to kill them. Then trap the soul.Whoa... did I just hear that? Note to self for who my good aligned character should avoid if I ever decide to pbp...


DOH! Ho Ho!

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-21, 02:38 PM
Double post from length! (perhaps that will help people to appreciate...)


when they can take leadership.Wait fix DMPCs how? I think my dirty handbook fixes just imploded into a quantum singularity.




Me killing an NPC does not constitute cheating. You may not like it. In certain instances, it may be a bad tactical decision. However, killing things is well within the rules of D&D.
Not in my game.Seriously?Um fixed that context for you... I hope you are just temporarily failing your reading comprehension.


First, why would the group be "short a person?" Campaigns are not irrefutably designed for a 4 person party, and it's certainly not mandatory.OMG, you play in 3 man parties? Try that number squared and that's what I prefer :smallcool: and you don't hear my whining about playing time (as a player, I'm not good enough to DM 9 alone)



You know what? You're right. According to your definition of DMPC, only a badly run character is a DMPC, therefore all DMPCs are bad. Can't argue with that. Of course, by your very own definition, there are no really bad DMPCs, either... Pretty muchYou hear that medusa girl? Vindication! :smalltongue:


Actually, my definition is simply "A player character that is controlled at all times by the DM." Does not compute with your above confession. But that's probably just that DMPC-using snake woman logic again. Sorry I'll try to keep that out of this.


count me in the "instant suspicion" camp.I'm instantly suspicious of dolls too... its the eyes


according to some people on this thread, that makes me a terrible DM. I guess I need to go tell my players that they're not actually having fun, that they've just been cruely tricked by me and my evil DMPC.That's me actually. I say you must not have fun in a way that you find fun, only the way in which I say you should have fun! (or in the original language: Ich sage, dass Sie Spaß auf eine Art nicht haben dürfen, dass Sie Spaß finden. Sie können es nur tun die Weise, die ich sage, dass Sie Spaß haben sollten)


If running characters, as a DM, that my players enjoy traveling with and treating as an equal is wrong, then I don't want to be right.That makes you a dirty, dirty boy! (who catches the reference?)


2. If it goes wrong, it can go badly wrong in a hurry.It's the satanism, (because running DMPCs is evil).


In the end though, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.Gj, but you had no pictures of a duck! So you're still wrong and DMPCs must be bad QED


c) even without the inevitability of paranoid you trying to plot the deaths of any npc that seems to develop too much of a personality, you already run the risk of alienating people and making a fool of yourself.Did that shopkeeper just make a joke! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! (so I can eat his soul for the good of my group. I feel so wholesome.)


DOH! Ho Ho!

valadil
2009-12-21, 02:58 PM
Can we try and reach a general consensus?

1. DMPCs have a lot of potential to break games, especially in the hands of a bad GM.
2. Bad GMs are more likely to be attracted to DMPCs.
3. Very few GMs will label themselve as a bad GM. This means that even if they know #1 is true, they'll assume themselves to be a good GM and therefore immune to the risks of DMPCs.

To clarify #2, I find that many GMs who want DMPCs do so because they want to be a member of the group. What this implies to me is that they'd rather be a PC and they're not entirely satisfied as a GM. Whatever talent or ability the person has for GMing will probably not be brought to the table if that person doesn't really want to GM. Furthermore, many instances of DMPCing that I have seen have been cases of the GM showing off his crazy build or his badass character. GMs who want to show off and take the spotlight away from the PCs are what I consider bad GMs. I don't think anyone will disagree with this point, but feel free to prove me wrong here. IMO this type of GM will run a poor game regardless of the presence of a DMPC.

As negative as this sounds, it doesn't touch on good GMs who want to run DMPCs. Serp, I think you fall into this category (not that I've ever been in one of your games). Anyway, do you agree with my three statements concerning bad GMs who run DMPCs?

Figment_
2009-12-21, 03:17 PM
I have a DMPC that I run in my current group's campaign. The group is 5 or 6 players, (depending on the flaky one) and covers most of the bases. Warblade, Crusader, Druid, Rogue, Dragonfire adept and Wizard. The only player who optomizes at all is the DFA, the rest just play to roleplay and see how many times that they can take option 8 when I have plotted out 7 options for them to take :)

The DMPC in question is a Warforged Paladin they found in the ruins of the city of Lantan in FR. In my altered realms, Lantan was the home city of the priesthood of Gond. They started to have a bit of a fey problem fromthe unseelie, and things came to a full on war. The priesthood created an improved Gondsman (type of construct that were companions to the Gond cleric's prestige class) powered him with a reliquary of one of their saints, and chased his body in cold iron. He was deactivated during one of many conflicts and stolen by the fae and his power source used to open a permanent gate.

The PCs found the gate and fixed the construct, who joined them. He has intimate knowledge of the ruined city (plot hooks and treasure caches), and follows the leader of the group with little question(thanks to no one in party being evil). He came with his own equipment, most of it attached directly to him, and has not asked for anything but a small amount of healing from time to time when he was still dented after repairs. He also is the pack mule for the party, having a type 2 bag of holding style compartment attached to his leg (hollow leg, har har). I am also giving him about 75% of the exp that everyone gains, leaving him back about a level.

They love him. When in the city he can point out to them ways to hidden treasures that can be used against the fae, or just give them tidbits about a place's history. He holds a ton of their loose loot, and can hold his own in a fight. He would really only balk at helping them if they were to ask him to do evil acts, and since the 'leader' is not that type, it'll probably not come up. He helps keep watch (but abysmal spot and listens so hilarity ensues if they leave him to do it alone).

At one point thy were offered 250,000 gold to 'sell' him by the Church of Gond in Waterdeep. The cleric who offered was abashed very shortly after when they all smacked him down.

DMPCs don't have to take the limelight. Some can be pack mules, or living maps, or a valuable PC weapon.

JadedDM
2009-12-21, 03:23 PM
A clarification on my semi-DMPC: This is really more of an NPC meant as a bit of a liability. This little girl was meant to be something the party has to protect, with a role in a future campaign I have in mind. She got forgotten a lot for starters, and then because I forgot something extremely important (she's immune to magic), she was turned into a parrot. So now she's forgotten even more... Oh well.

Your DMPC is immune to magic? That, and the fact that the party is apparently supposed to protect her for the future of the campaign just kind of screams "special snowflake," just so you know.

Stycotl
2009-12-21, 05:25 PM
Can we try and reach a general consensus?

1. DMPCs have a lot of potential to break games, especially in the hands of a bad GM.
2. Bad GMs are more likely to be attracted to DMPCs.
3. Very few GMs will label themselve as a bad GM. This means that even if they know #1 is true, they'll assume themselves to be a good GM and therefore immune to the risks of DMPCs.

i would add that even good dms can run bad games sometimes; this includes dmpc catastrophes.

ultimately, they are used for evil more than for good, in my opinion. but that is not at all to say that they can't be used well.

it is my claim that with a well-run story by a seasoned dm, the players won't have any inkling that a certain npc might be the dm's faboy fantasy come to life. a good dm has fully fleshed out all of the npcs, knows what personalities they have, knows what makes them tick, and will play them all as if they were dynamic individuals with goals and flaws and secret strengths.

if someone waltzed into one of my games with a chip on their shoulder, thinking that they needed to save the world from all well-played npcs, i'd tell them to take a hike and go pick up the newest edition of candyland. and by bloody hell if one of them were cowardly enough to kill a character because they don't have the balls to tell me or a player that they have an ooc issue, they'd never get a chance to apologize and ask for a second chance.

for fun, i'll post my last comments about this issue on my pbp thread:


feel free to let me know if it ever becomes suspicious. i've said time and again that i'd rather have you guys let me know that something is becoming irritating/boring/etc, then just giving up and disappearing. you guys have been pretty good at that though, and i trust your intelligence and maturity levels. that is one of the reason that you were picked above some of the others.

it is interesting to read the experiences and opinions that people have about dmpcs. it was always a nonissue for me except for a few games involving two high school geeks a number of years ago.

i always had small gaming groups; for years, it was only my brother and i, or the two of us and a neighbor. the watchtower is by far the largest group i've ever dmed.

most of my games were round-robin dm campaigns. we at times played our characters, and at times npc'ed them. we even at times npc'ed each others' characters if we were running parallel stories.

there was always an unwritten rule of respect; first, because we were friends and family members; and second, because we knew that if one of us went on a power trip, nerfed everyone else, and deified his own character, next week there would be hell to pay.

guess we just trusted each other, and had good reason to do so. good groups make all of the difference.

Jarawara
2009-12-21, 05:53 PM
if someone waltzed into one of my games with a chip on their shoulder, thinking that they needed to save the world from all well-played npcs, i'd tell them to take a hike and go pick up the newest edition of candyland. and by bloody hell if one of them were cowardly enough to kill a character because they don't have the balls to tell me or a player that they have an ooc issue, they'd never get a chance to apologize and ask for a second chance.

That was worth quoting.

I'll add to that, in reference to someone above saying that any DMPC who 'suggests' a course of action would be a form of railroading and that they would immediately do the opposite... that if someone waltzed into one of my games with a chip on their shoulder, thinking they needed to save the world from railroading, I'd tell them to take a hike as well.

'Suggestions' are not a railroad - and I don't need a DMPC to 'suggest' a course of action. When my players are unsure of where to go next, they often simply ask me where would be the best direction to take. I'll tell them openly what I am best prepared for, or what works best for the storyline, or what just seems the most fun at this juncture. They don't think that's railroading, they think that's just good common sense and curteosy.

Anyone who deliberately took the opposite direction to what the DM was suggesting, claiming that a suggestion is 'railroading', is just being a *@&%@$#. They have no place in my games, and would be shown the door.

Nich_Critic
2009-12-21, 06:31 PM
I'm had three experiences with DMPC's, all in the same campaign.

The first is what I think a good DMPC should be. He was a half orc (some fighting class), dumb as a post, but strong and kind of funny. He was a member of the airship crew we were travelling with. He joined the party in a kind of humorous way (The party forgot to bring rope with them from the ship, so they called up to him to toss it down to him. He misunderstood and jumped down with the rope, and so was stuck on the ground until the ship landed).

Out of combat, he acted like an npc, having some more information then the party (although being the slow, silent type, he wasn't very talkative). In combat, he acted mostly like a hireling. The key was, though, that he was endearing without being overpowering. He helped, but never outclassed anyone. He ended up dying, and the party paid for his resurrection, which is always a good sign. And last of all, the party was stuck with him for the session, but if he hadn't worked out well there was no reason to use him for subsequent sessions.

The second was what I think of when I think of a bad DMPC. He was the captain of the airship. In the session, we found a fourmian tunnel, and began meeting fourmians. We were all geared up to fight, when the DMPC mentioned that he had brought along his special gun, which turned out to be a grenade launcher. He shot a grenade, which killed the fourmians and collapsed the tunnel. We only got token experience (being that we didn't actually do anything). The session ended up being less interesting because the DMPC win buttoned it.

The third was the passive kind of dmpc. The previous DM who had done the other two characters left, so one of the PC's took over DMing the campaign. Only he still had a character, and we were down a player. So he kept his character, but moved him into a passive role, not making suggestions to the party and generally keeping quiet. He helped us out in combat, as well. He died, and our characters didn't really look back. On the whole, as a dmpc he was unremarkable, and the campaign would have been the same without him.

In my experience, to make a good DMPC, he needs to be memorable without taking the spotlight away from the PC's. This means that he likely shouldn't use any magic, or have cool magic items the PC's can't use, or have levels in interesting classes. Something like a mundane fighter or rogue is good. Make up the difference in power with personality.

I think the hate for DMPC's comes from the inherent difficulty in balancing "interesting" with "useful" with "overpowering". And finally, the DMPC should never forced on the players. If the players express dislike for your perfectly crafted filler character, then suck it up and either put him/her on the bus or kill them off. Craft the characters so that this is easy to do. And for cripes sakes, if you're using a DMPC for Deus ex machina (Which means, as a dm, you're already failing), [i]make sure it's a character the [b]whole[\b] party likes[\i]. Nothing smarts more then almost losing an encounter only to be rescued by that smug sneering bastard who always seems to be one or five levels ahead.

Doug Lampert
2009-12-21, 06:38 PM
I guess I should count myself among the many other terrible DMs on this board, despite having upwards of 15 people say that I do an excellent job. After all, I played an NPC with a character sheet that joined the party for a long term adventure, had his own history, plans, goals, future and experiences. He traveled with them for some time, helping them in and out of combat.

Yep. Last game where I ran what were clearly DMPCs by most of the definitions being thrown arround here (character sheet, check; accompanies party, check; played by me, check; participates in adventures, check; emotional investment, of course, I have that for almost every nameless Mook, they all want to live and I play them accordingly).

The game was SO BAD that it grew from 4 players to 10 as people kept inviting friends to play.

I'd been in a prior, rotating GM game, where the five of us who ran games all ALSO had our own character, and the game was so crappy that only 13 people showed up regularly to play (peak attendance was 19, but there were at least 13 for nearly every session). I never brought my PCs along on an adventure when I was DMing for that group, but that's purely because running for that many people was too much work to also run a PC, the DMs who did play their own characters had no trouble except due to the size of the group.

Tiki Snakes
2009-12-21, 07:34 PM
As far as I am concerned, simply having a character sheet and accompanying the party doesn't make a DMPC. If they are a character in the world, they are an NPC, because they are being ran by the dm, and therefor, are not a players character.

A DMPC, to me and I suspect to a lot of people, is simply a term for an NPC (usually one that accompanies the PC's) that is in some way bad.
This usually is the case when a DM wants a 'PC' style character of their own, and isn't adept enough to maintain the mental seperation between being DM and being a P.

Frankly I can quite imagine 'DMPC' style scenarios where there is only an NPC stat-block or so on.

I will agree, players killing DMPC's on sight is a bit OTT, but if players in your game have such an aversion, it's on you to be aware of this and not put them in a situation they dislike so strongly in the first-place.

I'm all for gathering gaggles of assorted NPC's and stragglers around the party, as a player, actually. It does depend on the campaign (and my own character, admittedly) but with my usual DM's, it usually means an added source of intruige, world-information, and general in-character cohesiveness. I've only really came across a possible 'dmpc' character once, and it was indeed the only one that I've had flat-up explained as 'I wanted a Character too'.
(The character in question, bless the DM, even got stuck into a 'DM talking to themselves' exchange, and solved a...slightly puzzling situation when we took too long. Nothing terrible, though.)

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-12-21, 07:48 PM
I thought for sure that last one (uh two) would get noticed.


Can we try and reach a general consensus?No I prefer the two sides to continue repeating themselves over and over ('all DMPCs are stupid/bad/unnecessary,etc vs 'But I can do one well, even my players say so') so that way I can continue from the comfort of the peanut gallery. What? Why are you looking at me like that? Its not like I didn't give a very informative opinion before this...


IMO this type of GM will run a poor game regardless of the presence of a DMPC.I don't listen to his clear-headed opinion, DMPC-lover!


At one point thy were offered 250,000 gold to 'sell' him by the Church of Gond in Waterdeep. The cleric who offered was abashed very shortly after when they all smacked him down.

DMPCs don't have to take the limelight. Some can be pack mules, or living maps, or a valuable PC weapon.Man, I'd have taken the cash and ran because he was probably about to take his share of the loot from the party as an extra... wait what? :smallwink:


only 13 people showed up regularly to play (peak attendance was 19, but there were at least 13 for nearly every session).whoa

aight I'm out. I see a more fair discussion starting. No need for me.

Raum
2009-12-21, 08:44 PM
Can we try and reach a general consensus?Consensus? On the internet?! :smalleek:

In all seriousness, you have a few challenges to reaching a consensus. First you'd have to get agreement on a definition of DMPC - and I've seen three people come up with five definitions all too often. But, that's the easy part. Because you'll then have to define 'good' and 'bad' gaming before you can reach a consensual decision on whether DMPCs are good or bad. And the definitions of good and bad gaming are subjective.

I'll just say I've never seen an NPC which met my definition of DMPC enhance the game. Shrug, that doesn't mean I'd dislike everything called a DMPC by someone...just that I've defined the term fairly narrowly and negatively - or at least in terms I find negative.

pres_man
2009-12-21, 09:54 PM
Can we try and reach a general consensus?

Well since you used vague terms like "few" and "many", it is hard to disagree one way or another on your points. One that did stand out was...


2. Bad GMs are more likely to be attracted to DMPCs.

than ... what?

Bad GMs are more likely to be attracted to DMPCs than good GMs?

Bad GMs are more likely to be attracted to DMPCs than repeled by DMPCs?

I'm not exactly sure what you are comparing when you say "more likely", so I don't know if I can agree with that statement or not.

Gnaeus
2009-12-21, 09:56 PM
The game was SO BAD that it grew from 4 players to 10 as people kept inviting friends to play.

I'd been in a prior, rotating GM game, where the five of us who ran games all ALSO had our own character, and the game was so crappy that only 13 people showed up regularly to play (peak attendance was 19, but there were at least 13 for nearly every session). I never brought my PCs along on an adventure when I was DMing for that group, but that's purely because running for that many people was too much work to also run a PC, the DMs who did play their own characters had no trouble except due to the size of the group.

Big deal. I've been in lots of LARPS with 30+ people with the DM playing their own PC. You know what? The more people you have, the worse the idea is. Having more people increases the chance that someone will think you are cheating and you won't notice. It increases the chance that there will be a major fight in the party and you will be called on to take sides, and then it vastly increases the chance that players will think that you are making rules calls based on your bias towards your own PC.

Frack. In the nightfalls larps, the DMs all run uber-godlike NPCs that dominate every encounter they are in, and they muster 100+ players per night at major cons. And when those uber DMPCs are in a scene, all those players who are elsewhere in character might as well go have a drink, because they are not the most important things on the DMs minds. Having a bunch of people present does not in itself speak to whether something is a good practice. People join games for lots of reasons that don't include DM style.

Playing your PC while running a game with more than a few players is as productive as a player bringing a video game to the table. There is almost certainly something the DM needs to be doing that is more beneficial to the game than figuring out what his PC is going to do next round. One job is more than enough. Really, it is just rude.

Stycotl
2009-12-22, 02:11 AM
LARPs.

i'd forgotten about those. this was about as d&d-drama-geek as i cared to become in high school. there were a few of them that were fun, but mostly it always devolved into a ridiculously large group of people just loitering around public places until dawn.

this was one area of my gaming experience that i did have to deal with a dmpc that was done badly, and i had forgotten about it until now. this one was actually worse than all of the tabletop experiences that i'd dealt with, because those were usually fixed with a liberal dose of ooc conversation. at the same time though, this LARP experience offered multiple examples of other dmpcs that worked remarkably well.

in this case, we were a large group; there were probably 50+ people on some nights. we were running a crossover world of darkness chronicle, and i was brand spanking new to white wolf games (played mind's eye theater before even learning the d10 white wolf system).

we had one guy that was the head storyteller, and he had a bunch of senior players that acted as assistant storytellers and chapter control. in this way, he didn't have to be a rules lawyer about all of the crossover elements, but could just focus on his main interest, vamps.

i dealt mostly with the assistant storytellers, especially since i was new and didn't have any established characters. meanwhile, the head storyteller would deal primarily with the key scenes and key players.

the head st ended up being a real jackass. he played some antediluvian vamp that was more powerful than all of the elders on the face of the planet; he was in it just for his own ego stroking, and for some reason, the group had been putting up with him for years before i met them.

not only was he a crappy storyteller, he was an arrogant prick (started one of our nights with the words, "i am the best storyteller ever."), and even cheated on his wife (a member of the group) while she was terminally ill (with another member of the group, if i remember right...). he was always whining about one member of the group or another, always pouting about people not taking his genius seriously, and exposing us to multiple levels of idiocy in other ways.

so yes, this was an uber example of a bad dmpc. however, he was pretty much an uber bad example of everything. his issues were that he was a crappy person, a crappy dm, and a crappy roleplayer, and had very little to do with the idea that dmpcing is in and of itself "invariably bad" as tynd keeps saying.

i say that because even within the same group as that horrid excuse for a human being, his assistant storytellers were pretty darn good––even while playing their own characters in the chronicle. we had seelie and unseelie changelings, shifters, mages, mortals, a demon, vamps, ghosts, and even a dragon. and every system and every chapter within the systems had at least one assistant storyteller.

i associated with the mortal, vamp, and shifter storytellers, and found them more than willing to take my newbie ass into the story, even when it meant that they had to put on pause their own characters, or to let them simmer on the back burner as support only. with the assistant storytellers, i never saw or heard of a problem.

granted, it is possible that my rosy remembrances of the assistant storytellers are based mostly upon the fact that the pouting, narcissistic head storyteller tended to draw a lot of attention to himself, but still...

wow. memory lane. thanks for the mental prod, gnaeus.

valadil
2009-12-22, 08:42 AM
Consensus? On the internet?! :smalleek:


My bad, forgot this was the internet. Carry on.

Jarawara
2009-12-22, 10:22 AM
PlzBreakMyCmpAn, come back, we need you.

I faithfully read every one of your posts. Comprehend, no, but read, yes.

A peanut for you.

Desmond Tiny
2009-12-22, 03:06 PM
I once created a DMPC for the sole purpose of trying to stop pvp without bringing in an uber npc. The campaign worked out and the players did not mind my PC and he added some plot hooks they chose to follow leading to an awesome adventure. That is why I think DMPCs are not all bad.

MeTheGameGuy
2009-12-22, 08:45 PM
My players are forcing me to create a DMPC, since there are only two of them. I've never actually played any role-playing game before, let alone DMed, so this is going to be difficult. Even simply DMing is really, really hard. :smallfrown:

The RPG in question doesn't even have a class system, so I'm not sure why we need three PCs. :smallconfused:

Solaris
2009-12-23, 05:12 AM
I had a nice long post worked up, but then I realized how pointless it was to throw more fuel into the back-and-forth of these repetitive arguments. I'd just like to nudge in another condemnation of killing off characters, whether they be PCs, NPCs, or DMPCs, for metagame reasons. I'd like to nudge it in with a hammer, and an invitation of anyone who brags about killing off characters for lulz to never, ever attempt to join one of my games.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn, these routine argument threads need you more often. I'd like to see you do Alignment, Vegan, Zombie Apocalypse, and Twilight Bashing, if you'd be so kind.


Tyndymyr's right, Serpentine's trolling, Solaris is the voice of level-headed reason. . .ok, who opened up the breach to the zany opposites universe?

That would explain the goatee I've recently manifested...

Fhaolan
2009-12-23, 10:50 AM
My players are forcing me to create a DMPC, since there are only two of them. I've never actually played any role-playing game before, let alone DMed, so this is going to be difficult. Even simply DMing is really, really hard. :smallfrown:

The RPG in question doesn't even have a class system, so I'm not sure why we need three PCs. :smallconfused:

Hrmmm. Unless the players are building these classless characters to fit very specific mechanical roles (which they could, nothing really wrong with that), it's more likely to be a social balance issue than a mechancial balance issue. It seems like some people feel more comfortable with a triad of players than a pair. I've noticed this before.

It's a bit odd, though. Movies, fiction, etc. have a lot of stuff based on the pair. Triads are relatively uncommon there as the 'third wheel' concept is pretty ingrained in modern cultures. You have to pull up some pretty old concepts (three witches and the like), to find triads.

Grommen
2009-12-23, 11:06 AM
Musketeers come to mind.

Long as you have some form of healing, your fine.

And if you have never DM'ed a game before running a PC too might cause you a little more stress. It might give you some more incite into how they are fairing however.

Partysan
2009-12-23, 11:45 AM
Well, I didn't read all 9 pages, but to topic:

A DMPC is perfectly fine if he is first a PC. I played one of my best campaigns under a quite inexperienced DM who had a character in our party. Not a supporter either, but a (purposely unoptimised) ice-specced sorcerer. A flavorful char, sometimes a miserable guy. He did his thing in combat, was allowed to shine a few times and, above all, he was a really really great roleplaying addition to the party. He had a backstory we got to know part by part and that influenced the campaign story (as was with all players' stories, mind you), he did not railroad but still expressed his opinion on everything.
He was just a PC. Who was coincidentally played by the guy who did DM. And boy, we liked him.

JadedDM
2009-12-23, 05:04 PM
It's been said dozens of times before in this thread and previous threads, sometimes by me, mostly by others, but what the heck, I'll go ahead and say it once more so it can be promptly ignored by everyone.

A DMPC is not the same thing as a NPC that is part of the party. A DMPC is BAD. It's a negative thing. It is a special "PC" just for the DM that is stronger and cooler than the PCs and always hogs the limelight.

Look, it's like the difference between a munchkin and an optimizer or powergamer. Do they share some similarities? Yes. Are they the same thing? No. Imagine a conversation where people are claiming that munchkins aren't necessarily a bad thing and can even be good for a game, and you realize how ridiculous these conversations sound.

There is no such thing as a good munchkin, and likewise, there is no such thing as a good DMPC. If you can think of examples of good munchkins, they aren't really munchkins then. They are powergamers or maybe optimizers. Likewise, if you can think of examples of good DMPCs, then they are not DMPCs.

If the DM is running an NPC that joins the party because the PCs wanted him/her to join, to fill a missing role (healer, etc.) in a smaller group, or something like that, it's not a DMPC. It's just an NPC. (Likewise, an exception can be made if the the role of DM is being rotated among players.)

If the DM is running his/her own "PC" because he/she wants to 'be a player too' and said character has better gear and/or stats than the PCs (or is just better by virtue of DM's fiat and fudging), is more critical to the plot than the PCs themselves, is forced upon the PCs whether they want it or not, etc., then it is a DMPC.

In either case, a DM going around bragging about his or her own DMPCs is like a player going around bragging about what a munchkin he/she is. It's fairly absurd sounding.

Solaris
2009-12-23, 05:13 PM
It's been said dozens of times before in this thread and previous threads, sometimes by me, mostly by others, but what the heck, I'll go ahead and say it once more so it can be promptly ignored by everyone.

A DMPC is not the same thing as a NPC that is part of the party. A DMPC is BAD. It's a negative thing. It is a special "PC" just for the DM that is stronger and cooler than the PCs and always hogs the limelight.

Look, it's like the difference between a munchkin and an optimizer or powergamer. Do they share some similarities? Yes. Are they the same thing? No. Imagine a conversation where people are claiming that munchkins aren't necessarily a bad thing and can even be good for a game, and you realize how ridiculous these conversations sound.

There is no such thing as a good munchkin, and likewise, there is no such thing as a good DMPC. If you can think of examples of good munchkins, they aren't really munchkins then. They are powergamers or maybe optimizers. Likewise, if you can think of examples of good DMPCs, then they are not DMPCs.

If the DM is running an NPC that joins the party because the PCs wanted him/her to join, to fill a missing role (healer, etc.) in a smaller group, or something like that, it's not a DMPC. It's just an NPC. (Likewise, an exception can be made if the the role of DM is being rotated among players.)

If the DM is running his/her own "PC" because he/she wants to 'be a player too' and said character has better gear and/or stats than the PCs (or is just better by virtue of DM's fiat and fudging), is more critical to the plot than the PCs themselves, is forced upon the PCs whether they want it or not, etc., then it is a DMPC.

In either case, a DM going around bragging about his or her own DMPCs is like a player going around bragging about what a munchkin he/she is. It's fairly absurd sounding.

And nobody's trying to defend those sorts. However, what about a DM who's running his own PC and said character's gear/stats are no better than the other PCs, nor does the DM's fiat help that character out any more than it does the rest of the party? If those are automatically bad, then I'm gonna pretend I ignored your post and didn't comment.

barteem
2009-12-23, 06:38 PM
Maybe I'm way off, but isn't a DMPC actually just a long running NPC?
Unless you are also the occasional player when someone else is DMing, then your DMPC can't really ever be a PC.

Stycotl
2009-12-23, 06:38 PM
A DMPC is not the same thing as a NPC that is part of the party. A DMPC is BAD. It's a negative thing. It is a special "PC" just for the DM that is stronger and cooler than the PCs and always hogs the limelight.

the problem is that this is not the universal definition. some people refer to a dm's uber-powerful npc that he constantly uses in order to hog the limelight from the pcs as a dmpc, while other people refer to any npc that has a semipermanent presence as a dmpc. and there are probably multitudes of definitions in between as well.

it is nice for you to try to settle on a definition here, since some of us truly are arguing different things. but you are wrong if you think that your above definition is the definition of a dmpc.

try googling the acronym; you will only get one related hit on the first page, and it will explain the acronym only as the "dungeon master's player character," or something like that. then google "dmpc roleplay" and other variations, and you will find this and a few other forum conversations about it, but i doubt that you will find a single dictionary/encyclopedia/wiki/urban dictionary/etc or other reference that comes up with only the definition that you are claiming as canon.

either way, this in no way changes the fact that some people are arguing against both definitions, claiming that *any* character used by the dm in other than a normal, distant npc manner is *always* bad.

Bob
2009-12-23, 07:32 PM
as far as i'm concerned the dm can have his little pc if he wants to, just as long as it's a fighter or ranger.

JadedDM
2009-12-23, 07:48 PM
And nobody's trying to defend those sorts. However, what about a DM who's running his own PC and said character's gear/stats are no better than the other PCs, nor does the DM's fiat help that character out any more than it does the rest of the party? If those are automatically bad, then I'm gonna pretend I ignored your post and didn't comment.

Assuming it's all on the up and up, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. But it's open to abuse. And the abuse may not even be detectable by the PCs, which may make them paranoid (if your DMPC rolls a 6 to hit, but you tell them it's a natural 20...how would they know? Likewise, maybe you're REALLY lucky and roll 20s naturally without cheating, but try telling the PCs that).

It's kind of like dating your boss. Even if it's completely on the level, people are going to talk, become resentful, and expect the worst. Every time you get a promotion or raise, even if you totally deserve it, it will raise eyebrows. I have seen games destroyed on the SUSPICION of a DMPC alone.

HOWEVER, it also all begs the question...why? You're the DM. You are not a player. If you want to be a player, find someone else to DM. This is why in sports the referee doesn't choose a team and start playing along with the players. He must remain impartial.


the problem is that this is not the universal definition. some people refer to a dm's uber-powerful npc that he constantly uses in order to hog the limelight from the pcs as a dmpc, while other people refer to any npc that has a semipermanent presence as a dmpc. and there are probably multitudes of definitions in between as well.

The definition I gave was the one I grew up with and the only one I ever heard until I started posting here. And it's frustrating, because at least half of the arguments in this thread (and others like it) stem simply from one side using a different definition than the other.

It would be like people using the term "Mary Sue" to refer to ANY protagonist in a story. Then we'd get all kinds of weird arguments on whether a Mary Sue is necessarily a bad thing and how some stories REQUIRE a Mary Sue to work.

Raum
2009-12-23, 08:14 PM
The definition I gave was the one I grew up with and the only one I ever heard until I started posting here. And it's frustrating, because at least half of the arguments in this thread (and others like it) stem simply from one side using a different definition than the other.QFT!


It would be like people using the term "Mary Sue" to refer to ANY protagonist in a story. Then we'd get all kinds of weird arguments on whether a Mary Sue is necessarily a bad thing and how some stories REQUIRE a Mary Sue to work.Well, I could make an argument that all PCs are Mary Sues...but I'll refrain. :smallbiggrin:

pres_man
2009-12-23, 08:35 PM
Assuming it's all on the up and up, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. But it's open to abuse. And the abuse may not even be detectable by the PCs, which may make them paranoid (if your DMPC rolls a 6 to hit, but you tell them it's a natural 20...how would they know? Likewise, maybe you're REALLY lucky and roll 20s naturally without cheating, but try telling the PCs that).

I don't know, maybe an insane idea like rolling out in the open. Crazy I know. But hey, I'm probably insane because I make all the rolls out in the open. If a PC dies, they know it is because of the roll, not because I decided to kill their character.


HOWEVER, it also all begs the question...why? You're the DM. You are not a player. If you want to be a player, find someone else to DM. This is why in sports the referee doesn't choose a team and start playing along with the players. He must remain impartial.

Except the ref (DM) is already playing on one of the sides, the opponents. Also if their any players the DM has any kind of special relationship with, there is already room for bias. So significant others, best friends, and family members are inappropriate to be gaming with according to your job/boss comparison.

I would say that as a DM that often has an character in the party, it is not out of a desire to "be a player". It has more to do with wanting to run interesting characters that enhance the game for everyone. A character that you interact with once in a blue moon, is not altogther interesting because it lacks the depth of interaction.

Also like someone else mentioned, I like to allow my players to play any character they wish, while still maintaining the standard feel of a campaign (I don't want a situation where no cleric and healing potions fall from the sky, a cleric in the party and the potions suddenly dry up).


The definition I gave was the one I grew up with and the only one I ever heard until I started posting here. And it's frustrating, because at least half of the arguments in this thread (and others like it) stem simply from one side using a different definition than the other.

Well part of growing up means learning that not everybody sees things like your small fishbowl experience. Instead of claiming that all these people are wrong, why not accept that your experience may not be the universally true one. Heck, something like 7 years ago, I used to hear ANY NPC that traveled with the party was a DMPC and was bad, even Joe Poopshoveler that does nothing but watches the horses.

JadedDM
2009-12-23, 10:46 PM
I don't know, maybe an insane idea like rolling out in the open. Crazy I know. But hey, I'm probably insane because I make all the rolls out in the open. If a PC dies, they know it is because of the roll, not because I decided to kill their character.

Really? So you make all the rolls open? If your DMPC makes a bluff check against another NPC, do you roll for that, too? Does the NPC then make a sense motive check against your DMPC's bluff?* I'm just curious.

*My understanding of 3E rules is limited, so hopefully the example I'm using makes some semblance of sense.


Except the ref (DM) is already playing on one of the sides, the opponents. Also if their any players the DM has any kind of special relationship with, there is already room for bias. So significant others, best friends, and family members are inappropriate to be gaming with according to your job/boss comparison.

Yes, that's right. Once, my girlfriend gamed with us (me as the DM). I never once showed her any special treatment, but the game fell apart because all of my players were sure I was. Every time something good happened to her, even if it was clear I had no hand in it, they started muttering and rolling their eyes. It got so bad they started trying to kill off every character she made, until she finally quit out of frustration and I wound up banning one of them. (I bet to this day that guy goes around telling people how he was kicked from a game because the DM didn't like him hurting his girlfriend's PC, too.)


I would say that as a DM that often has an character in the party, it is not out of a desire to "be a player". It has more to do with wanting to run interesting characters that enhance the game for everyone. A character that you interact with once in a blue moon, is not altogther interesting because it lacks the depth of interaction.

Also like someone else mentioned, I like to allow my players to play any character they wish, while still maintaining the standard feel of a campaign (I don't want a situation where no cleric and healing potions fall from the sky, a cleric in the party and the potions suddenly dry up).

What, like regular NPCs? I have no problem with those. I'm talking about DMPCs.


Well part of growing up means learning that not everybody sees things like your small fishbowl experience. Instead of claiming that all these people are wrong, why not accept that your experience may not be the universally true one. Heck, something like 7 years ago, I used to hear ANY NPC that traveled with the party was a DMPC and was bad, even Joe Poopshoveler that does nothing but watches the horses.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Telling me my definition is wrong and yours is right? It seems we're at an impasse.

But considering the term is "DMPC" I would think that alone is pretty suggestive of what I'm saying. It's a "PC" for the "DM" and hence, "DMPC." Why would you call a regular NPC a DMPC when the books themselves use the term NPC? (I only play 2E but I am not aware of any official sourcebooks that use the term DMPC.)

pres_man
2009-12-23, 11:25 PM
Really? So you make all the rolls open? If your DMPC makes a bluff check against another NPC, do you roll for that, too? Does the NPC then make a sense motive check against your DMPC's bluff?* I'm just curious.

*My understanding of 3E rules is limited, so hopefully the example I'm using makes some semblance of sense.

If there arose a situation like that I would certainly use the opposed rolls rules. That is kind of the point. And both rolls would be done in the open. And if the DMPC rolls a 20 and the NPC he is bluffing rolls a 1, then I seriously doubt anyone is going to doubt that the DMPC was successful. That is one of the things I love about 3.x, there is a conscious effort to remove alot of the DM subjectivity from the system. As a DM, I love this.


Yes, that's right. Once, my girlfriend gamed with us (me as the DM). I never once showed her any special treatment, but the game fell apart because all of my players were sure I was. Every time something good happened to her, even if it was clear I had no hand in it, they started muttering and rolling their eyes. It got so bad they started trying to kill off every character she made, until she finally quit out of frustration and I wound up banning one of them. (I bet to this day that guy goes around telling people how he was kicked from a game because the DM didn't like him hurting his girlfriend's PC, too.)

What a sad experience. I DM for a game that my wife plays, and the other players trust me not to show her character anymore favortism than I show them. And probably the fact that once I had all seven heads of a hydra totally ripper her druid character to pieces, just probably reinforces that idea (that encounter did make me rethink how I was assigning attacks which is a good thing for everyone involved).


Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Telling me my definition is wrong and yours is right? It seems we're at an impasse.

If you look in my signature, you'll see I have your definition already covered. Certainly things can have more than one legitimate definition. So I am not saying your definition is wrong, merely that it is not the only definition. For example, think of the word "ass".


ass
1 : any of several hardy gregarious African or Asian perissodactyl mammals (genus Equus) smaller than the horse and having long ears; especially : an African mammal (E. asinus) that is the ancestor of the donkey
2 sometimes vulgar : a stupid, obstinate, or perverse person <made an ass of himself> —often compounded with a preceding adjective <don't be a smart-ass>

How do we tell the difference, we look at context. If a tour guide says, "Get on that ass and I'll lead you down the path." I probably would assume he meant the first definition and was not talking about the guy that butted in front of me.


But considering the term is "DMPC" I would think that alone is pretty suggestive of what I'm saying. It's a "PC" for the "DM" and hence, "DMPC." Why would you call a regular NPC a DMPC when the books themselves use the term NPC? (I only play 2E but I am not aware of any official sourcebooks that use the term DMPC.)

See the first definition in my signature. If the character is functionally (in-game) the same as a regular PC, then the description "DMPC" seems intuitive.

So let me turn around your comment, if a character is run by the DM, and functions in a way you describe:

If the DM is running ... and said character has better gear and/or stats than the PCs (or is just better by virtue of DM's fiat and fudging), is more critical to the plot than the PCs themselves, is forced upon the PCs whether they want it or not, etc., then it is a DMPC.
Which does not sound anything like a standard "PC", why would you use a term like "DMPC" to describe it?
*Note: I am not saying using "DMPC" in the way you describe it is wrong, I merely address your "pretty suggestive" statement. What are we "suggesting"? What aspects of PCs are there that we dislike so much that a disruptive DM run character should be described by the term "DMPC".

Fhaolan
2009-12-23, 11:28 PM
But considering the term is "DMPC" I would think that alone is pretty suggestive of what I'm saying. It's a "PC" for the "DM" and hence, "DMPC." Why would you call a regular NPC a DMPC when the books themselves use the term NPC? (I only play 2E but I am not aware of any official sourcebooks that use the term DMPC.)

And therein lies the problem. I've seen statements that it's perfectly fine to *light the DM on fire in RL* if he dares to have a full character sheet for a NPC, because that's *obviously* a DMPC. Your definition of a DMPC as a Mary Sue NPC is a perfectly good one, but even people who hate DMPCs can't agree on that as the definition. They keep pulling in 'any NPC who is more than a cardboard cut-out for the PCs to kill or steal from' is by definition a DMPC because they take game time away from the PCs. That's the definition that gets me annoyed, because it's telling me that any well-rounded NPC is evil and I need to be torched for having them in my games. That it's bad/wrong, that my players cannot possibly be having fun in my games, and that they're lying to me constantly about it.

Solaris
2009-12-24, 12:59 AM
And therein lies the problem. I've seen statements that it's perfectly fine to *light the DM on fire in RL* if he dares to have a full character sheet for a NPC, because that's *obviously* a DMPC. Your definition of a DMPC as a Mary Sue NPC is a perfectly good one, but even people who hate DMPCs can't agree on that as the definition. They keep pulling in 'any NPC who is more than a cardboard cut-out for the PCs to kill or steal from' is by definition a DMPC because they take game time away from the PCs. That's the definition that gets me annoyed, because it's telling me that any well-rounded NPC is evil and I need to be torched for having them in my games. That it's bad/wrong, that my players cannot possibly be having fun in my games, and that they're lying to me constantly about it.

Yes, but if we hadn't refused to agree on a definition for sake of argument then how could we keep this thread going for seven pages?

shaddy_24
2009-12-24, 01:15 AM
I think the reason this argument continued for so long was that some people refused to accept the definitions proposed by the others. Some of the condemners refused the idea that a DMPC was only a bad NPC, one that drew attention from the party. They were of the opinion that any NPC accompanying the party that wasn’t a hireling or cohort was a negative DMPC, and should be instantly killed with fire. The argument was primarily proving this opinion wrong, that not all NPCs that follow the party are such a terrible thing, and that it can be positively done.

If we state that all DMPCs are bad because the term is only used to describe the bad ones, I will accept and agree with that. If we use the term to describe any NPC that has any breadth or depth, and try to say that they’re bad, then I will provide my arguments against it.

However, it appears that the people arguing the second interpretation haven’t posted in a few days, so the argument might finally be over. Here’s hoping.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 01:18 AM
I think the reason this argument continued for so long was that some people refused to accept the definitions proposed by the others. Some of the condemners refused the idea that a DMPC was only a bad NPC, one that drew attention from the party. They were of the opinion that any NPC accompanying the party that wasn’t a hireling or cohort was a negative DMPC, and should be instantly killed with fire. The argument was primarily proving this opinion wrong, that not all NPCs that follow the party are such a terrible thing, and that it can be positively done.

If we state that all DMPCs are bad because the term is only used to describe the bad ones, I will accept and agree with that. If we use the term to describe any NPC that has any breadth or depth, and try to say that they’re bad, then I will provide my arguments against it.

However, it appears that the people arguing the second interpretation haven’t posted in a few days, so the argument might finally be over. Here’s hoping.

What about the definition of "The DM's PC?"

That seems reasonable, and seems to be consistantly ignored in examples of good or bad ones.

Fhaolan
2009-12-24, 02:11 AM
What about the definition of "The DM's PC?"

That seems reasonable, and seems to be consistantly ignored in examples of good or bad ones.

It seems a bit circular of a definition to me, which is why I think it's causing problems for some people. How do you tell the difference between the DM playing a PC and the DM playing a complex NPC? If the DM is cheating, or unreasonably ruling in favour of the character, or is focusing on the character more than the DM should be, is it *really* being treated like a PC? To me, the definition of DMPC as simply "DM's PC" would imply that the character would be expected to follow the same rules that any other PC in the game would get, and the DMPCs that seem to be triggering the real hate are the ones that the DM makes rules-exempt.

Huh... Something just occured to me... one of the points that people kept pushing at me for 4th edition was that NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs wheras 3.x edition NPCs and PCs were (supposed) to be following the exact same rulesets. Does this mean that DMPCs are actually going to be *more* common in 4th edition? I'm not 100% serious about this, it's just a random thought that sprung into my mind.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 02:20 AM
It seems a bit circular of a definition to me, which is why I think it's causing problems for some people. How do you tell the difference between the DM playing a PC and the DM playing a complex NPC? If the DM is cheating, or unreasonably ruling in favour of the character, or is focusing on the character more than the DM should be, is it *really* being treated like a PC? To me, the definition of DMPC as simply "DM's PC" would imply that the character would be expected to follow the same rules that any other PC in the game would get, and the DMPCs that seem to be triggering the real hate are the ones that the DM makes rules-exempt.

Refer to rule 0. If the DM is playing a character, and has nulled the rules to give it uber powers, since he is the DM, it has not violated any particular rules of the game, because rule 0 supercedes it, much like how many PCs in my group have breaks in the rules for the purpose of "rule of cool" which I honestly don't endorse either.

As for complex NPCs, what makes that more PC like? I've heard people describing well fleshed out blah blahs with stat blocks and whatever who have screen time etc, but they weren't party members, or ones that were were in the party for a brief period of time. Those aren't PCs no matter how plot integral, well thought out, spotlight hogging they are. They're simply NPCs.


Huh... Something just occured to me... one of the points that people kept pushing at me for 4th edition was that NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs wheras 3.x edition NPCs and PCs were (supposed) to be following the exact same rulesets. Does this mean that DMPCs are actually going to be *more* common in 4th edition? I'm not 100% serious about this, it's just a random thought that sprung into my mind.

Possibly, but only if a PC build is held as identical as PC.

Fhaolan
2009-12-24, 02:32 AM
Refer to rule 0. If the DM is playing a character, and has nulled the rules to give it uber powers, since he is the DM, it has not violated any particular rules of the game, because rule 0 supercedes it, much like how many PCs in my group have breaks in the rules for the purpose of "rule of cool" which I honestly don't endorse either.


Hrmmm... I think that's one of the tripping points. I'm probably not applying Rule 0 the same way other DMs do. In the games I run, Rule 0 is more 'majority at the table agrees' kind of thing, rather than the 'Imperial DM' style. Which means that if I'm going to overrule something, everyone playing is going to be fully aware of it and have had their say about it. If it was meant to be a plotted surprise kind of thing, and the players go "WTF? Uh... No!" I will rewind the events and change stuff around to fix it.

I find that the 'Imperial DM' style is less fun for the groups I deal with, but I understand that other groups work differently.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 02:56 AM
Hrmmm... I think that's one of the tripping points. I'm probably not applying Rule 0 the same way other DMs do. In the games I run, Rule 0 is more 'majority at the table agrees' kind of thing, rather than the 'Imperial DM' style. Which means that if I'm going to overrule something, everyone playing is going to be fully aware of it and have had their say about it. If it was meant to be a plotted surprise kind of thing, and the players go "WTF? Uh... No!" I will rewind the events and change stuff around to fix it.

I find that the 'Imperial DM' style is less fun for the groups I deal with, but I understand that other groups work differently.

As much as I'd prefer that style, ultimately, the DM has the call, and frankly, should have the final call in arbitrating the rules of the game. As a player, I don't mind my DM handing out edicts so long as they are consistent.

Serpentine
2009-12-24, 06:51 AM
Dagnabbit. I was going to use the holidays to stay away from here and just see where it went. But then people went and asked me direct questions and I'd feel bad not responding...
1. DMPCs have a lot of potential to break games, especially in the hands of a bad GM.
2. Bad GMs are more likely to be attracted to DMPCs.
3. Very few GMs will label themselve as a bad GM. This means that even if they know #1 is true, they'll assume themselves to be a good GM and therefore immune to the risks of DMPCs...
As negative as this sounds, it doesn't touch on good GMs who want to run DMPCs. Serp, I think you fall into this category (not that I've ever been in one of your games). Anyway, do you agree with my three statements concerning bad GMs who run DMPCs?Sort of, although I still think it emphasises "DMPCs = bad" too much, because it's still basically implying that DMs who like and/or use DMPCs are bad, with a "probably" stuck in there.

Your DMPC is immune to magic? That, and the fact that the party is apparently supposed to protect her for the future of the campaign just kind of screams "special snowflake," just so you know.Don't know that term, but honestly, quite possibly. Her point was meant to be that she was like a little girl-shaped hole in the magical fabric of the universe, completely unmagical right down to her very cells, and therefore magical effects can't "find" her and have their effects. The party rescued her because she was going to be sacrificed by disguised yuan-ti, and her far-distant destiny is meant to be... There's this "dead continent", a place where long ago, to stop a war, an extremely powerful artifact was planted in the centre which sucked up all the magic from the area and flung it away (creating a wild-magic zone). It's extremely dangerous for normal creatures because their magic/life force will be drawn to the artifact. This girl, being unmagical, will be the only one who can approach it and "turn it off".
...but all that's a LONG way away, now :smallsigh: I started a thread a while ago figuring out her mechanics and how she could progress. "Special snowflake" probably works pretty well. Seems a bit silly now... Oh well. She's just a parrot who follows us around, now. Also, I don't think she was ever central enough to qualify as a DMPC. Baggage, maybe. And she certainly didn't suffer the drawback of being too powerful and spotlight-hogging.
And, for the record...
Actually, my definition is simply "A player character that is controlled at all times by the DM." My definition of red haired person is "a person with red hair." which is a similar tautology.This is absolutely untrue. This is exactly the definition I've been using, and is exactly what my character IS. You have been refusing to accept my character as a DMPC because she "doesn't make decisions", among other nitpicky things. There are, if I wanted to go back and pick them all out, little additions and qualifiers all the way through your posts redefining DMPCs all the time, like spotlight-hogging and treasure-stealing and DM-favouritism, whittling the DMPC down to basically nothing except "BAD".
If this is your definition of DMPC, then my character is a DMPC, and she is not bad.

Regarding the accusations that my DMPC can't be a DMPC because she doesn't "make decisions", most of the characters in my game are so passive that if mine is to not take the lead (which seems to be an issue with DMPCs), she's got to have about the initiative of a slug. I don't want my DMPC to be the Leader, so I hold her back and wait for my newer players to step up.

By the way, I've now asked... two, or I think three, of my players what they think of my DM. Can't remember what one said although I don't think he minds her, at least. Another said he's quite happy to have her, and the third said he would prefer that I not get rid of her. I'm not saying that my players are overjoyed at her presence or that they would be heartbroken if she wasn't there, but the consensus so far seems to be more positive than negative.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 12:16 PM
I think that if no one is making any decisions, it's rather questionable that they want to play a game that has anything other than a linear dungeon to smash through with talky bits as inteludes.

You've also stated repeatedly that for behaviors XY or Z you'd kick people out of your gaming group, and if this opinion is well known, they aren't going to gainsay your DMPC no matter how many times you ask.

Mike_G
2009-12-24, 12:30 PM
I think this thread shows the curse of the internet.

The fact of the matter is that the DM controlled NPC works for some groups and does not work for other groups.

But, since ideological purity and snarkily typed soundbites are more fun, everyone is insisting that their view is correct and that if your game seems to work fine in a way that doesn't fit their worldview, well...

You're wrong. You're actually not having fun, your players hate the character, regardless of what they say, and they probably hate you as an extension. Plus, chances are they are seeing a younger, more attractive DM on the side, after all the years of DMing you've given them.

And there is no Santa Claus.

pres_man
2009-12-24, 01:03 PM
Assertion: Since you would be willing to kick players out for disrupting the game by killing characters in-game for out-of-game reasons, the players are therefore afraid to discuss issues with you.

Yeah, I'm not buying that argument. The argument there is since players might get booted for being jack-holes, they will refuse to discuss things like adults. I seriously doubt that people that would discuss things like adults are afraid of getting booted for doing so.

Stycotl
2009-12-24, 02:21 PM
Some of the condemners refused the idea that a DMPC was only a bad NPC, one that drew attention from the party.

this still falls into the realm of "any dmpc is bad." you are saying that it isn't evil, just a bad npc.

how does that make sense?

*all* npcs draw attention from the party. this includes cohorts and familiars and everything else, because they technically are not pcs.

if every moment of the game had the pcs as the focus, there would never be any drama, any combat, or anything else, because the characters would be the only people doing anything. sound fun?

it is perfectly reasonable to play in a game where the npcs, and even dmpcs, are dynamic, well-played individuals that give extra life to the campaign, rather than making it boring.

in fact, according to most philosophies of literature that i know of, a truly great story is not supposed to be about the protagonists (in this case, the characters); it is supposed to be about something bigger, and the protagonists are simply along for the ride. those are supposed to be the more engaging plot lines, with better spikes in drama and suspense, and better character development over all.

that pretty much indicates that the pcs are not supposed to be the center of attention all of the time.

as mentioned earlier, your cohorts, hirelings, familiars, and other npcs are all drawing attention from the main characters, but i don't see too many people arguing that they should all be killed in the quickest manner possible.

even in games where the dm plays the familiars, animal companions, etc, i have never seen anyone complaining that the npcs are hogging the screen time. it just doesn't happen. and if any one of you can point to an example where you think it does happen, i would wager that there is an overlying issue that is responsible for the bad feelings (simply a bad dm, a selfish player, etc), and that the mere existence of npcs actually has nothing to do with it.


I think this thread shows the curse of the internet.

The fact of the matter is that the DM controlled NPC works for some groups and does not work for other groups.

But, since ideological purity and snarkily typed soundbites are more fun, everyone is insisting that their view is correct and that if your game seems to work fine in a way that doesn't fit their worldview, well...

You're wrong. You're actually not having fun, your players hate the character, regardless of what they say, and they probably hate you as an extension. Plus, chances are they are seeing a younger, more attractive DM on the side, after all the years of DMing you've given them.

And there is no Santa Claus.

what??!! no santa?

all in all, funny post.

as has been mentioned a few times now, we are still arguing different definitions, and arguing that there are no variations of the definition.

serp's "special snowflake" is being told by some that it can't be a dmpc because it doesn't make critical decisions, or because it isn't very powerful, or for various other reasons.

but the fact of the matter is that if serp thinks of the snowflake as a pc, and treats her like a pc (inasmuch as she feels a dm should treat a pc), then snowflake is pretty much a dmpc––regardless of whether she fits other people's definitions.

otherwise, we're treading into the "no true scotsman" territory, which just does not work as an argument.

meanwhile, as most of the board members here are trying to convince serp that her snowflake is not a dmpc in the clinical sense, there are some here that feel that even an unobtrusive, relatively weak dmpc is of the same category as the worst kind (spotlight-hogging, uber-build, mary sue) and ought to be stamped out with fire. these people are dead certain that snowflake is definitely a dmpc in the bad way, despite others' attempts to tell serp that it is not.

it is all relative, and we can't try to use concrete definitions that hold for all sides of a discussion when the very nature of the beast is subjective.

Yukitsu
2009-12-24, 02:42 PM
To be fair, it's equivalently not true that "anything I refer to as a PC has to be a PC." You can't really argue that commoner Bob, who for instance has no character sheet, isn't in the party, appears once, and doesn't do anything is a DMPC.

Solaris
2009-12-25, 12:32 AM
Hrmmm... I think that's one of the tripping points. I'm probably not applying Rule 0 the same way other DMs do. In the games I run, Rule 0 is more 'majority at the table agrees' kind of thing, rather than the 'Imperial DM' style. Which means that if I'm going to overrule something, everyone playing is going to be fully aware of it and have had their say about it. If it was meant to be a plotted surprise kind of thing, and the players go "WTF? Uh... No!" I will rewind the events and change stuff around to fix it.

I find that the 'Imperial DM' style is less fun for the groups I deal with, but I understand that other groups work differently.

Nonsense and blasphemy. Imperial DM style works in my game, therefore it absolutely, positively, utterly MUST work in your game. Otherwise, the universe ends.


I think that if no one is making any decisions, it's rather questionable that they want to play a game that has anything other than a linear dungeon to smash through with talky bits as inteludes.

You've also stated repeatedly that for behaviors XY or Z you'd kick people out of your gaming group, and if this opinion is well known, they aren't going to gainsay your DMPC no matter how many times you ask.


Assertion: Since you would be willing to kick players out for disrupting the game by killing characters in-game for out-of-game reasons, the players are therefore afraid to discuss issues with you.

Yeah, I'm not buying that argument. The argument there is since players might get booted for being jack-holes, they will refuse to discuss things like adults. I seriously doubt that people that would discuss things like adults are afraid of getting booted for doing so.

Counter: We're playing with grown-ups who aren't afraid to stop playing if they don't feel like it. I know I am. We mostly dropped D&D after the conclusion of my campaign and moved on to Warhammer. It had nothing to do with my play style (at least, nobody's complained and we still come back every once in a while when we don't feel like breaking the armies out), and we played all the while with some party NPCs.
See, when I tell someone "I dislike random killing sprees for the lulz and if you're going to do it I'm going to stop playing with you", then it's perfectly reasonable for him to expect it to happen if he randomly murders a DMPC/party NPC or another PC. It's not tyrannical by any stretch. None of my players are so spineless as to be afraid to complain about something I do (and yes, I have gotten complaints about my decisions - usually fixed on the spot). It's simply asking them to understand that I, as a DM, do not want to run a game they could better replicate on WoW, with all the pointless slaughter and whatnot. I play D&D to play a story, not just randomly knife people in their sleep because I don't like the person playing the character.

Yukitsu
2009-12-25, 05:06 PM
Just because it's D&D with a story doesn't mean the players shouldn't have options ranging from the mentally damaged to the epic. Random characters in stories get arbitrarily knifed from time to time, and it doesn't cause the story to come crashing to an abrupt halt, important characters could be eliminated, and a good story could still arise from it.

The story isn't just the DM's creation. Players are an active part in what happens in the story, and frankly, when random plot people are added in that I "mustn't kill" for whatever reason, that's a little bit of the story taken away from the players. The DM can control the world, the people, and the situations the players are in, but I won't ever appreciate one that says "You can't kill that NPC for no reason!" Often, they say the same thing even when I do have a very good reason. PC actions are firmly on the PCs side of the equation.

Zaydos
2009-12-25, 05:54 PM
On the "I will kill random things for the lulz" topic my answer has always been: And things will happen in reaction to this. Whether it is alignment change (no killing random people is not LG, or even really CN), or the town watch coming in and killing you, or even Ok you're a chaotic evil worshipper of Cthulhu and nobody was around so only you and Cthulhu knows, depends on the situation.

As for DMPCs. I've had them. I was playing a 2 PC game, and one mentioned wanting to DM in the world sometime so I made a PC just in case. They also brought up inviting someone who was in the other 2 PC game (which had 2 NPCs that adventured with the party but I did not indentify as "my PC" and one was there as Role-play fodder [a bard] and the other just so they had a meatshield/someone they could push into traps [a fighter-rogue]) and I said I wasn't dealing with balancing encounters for 3 characters so if they did I'd just use the character made with the same rules as they were (an unoptimized arcane hierophant... way stronger than I intended). They took the second option so I played him. I didn't have him decide which way they went, I rolled everything for him in the open, he had ability scores which were arguably the worst of the group. He was the strongest member of the group which consisted of a badly built knight/homebrewed prestige class that in hindsight should have been much stronger, a multiclass ninja/shaman who was weak by any standard (and wouldn't retrain into a ninja-shaman dual class prestige class I made just so he could be powerful enough to play), and a warlock optimized for defense. Compared to what I could have made him? He mostly had some blaster spells and stuff to buff his animal companion, and didn't even use wild shape except twice over 8 levels. He didn't talk to the NPCs except when I needed a way to work in an NPC contact and the PCs wouldn't give me any background to work with (one of them just said "I'm a diposed prince" and we ran a long adventure all about that, another said "I was exiled and can't return home." then complained that we didn't randomly go to his homeland, and the third wrote up a backstory and then never gave it to me) and mostly he let the PCs have someone to talk with. He did provide a buffer in case an encounter was too hard, and let me make more epic fights which the PCs enjoyed. I did try and write him out, once by just taking him out for a time (which was when one of the PCs did decide to run an adventure immediately after the character made for just such an occasion had left the party for several months) and they complained about wanting him back (except for the ninja-shaman's player who complained that every single PC was too powerful and should be killed for that reason, including the PC I played on the adventure he ran [a healbot cleric that used Harm twice]). I tried writing him out again because of the ninja-shaman player's continued complaints and even he said no, he also got mad when the animal companion was awakened and replaced after the campaign ended and everyone wanted to continue when his main gripe had been the animal companion disliked him (first thing he did was tell it to betray it's master and it was a familiar). So yes he was a DMPC, he was played like I would a PC except in those cases where I knew I couldn't keep Player and Character knowledge seperate, he was too powerful (not optimized, but neither was anyone else and he was a higher tier character), and he was a Mary Sue (so were all of their characters but as a DM I am supposed to be above that). Was he bad? Was it bad he was in? Did putting him in make me a bad DM?

On an additional note when we stopped gaming together (i.e. went to different colleges) I wrote up a final epilogue for the campaign. I wrote the DMPC's deathbed scene, telling each PC what they saw. The one universal complaint? Why'd the DMPC have to die. The game was over and I had three players complaining about him dying 50 some years later. I still don't get that one (and yes the ninja-shaman player had other complaints, but he complains about everything IRL and was really too immature to be playing [although 5 years older than I was when I started]).

I don't really know why I typed this all since it won't convince anyone of anything. It is the truth and nothing more or less.

DigoDragon
2009-12-26, 01:27 PM
I use DMPCs often and my players enjoy having them around. My play style as a PC is usually some kind of support character so for me it works out ok. Here's my tip in helping players feel like the DMPC is being run fairly and not being favored:

Roll the DMPCs dice in the open, not behind a screen. I find this builds trust with the players. :smallsmile:

Serpentine
2009-12-26, 07:37 PM
I think that if no one is making any decisions, it's rather questionable that they want to play a game that has anything other than a linear dungeon to smash through with talky bits as inteludes.Actually, they're very roleplay-oriented. It's just that one player is almost incapable of having an opinion (seriously, we've tried, and not just in this context), one just doesn't seem to have the self-confidence and/or just doesn't like to take the lead, and the other two are promising but are new to my game and I think worried about overrunning the longer-term players. Oh, and one of those two's decision-making energies are focussed on which innuendo to use next 9.9

You've also stated repeatedly that for behaviors XY or Z you'd kick people out of your gaming group, and if this opinion is well known, they aren't going to gainsay your DMPC no matter how many times you ask.As said, this is absurd arguing. "Because a police officer will arrest you for murdering someone or robbing a bank, you won't ask him for directions." You're just trying to demonise me, now. Of course I won't kick them out for "gainsaying" anything, and of course they know that. The "kick-out" behaviours are extremes of bad behaviour that I can't even imagine any of my players doing in the first place. Furthermore, as I believe I've already explained, there are very, very few things - maybe even none - that would be an instant boot. There would always be a conversation first, and booting would be a last resort, if it can't be resolved any other way.
serp's "special snowflake" is being told by some that it can't be a dmpc because it doesn't make critical decisions, or because it isn't very powerful, or for various other reasons.

but the fact of the matter is that if serp thinks of the snowflake as a pc, and treats her like a pc (inasmuch as she feels a dm should treat a pc), then snowflake is pretty much a dmpc––regardless of whether she fits other people's definitions.

otherwise, we're treading into the "no true scotsman" territory, which just does not work as an argument.

meanwhile, as most of the board members here are trying to convince serp that her snowflake is not a dmpc in the clinical sense, there are some here that feel that even an unobtrusive, relatively weak dmpc is of the same category as the worst kind (spotlight-hogging, uber-build, mary sue) and ought to be stamped out with fire. these people are dead certain that snowflake is definitely a dmpc in the bad way, despite others' attempts to tell serp that it is not.

it is all relative, and we can't try to use concrete definitions that hold for all sides of a discussion when the very nature of the beast is subjective.Just so you know, I think you've gotten a bit mixed up there. My "special snowflake" is a pseudo-DMPC/NPC non-magical girl intended as a bit of a handicap and fragile-thing-to-protect who doesn't really do anything (really doesn't do anything now that she's a parrot). My DMPC is Kariana Wyrnda, exiled mountless elf'd Dwarf Knight.

My DMPC is fine, and there have been several others described here that appear good (including one that had an open invitation to critique, but was ignored). Therefore, not all DMPCs are terrible. To repeat that, because that is the whole of my argument: not all DMPCs are terrible.

Solaris
2009-12-28, 08:15 PM
Just because it's D&D with a story doesn't mean the players shouldn't have options ranging from the mentally damaged to the epic. Random characters in stories get arbitrarily knifed from time to time, and it doesn't cause the story to come crashing to an abrupt halt, important characters could be eliminated, and a good story could still arise from it.

The story isn't just the DM's creation. Players are an active part in what happens in the story, and frankly, when random plot people are added in that I "mustn't kill" for whatever reason, that's a little bit of the story taken away from the players. The DM can control the world, the people, and the situations the players are in, but I won't ever appreciate one that says "You can't kill that NPC for no reason!" Often, they say the same thing even when I do have a very good reason. PC actions are firmly on the PCs side of the equation.

To be fair, it's not just the ones with names that I get annoyed for players randomly knifing. I don't run evil games. I definitely don't run Chaotic Stupid games.

The story isn't just for the players. DMs are an active part in what happens in the story, and frankly, when random plot people are added in that you "mustn't kill" for whatever reason, they're not random. The players can control their actions, but I won't ever appreciate one that says "I want to kill that NPC for no reason!" Often, they don't believe me when I tell them that I don't have fun playing the CPU in a session of WoW. PC actions are firmly on the PCs side of the equation, but if they consistently result in the DM not having any fun whatsoever then yes, the DM is well within his right to show the player the door.


Was he bad? Was it bad he was in? Did putting him in make me a bad DM?

Yes. He's bad, you're a bad DM, and you're a bad person. :smalltongue:
The real question is, how did you put up with the ninja-shaman's player so long?

Alejandro
2009-12-28, 09:25 PM
Our group of PCs has two DMPCs in it. Sometimes we take one with us, sometimes two, and often neither. Never any problems. Depends on GM and player skill.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 01:48 AM
I don't know, maybe an insane idea like rolling out in the open. Crazy I know. But hey, I'm probably insane because I make all the rolls out in the open. If a PC dies, they know it is because of the roll, not because I decided to kill their character.


Following RAW(or at least, RAW+ standard houserules) quite closely and making all rolls in the open would likely go a long way towards reducing suspicion of DMPCs, yes.

Im a huge detractor of them in general, but if you really must have them, making all rolls for them openly is a necessary part of making them appear fair. After all, PCs don't normally get to make rolls behind a screen.

That said, I only ever use a DM screen when a roll needs to be made secretly(and very, very few do), and I still shy away from them, just to be safe.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 01:50 AM
How do we tell the difference, we look at context. If a tour guide says, "Get on that ass and I'll lead you down the path." I probably would assume he meant the first definition and was not talking about the guy that butted in front of me.

This sounds like the start to a really bad porno.

Fhaolan
2009-12-30, 01:56 AM
This sounds like the start to a really bad porno.

Or some RPGs I've played in the past. *shudder*

Bosh
2009-12-30, 01:58 AM
When I add NPC "party members" I always assume that they'll eventually be brutally murdered by the PCs. Things work better that way.

Zaydos
2009-12-30, 02:02 AM
Yes. He's bad, you're a bad DM, and you're a bad person. :smalltongue:
The real question is, how did you put up with the ninja-shaman's player so long?

Alas blood is thicker than aught else. Twas my little brother, that's why. He actually took a disliking to the character when he was a concept of a PC I'd like to try after my friend had talked about DMing; I really think it had nothing to do with DMPC and more that I got excited at finally making a character that rode a tiger.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 02:04 AM
When I add NPC "party members" I always assume that they'll eventually be brutally murdered by the PCs. Things work better that way.

My usual group consists entirely of people who love being evil. I assume such an end for ALL my NPCs, if the players are ever in a position to pull it off.

Of course, thinking up lovely consequences for said chaotic evil tendencies is part of the fun.


However, while chaotic evil hack and slashers and DMPCs are subjects that can overlap...I suggest they are not intrinsically related. It's possible for a PC and a DMPC to have conflict over genuine IC differences. Not every killing of an NPC or DMPC is because the player is chaotic stupid.


On a side note, Serpentine, is your DMPC also immune to instantaneous conjurations? Given the ruling on how they work with AMFs, and the detail provided, I wouldn't expect her to be.

Serpentine
2009-12-30, 06:42 AM
However, while chaotic evil hack and slashers and DMPCs are subjects that can overlap...I suggest they are not intrinsically related. It's possible for a PC and a DMPC to have conflict over genuine IC differences. Not every killing of an NPC or DMPC is because the player is chaotic stupid.This is entirely reasonable - and one of my (PC) characters got into a fist-fight with a DMPC over a joke that caused him to stab himself in the hand. It is also not what we're talking about.

On a side note, Serpentine, is your DMPC also immune to instantaneous conjurations? Given the ruling on how they work with AMFs, and the detail provided, I wouldn't expect her to be.Just to check again: My anti-magical girl is not my DMPC. But anyways, I think I ruled that area effects cause half-damage or thereabouts. I figured that, for example, a fireball wouldn't hurt her directly, but it would probably heat up the air and whatnot surrounding her and so do indirect damage. I think she'd also be treated as having Evasion. I've got most of it on these forums somewhere. It's been a while.

By the way, my party members can be any alignment they like. So far they've mostly been Good or Neutral, and any Evils who are openly so, especially against party members, are likely to be quickly dispatched one way or another (honestly, probably peacefully, unless they did something really dumb). But generally (not that it's really come up), an Evil character is just expected to keep it out of sight, out of mind. And killing a character - ANY character - without a very, very good reason, is always Evil.
As an aside, we actually captured an enemy I expected them to kill... I had to kill her off with a poison ring.

Killer Angel
2009-12-30, 06:58 AM
To repeat that, because that is the whole of my argument: not all DMPCs are terrible.

It's possible, but I fear that yours, are more the exception, than the norm.

Personally, i don't like at all DMPCs, and as a DM I've never felt the urge to introduce one.
But I'm usually against even NPCs traveling for a long time with the group.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-30, 10:02 AM
This is entirely reasonable - and one of my (PC) characters got into a fist-fight with a DMPC over a joke that caused him to stab himself in the hand. It is also not what we're talking about.

Is it not possible to have both IC and OOC reasons to kill something? I mean, technically, xp and loot are nearly always OOC motivations in addition to whatever IC motivations exist.

I think it's unfair to assume that the DMPC-killer lacks an IC reason for his violence.


Just to check again: My anti-magical girl is not my DMPC. But anyways, I think I ruled that area effects cause half-damage or thereabouts. I figured that, for example, a fireball wouldn't hurt her directly, but it would probably heat up the air and whatnot surrounding her and so do indirect damage. I think she'd also be treated as having Evasion. I've got most of it on these forums somewhere. It's been a while.

Just curious, instantanious conjurations typically ignore such restrictions on magic, since the created effect is non-magical. Just wondering how close she was mechanically to a specific Initiate of Mystra build.


By the way, my party members can be any alignment they like. So far they've mostly been Good or Neutral, and any Evils who are openly so, especially against party members, are likely to be quickly dispatched one way or another (honestly, probably peacefully, unless they did something really dumb). But generally (not that it's really come up), an Evil character is just expected to keep it out of sight, out of mind. And killing a character - ANY character - without a very, very good reason, is always Evil.
As an aside, we actually captured an enemy I expected them to kill... I had to kill her off with a poison ring.

So....you allow any alignment, but will throw a person out of your gaming group for an evil act? I mean, for some alignments, "I wanted his stuff" is a perfectly reasonable cause for killing someone.

Also, a single evil act is usually not enough to make a person evil. I could see a neutral person committing an evil act in many circumstances. Say they believe the character could/would later be a threat to the party. Easy enough to justify in most cases, and a good reason to stray from alignment temporarily.

dsmiles
2009-12-30, 10:17 AM
Sooooooooo....we don't allow evil characters anymore? I thought that's why they printed descriptions of evil alignments. There is such a thing as being mature about evil characters. Not everybody plays evil because "evil is cool." Some people play it for a release from standard morality. Evil characters can still perform "good" acts for "evil" reasons.

Good Character: "I save the orphans from the burning orphanage, because I should."

Neutral Character: "I save the orphans from the burning orphanage, because there may be some profit involved."

Evil Character: "I save the orphans from the burning orpahange, and use them to start my very own sweatshop."

Lawful Character: "I save the orpahns from the burning orphanage, but am preoccupied by the need to bring the arsonist to justice."

Chaotic Character: "Should I save the orphans from the burning orphanage? Yeah, I guess."

:thog:: "Orphanage? Where is orphanage? Thog see only happy bonfire! Thog want s'mores!"

Anyway...DMPCs...
Personally, I don't like or use them. An NPC that sticks with the party for a while (because they're escorting said NPC someplace, usually) is different. In combat these NPCs will typically cower in a corner peeing on themselves. Unless they're a Warrior, then they may try to get into combat, but usually get pushed aside by the party, or run away when they find that they're too weak to take on the bad guys (or good guys depending on the party's alignment).

Solaris
2010-01-02, 10:11 PM
Is it not possible to have both IC and OOC reasons to kill something? I mean, technically, xp and loot are nearly always OOC motivations in addition to whatever IC motivations exist.

I think it's unfair to assume that the DMPC-killer lacks an IC reason for his violence.

Yeah, but if you brag about "I kill all DMPCs on sight"...


Sooooooooo....we don't allow evil characters anymore? I thought that's why they printed descriptions of evil alignments. There is such a thing as being mature about evil characters. Not everybody plays evil because "evil is cool." Some people play it for a release from standard morality. Evil characters can still perform "good" acts for "evil" reasons.

I don't allow evil PCs. Wild and crazy, I know. I just plain don't like running a game for evil characters. You're welcome to run it if you want, but I'm a little old-fashioned in that I've always felt PCs should be more or less heroic.
I'm now waiting for someone to take umbrage at this and ask if this means I limit them to being XYZ. It'll be funneh.

Fawkes
2010-01-02, 10:18 PM
I'm running a Final Fantasy RPG on Mythweavers. The party currently has two NPC members - I suppose you could call them DMPCs - and it's worked pretty well so far. They're both lower levels than the party, are support classes (White Mage and Mime), one is a princess the party is tasked with protecting, and the other is basically mute.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 10:50 PM
Yeah, but if you brag about "I kill all DMPCs on sight"...

So? That doesn't describe the in-game reasons for killing them.

In D&D, players kill NPCs all the time. Very often for excellent reasons. It's usually not hard to come up with a perfectly reasonable, in game justification for most courses of action. Unless you play a lawful stupid paladin or some such, there is generally a reason for killing a DMPC, or at least, removing them from the party. If you try to remove someone peacefully, and they refuse to leave, well...violence isn't unusual at all.

Set
2010-01-02, 11:07 PM
After quite a few horrible experiences with 'pet' DMPCs over the decades, we've settled on unofficial guidelines for their use.

If the party desperately needs a healer, the DMPC can be an Adept.

If the party could use an extra body, the DMPC can be a Bard.

Anything more competent than those two classes is discouraged, although other classes like Monk or Rogue could be acceptable, as they aren't terribly likely to make anyone feel outclassed.

These days, we'd probably take a look at the tier rankings and try to make sure that any DMPC is one or two tiers below the lowest ranking PC.

pres_man
2010-01-02, 11:13 PM
So? That doesn't describe the in-game reasons for killing them.

In D&D, players kill NPCs all the time. Very often for excellent reasons. It's usually not hard to come up with a perfectly reasonable, in game justification for most courses of action. Unless you play a lawful stupid paladin or some such, there is generally a reason for killing a DMPC, or at least, removing them from the party. If you try to remove someone peacefully, and they refuse to leave, well...violence isn't unusual at all.

I think some people's ideas of "reasonable" and "not reasonable" are quite different. Probably heavily influenced on whether they play a mostly evil PC based game or no evil/chaotic stupid based game, I would guess though that may just be more of a correlation than causation.

pres_man
2010-01-02, 11:14 PM
After quite a few horrible experiences with 'pet' DMPCs over the decades, we've settled on unofficial guidelines for their use.

If the party desperately needs a healer, the DMPC can be an Adept.

If the party could use an extra body, the DMPC can be a Bard.

Anything more competent than those two classes is discouraged, although other classes like Monk or Rogue could be acceptable, as they aren't terribly likely to make anyone feel outclassed.

These days, we'd probably take a look at the tier rankings and try to make sure that any DMPC is one or two tiers below the lowest ranking PC.

What about a adept/bard/mystic theurge?

Solaris
2010-01-02, 11:38 PM
So? That doesn't describe the in-game reasons for killing them.

In D&D, players kill NPCs all the time. Very often for excellent reasons. It's usually not hard to come up with a perfectly reasonable, in game justification for most courses of action. Unless you play a lawful stupid paladin or some such, there is generally a reason for killing a DMPC, or at least, removing them from the party. If you try to remove someone peacefully, and they refuse to leave, well...violence isn't unusual at all.

Yes, but you missed my point. You walk into this thread bragging about killing DMPCs, then you just so happen to stab what just so happens to be a DMPC in his sleep. Your deniability is down the chute at that point.

I question the sense of your DM if he's giving you a good reason for killing DMPCs. Mine and Serp's players have no more reason for killing our DMPCs than they do for ordinary PCs. If you're randomly killing PCs (or NPCs, really, I'm tired of evil characters) in my game, I'll invite you to leave if you persist on doing it and I will pull fiat to save another player's character.

Jayabalard
2010-01-02, 11:55 PM
So? That doesn't describe the in-game reasons for killing them.Being able to scrounge up an in game justification for wanting to do something out of game is rather unimportant... you're still doing something for an out of game reason. In general, that sort of behavior would lead to getting the boot in most groups I've played in.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 12:02 AM
Being able to scrounge up an in game justification for wanting to do something out of game is rather unimportant... you're still doing something for an out of game reason. In general, that sort of behavior would lead to getting the boot in most groups I've played in.

This happens all the time, starting at character creation. Our characters exist to entertain and amuse us. Us playing them at all is an OOC motivation. They literally would not exist without OOC motivations.

Obviously, doing something IC purely for OOC motivations is bad, since it breaks the whole illusion of realism...but you can have an OOC motivation, and a perfectly valid IC motivation.

Solaris, as I've mentioned before, I believe DMPCs to be bad, and fully worthy of killing. I've had DMPCs steal from the party, threaten our safety, hog the spotlight and complete all our objectives for us. I've had them come along with the party despite the party making it quite clear they were not welcome. In such a situation, it's not at all hard to come up with a reason why your character might resort to violence.

Xenogears
2010-01-03, 12:35 AM
This happens all the time, starting at character creation. Our characters exist to entertain and amuse us. Us playing them at all is an OOC motivation. They literally would not exist without OOC motivations.

Obviously, doing something IC purely for OOC motivations is bad, since it breaks the whole illusion of realism...but you can have an OOC motivation, and a perfectly valid IC motivation.

Solaris, as I've mentioned before, I believe DMPCs to be bad, and fully worthy of killing. I've had DMPCs steal from the party, threaten our safety, hog the spotlight and complete all our objectives for us. I've had them come along with the party despite the party making it quite clear they were not welcome. In such a situation, it's not at all hard to come up with a reason why your character might resort to violence.

There is a very big difference from saying "When a DMPC (or regularPC really) Is acting disruptive to the partys goals and the payers enjoyment and non-violent means have been exhausted I would kill the character" and saying "I Kill ALL DMPC's on sight. Immediately."

The first is a fairly reasonable (although Id hafta ask why youd continue playing with someone like that in the first place) response. The second is clearly not. It is being as disruptive to the game and enjoyment of the group (certainly the DM and possibly other players as well) as the example bad DMPC you gave. The second is also what you first said on this thread.

Solaris
2010-01-03, 12:36 AM
This happens all the time, starting at character creation. Our characters exist to entertain and amuse us. Us playing them at all is an OOC motivation. They literally would not exist without OOC motivations.

Obviously, doing something IC purely for OOC motivations is bad, since it breaks the whole illusion of realism...but you can have an OOC motivation, and a perfectly valid IC motivation.

Right, but that's stretching it to make your point. I can recognize scrambling for an excuse when my privates do it, I can recognize scrambling for an excuse when my players do it.


Solaris, as I've mentioned before, I believe DMPCs to be bad, and fully worthy of killing. I've had DMPCs steal from the party, threaten our safety, hog the spotlight and complete all our objectives for us. I've had them come along with the party despite the party making it quite clear they were not welcome. In such a situation, it's not at all hard to come up with a reason why your character might resort to violence.

Heck, in that situation I'd probably get knifey with the DM. I'm not talking about that situation. I don't have that DM, and honestly I wouldn'thave that DM - like I'm pretty sure you did, I'd take it up just to escape a bad gamer. You're saying that you'd do that with any DMPC, when Serp and I are presenting cases where clearly that would be unjustifiable without resorting to "I'm evil, so I kill people", as our DMPCs behave more like non-sociopathic PCs than those PoS examples. It goes back to Serp's black swan arguments - just because some or even most are bad doesn't mean all are bad.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 12:45 AM
Right, but that's stretching it to make your point. I can recognize scrambling for an excuse when my privates do it, I can recognize scrambling for an excuse when my players do it.

This sentence was significantly more awesome before I realized it was probably an army reference.


Heck, in that situation I'd probably get knifey with the DM. I'm not talking about that situation. I don't have that DM, and honestly I wouldn'thave that DM - like I'm pretty sure you did, I'd take it up just to escape a bad gamer. You're saying that you'd do that with any DMPC, when Serp and I are presenting cases where clearly that would be unjustifiable without resorting to "I'm evil, so I kill people", as our DMPCs behave more like non-sociopathic PCs than those PoS examples. It goes back to Serp's black swan arguments - just because some or even most are bad doesn't mean all are bad.

*shrug* I've done a *lot* of roleplaying with a lot of groups. I've yet to see a DMPC that didn't go horribly bad eventually. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes when you can see the signs are worthwhile. My typical current character is a TN paranoid wizard. Paranoia is all sorts of useful. Fun to roleplay, too.

I'll admit, I've played the classic pyromaniac chaotic stupid character...once, but in general, that isn't necessary. You simply disallow the DMPC from coming along with the party. Reasons for this are easy. Distrust, danger, and so forth. If the DMPC accepts this and leaves, problem averted. If the DMPC escalates things in an attempt to force his way, you probably won't even need to kill the DMPC. Your party will be racing you to do it.

Stycotl
2010-01-03, 01:45 AM
To be fair, it's equivalently not true that "anything I refer to as a PC has to be a PC." You can't really argue that commoner Bob, who for instance has no character sheet, isn't in the party, appears once, and doesn't do anything is a DMPC.

i never stated "anything i refer to as a pc has to be a pc." you put those words into my mouth, but that is quite clearly not what was said.

luckily, on the net, we can go back and see just what i wrote:


but the fact of the matter is that if serp thinks of the snowflake as a pc, and treats her like a pc (inasmuch as she feels a dm should treat a pc), then snowflake is pretty much a dmpc––regardless of whether she fits other people's definitions.

otherwise, we're treading into the "no true scotsman" territory, which just does not work as an argument.

we are talking about a subjective qualifier, to which multiple definitions are generally accepted by different parties, a few of which fit the snowflake in question (even though serp has corrected us on which one of her kids is the dmpc).

further, your example of bob the commoner is a straw man, first of all, because it is not even remotely what was argued, and second, because you felt the need to go with the most obvious and easily defeated argument.

even serp's snowflake, which she has stated is not the dmpc, probably has a character sheet, has certainly been with the party now, and has thusly appeared multiple times.

her real dmpc probably has an even greater presence (as far as your definitions go) than that; in fact, she has been trying to tell us that this is the case.


The story isn't just the DM's creation. Players are an active part in what happens in the story, and frankly, when random plot people are added in that I "mustn't kill" for whatever reason, that's a little bit of the story taken away from the players.

without going back and carefully dissecting any of the previous posts, i'm gonna venture to say that this is baseless. i don't recall anyone saying that they stick npc's into the game that "mustn't be killed for any reason."

it's plausible that there are dm's out there that do this, but i have yet to see it.


When I add NPC "party members" I always assume that they'll eventually be brutally murdered by the PCs. Things work better that way.

whenever i make any npc, dmpc or otherwise, i am under the assumption that they could be targeted by the pc's for any number of reasons. that still doesn't mean that i need to cater to some kind of selfish, passive aggressive desire to off any npc that becomes too suspicious.


However, while chaotic evil hack and slashers and DMPCs are subjects that can overlap...I suggest they are not intrinsically related. It's possible for a PC and a DMPC to have conflict over genuine IC differences. Not every killing of an NPC or DMPC is because the player is chaotic stupid.

again, i didn't see anyone arguing this––tangent.

as the dm, i have constructed entire plotlines that revolved around the party realizing that their helpful dmpc friend is the actual bad guy, and their eventual killing of that bad guy.

i orchestrated the thing from the get-go in most circumstances; one example of dmpc or npc death that had nothing to do with chaotic stupid players.

but, as i said, this is tangential. what you are defending is quite different.


Is it not possible to have both IC and OOC reasons to kill something? I mean, technically, xp and loot are nearly always OOC motivations in addition to whatever IC motivations exist.

I think it's unfair to assume that the DMPC-killer lacks an IC reason for his violence.

bull. you keep stretching the definitions, but you know as well as we do that they are not comparable.

what you are suggesting is more like an instance where the dm puts a fork in your dungeon's tunnels. down the path to the right lies an unguarded treasure chamber, and down the other lies a great wyrm in ambush.

which door do you take? well, tyndmyr, the player, caught a glance at the dm's notes while he was stuffing his face with cheetos a moment ago, and so tyndmyr now suggests, "let's go down the right tunnel."

after all, you can certainly justify a reason for why your character would want to go to the right, couldn't you? too bad it would still be immature and bad form.

same with trying to conjure ooc reasons to kill characters or npcs because you have a problem in real life with the person running it. really has nothing to do with the ooc reasons for which you would roleplay in the first place, and your defense of ooc-based conflict would then extend to the example of metagaming the dungeon tunnels that i gave above. if that is what you want to defend, have at it, but know that you are barking up a largely unsupportable tree as far as arguments go.


So? That doesn't describe the in-game reasons for killing them.

In D&D, players kill NPCs all the time. Very often for excellent reasons. It's usually not hard to come up with a perfectly reasonable, in game justification for most courses of action. Unless you play a lawful stupid paladin or some such, there is generally a reason for killing a DMPC, or at least, removing them from the party. If you try to remove someone peacefully, and they refuse to leave, well...violence isn't unusual at all.

you are still stretching and deflecting and throwing straw men up in an effort to save yourself.

no one has suggested that players shouldn't kill npcs. no one has even, as far as i have seen, suggested that players shouldn't kill pcs or dmpcs, but that there is no excuse for your "i kill dmpcs on sight" argument.

jayabalard said it rather well:


Being able to scrounge up an in game justification for wanting to do something out of game is rather unimportant... you're still doing something for an out of game reason. In general, that sort of behavior would lead to getting the boot in most groups I've played in.

to which you tried to apply your ridiculously thin comparisons to ooc reasons for roleplaying in the first place. again, your defense covers the dungeon tunnel metagaming; is that your intent?

and the basis for your entire argument? it all boils down to "in my experience..."

but unfortunately, what you are saying is that all of your experiences have been bad, therefore, all others must be bad as well, and therefore, all dmpcs deserve to be killed by the pcs.

you can't make generalizations like that supported by nothing more than personal opinion, and expect the argument to work. you are trying to keep yourself afloat with logical fallacies, and they simply don't work.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 02:00 AM
as the dm, i have constructed entire plotlines that revolved around the party realizing that their helpful dmpc friend is the actual bad guy, and their eventual killing of that bad guy.

i orchestrated the thing from the get-go in most circumstances; one example of dmpc or npc death that had nothing to do with chaotic stupid players.

Yes...we have all seen this plotline. It's roughly as original as "oh no, your employer was the evil guy all along." Well, if those two count as separate plotlines even.

Don't use it. I admit, I did it once myself, way back in my first campaign. I thought it was clever and original, having basically ripped it off of one of Asimov's foundation books. I was a bit surprised when my players did not...


what you are suggesting is more like an instance where the dm puts a fork in your dungeon's tunnels. down the path to the right lies an unguarded treasure chamber, and down the other lies a great wyrm in ambush.

which door do you take? well, tyndmyr, the player, caught a glance at the dm's notes while he was stuffing his face with cheetos a moment ago, and so tyndmyr now suggests, "let's go down the right tunnel."

after all, you can certainly justify a reason for why your character would want to go to the right, couldn't you? too bad it would still be immature and bad form.

No, that's different. That's cheating. Sneaking a peek at the DMs notes and making a decision based on that is pretty blatantly bad.

Wanting to play a specific type of game, and guiding your characters actions based on that is much less so. Everyone has their preferences. No DMPCs is a reasonably common one. Yes, addressing it OOC first may be preferable, but sometimes you have no real warning before it happens.


same with trying to conjure ooc reasons to kill characters or npcs because you have a problem in real life with the person running it.

No, no, that's different. I kill the DMPC because I hate DMPCs. I'm not killing him because I hate the DM.

If you honestly hate your DM, you have worse issues you need to deal with.


really has nothing to do with the ooc reasons for which you would roleplay in the first place, and your defense of ooc-based conflict would then extend to the example of metagaming the dungeon tunnels that i gave above. if that is what you want to defend, have at it, but know that you are barking up a largely unsupportable tree as far as arguments go.

Pfft. Cheating is a metagame decision. Which class to pick is a metagame decision. Choosing to kill someone can be a metagame decision. All of the above are not equal.

You can't judge all metagame decisions as if they're the same.


you are still stretching and deflecting and throwing straw men up in an effort to save yourself.

An analogy is not a strawman. I suggest you go look up the definitions.


no one has suggested that players shouldn't kill npcs. no one has even, as far as i have seen, suggested that players shouldn't kill pcs or dmpcs, but that there is no excuse for your "i kill dmpcs on sight" argument.

Well, nobody has said that players shouldn't kill npcs, no. That is, however, irrelevant. I never claimed they did.

People have strongly suggested that DMPCs or PCs not be killed, at least in their games. Some have gone so far as to say that anyone who would do so would be kicked out for it.


and the basis for your entire argument? it all boils down to "in my experience..."

but unfortunately, what you are saying is that all of your experiences have been bad, therefore, all others must be bad as well, and therefore, all dmpcs deserve to be killed by the pcs.

you can't make generalizations like that supported by nothing more than personal opinion, and expect the argument to work. you are trying to keep yourself afloat with logical fallacies, and they simply don't work.

It's not merely my experience. Look back over this thread. I'm hardly the only one to have bad experiences with DMPCs. I'd say roughly half the posters have. More than a couple have mentioned campaigns ending because of them. If that's not indicative of a bad DMing practice, I don't know what is.

Zincorium
2010-01-03, 02:15 AM
Anyone who likes DMPCs:

Can you name any single DMing practice other than this which is vocally condemned by about half the people responding, but is still a good thing? I can't.


Personally I dislike DMPCs most of all because often, you can't make your complaints understood. A DM who loves their character being in the party is NOT open to critique of that practice- if nothing else, that claim has been proven by the DMs in this thread who use them.

The one time I've had a good DM that still used a DMPC, I didn't want to complain even though it was pissing me off, because I knew I wasn't going to win. It got pretty bad, to the point where I quit over some things related to it.

Xenogears
2010-01-03, 02:29 AM
Anyone who likes DMPCs:

Can you name any single DMing practice other than this which is vocally condemned by about half the people responding, but is still a good thing? I can't.

Dm's fudging rolls to save PC's? I know about 1/2 the people I've talked to on the forum think its good and half bad. I may think its bad but that doesn't make it so.

Auto failing/passing of skill checks house rule is commonly called bad DMing but many people also report that it is quite fun in their games.

How many debated between planning everything out and winging everything have you seen?

There are more than just this one facet that are hotly debated.

For the record I have been in a fair number of games almost all of which had the DM (twice that was me most of the time it was not) playing a PC as well and neither I nor anyone I talked to thought it was in any way a detracting factor of the game. In fact it was not until I came to this site that I found out it was uncommon. I thought the games I played where the DM did NOT have a PC were wierder. I never thought of the DM's PC as any different than my character, or my fiances character, or my brothers, my best friends, or any of my other friends characters.

In total I've played in a few dozen games and only maybe 3 of which had no DMPC and I never once felt like the DMPC was being shown favoritism. So maybe you have had bad experiences with DMPC's and if you have I feel sorry about that but it does not mean all DMPC's (or even most) are bad. I have no idea what percent are good and what bad but considering even in your post you pointed out that about half the people defend them then it seems not to be so horrible as to be burned on site.

As to the other half of your post about the difficulty of telling the DM of it. Honestly. If you can't tell your DM about something you dislike in their DMing style (wether that is DMPC's, Railroading, Fudging Dice Rolls, or anything else) then that is the more serious problem. Not the DMPC itself.

pres_man
2010-01-03, 02:33 AM
*shrug* I've done a *lot* of roleplaying with a lot of groups. I've yet to see a DMPC that didn't go horribly bad eventually. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes when you can see the signs are worthwhile. My typical current character is a TN paranoid wizard. Paranoia is all sorts of useful. Fun to roleplay, too.

I'll admit, I've played the classic pyromaniac chaotic stupid character...once, but in general, that isn't necessary. You simply disallow the DMPC from coming along with the party. Reasons for this are easy. Distrust, danger, and so forth. If the DMPC accepts this and leaves, problem averted. If the DMPC escalates things in an attempt to force his way, you probably won't even need to kill the DMPC. Your party will be racing you to do it.

So if your paranoid wizard is so against a character joining the party, how does it decide that the other PCs are ok to join the party? Seems as if you are using OOG reasons for IG choices. Which is fine, it is a game, and why should you try to act like it is anything else, right?


Anyone who likes DMPCs:

Can you name any single DMing practice other than this which is vocally condemned by about half the people responding, but is still a good thing? I can't.

Using the sunder feat/attacks against PCs equipment?

Allowing spiked chains?

Allowing monstrous/non-standard player races/classes?

Fhaolan
2010-01-03, 04:13 AM
Here's another example: I got accused of running a bad DMPC once. It was meant to be a one-shot game, so I told the players to show up with a bunch of low-level characters that would be all part of a large organized mercenary troupe. The captain of the troupe would be sending them out on missions and the like. Because it was a one-shot, I decided to recycle an old PC character's name and backstory as the captain to save me some effort. The players show up with a bunch of chaotic neutral characters that were all brothers and sisters of each other in increasingly bizarre ways who wear very distinctive demonic-inspired armor to 'strike fear in the enemy'. As DM, I blink and say "Are you sure? This was supposed to be an organized 'soldiers for hire' band, where you work together to defeat enemies for pay, not a 'army of the Evil Overlord' thing. I don't really have time to rework what I had planned." But they insist saying that the characters aren't chaotic evil, they're just mercenaries and it should all work fine.

The captain never appears in-game, never actually meets the PCs, or interacts with them in any way. The name and background are just there as fluff and setting the scene. Instead they get instructions from one of the sergeants as to what mission they were to perform, to meet up with a contact the mercenaries had who was spying on the opposition while the main troupe gets ready to do an end-run to get to the whatever maguffin I had made up. They make a halfhearted attempt, found out that someone was trying to poison their contact (the actual adventure I had planned), and decided to kill him themselves to... I don't really know why. They then went back to the sergeant and killed him as well. They then openly tried to sell the troupe's plan to the opposition; which they fail to do, because they decide to tell the opposition the entire plan *and then demand money* while convincing the opposition that they were high-ranking members of the mercenary troupe. Because everything had gone badly wrong, they left their super-individualistic and remarkable costumes in the middle of the oppositons camp, and then ran away. The opposition ambushes the main troupe and slaughters most of them, including the captain. During the battle, the opposition dressed up some of their own soldiers in the costumes they had found, to demoralize the mercenaries by making them think that the supposed high-ranking PCs had turned traitor. The surviving troupe members really do believe that they were betrayed by the PCs, so they start a not-overly-effective manhunt (mainly because there weren't many of them left).

Game ends, and I get accused by the players that the manhunt was me punishing them for killing my DMPC. Irregardless of the fact that this character never interacted with them, and the only thing he ever did that they were aware of was die in a battle that they weren't even present for, and the only reason they knew that was because they interrogated one of the manhunters they had captured in the last half-an-hour of the game session. I *was* annoyed, but not because the captain had died. I was annoyed because I couldn't figure out why the players had their characters act so blatantly 'Stupid Evil'. A few years after the game, one of the players admitted to me that all the players, who were my friends at the time, had gotten together before the game and had collectively decided to deliberately break whatever game I had planned. Apparantly I had gotten a better score on some University scholarship test than the main instigator of this 'plan', and he wanted to punish me for it and had convinced the others that it would be a funny joke to play on me.

It wasn't funny.

So, I'm a bit sensitive to people throwing around "DMPC" accusations. I don't automatically assume the player is right with the "I know it when I see it" definitions.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 10:53 AM
Anyone who likes DMPCs:

Can you name any single DMing practice other than this which is vocally condemned by about half the people responding, but is still a good thing? I can't.


Personally I dislike DMPCs most of all because often, you can't make your complaints understood. A DM who loves their character being in the party is NOT open to critique of that practice- if nothing else, that claim has been proven by the DMs in this thread who use them.

The one time I've had a good DM that still used a DMPC, I didn't want to complain even though it was pissing me off, because I knew I wasn't going to win. It got pretty bad, to the point where I quit over some things related to it.

Yeah...it's my experience that this is often the case. It's generally literally easier to kill them off in game than to discuss it out of game and get anywhere, even if they are blatantly overpowered mary sue's.

Strikes me as kind of odd...but then, I've never understood the sort of DMing that sees the DM-player relationship as adversarial, and insists that the players submit to their authoritah.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 11:00 AM
So if your paranoid wizard is so against a character joining the party, how does it decide that the other PCs are ok to join the party? Seems as if you are using OOG reasons for IG choices. Which is fine, it is a game, and why should you try to act like it is anything else, right?

Oh, other PCs are subject to mistrust and suspicion too. As they should be. Ever met a trustworthy rogue? This had also come to blows on more than one occasion, though oddly enough, it's invariably started by the other guy. Yes, that's it. Swinging at me with the greataxe will definitely win my trust.

Again, you're making assumptions about how I play, and using that to accuse me of inconsistency, when you have no actual evidence of that.


Using the sunder feat/attacks against PCs equipment?

Allowing spiked chains?

Allowing monstrous/non-standard player races/classes?

There's a very fine line between "using sunder" and making the players feel like they can never have anything nice. Also, it tends to hurt melee characters worse. Thus, using equipment destruction against the players on a routine basis is considered to be a reasonably dangerous DMing practice. I'd advise against that as well. Disjunction can ruin campaigns.

People are vocally against spiked chains en masse now? Really? Huh, I must have missed it.

Non standard race/classes are mostly disliked for setting related reasons from what I've seen. Otherwise, allowing them is pretty well accepted as a legit DMing practice, even if some DMs choose not to use them.

Solaris
2010-01-03, 11:07 AM
(I apologize if I'm attributing the quotes wrongly, my computer decided to pull pranks on me.)


This sentence was significantly more awesome before I realized it was probably an army reference.

...
>>
<<
Heehee.


*shrug* I've done a *lot* of roleplaying with a lot of groups. I've yet to see a DMPC that didn't go horribly bad eventually. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes when you can see the signs are worthwhile. My typical current character is a TN paranoid wizard. Paranoia is all sorts of useful. Fun to roleplay, too.

I'll admit, I've played the classic pyromaniac chaotic stupid character...once, but in general, that isn't necessary. You simply disallow the DMPC from coming along with the party. Reasons for this are easy. Distrust, danger, and so forth. If the DMPC accepts this and leaves, problem averted. If the DMPC escalates things in an attempt to force his way, you probably won't even need to kill the DMPC. Your party will be racing you to do it.

Yeah, but if you come to a new group and everyone else in the group says "No, man, it's cool - the DM's good at it", would you take your pre-emptive shot or would you hold off and wait for it to actually happen?


Yes...we have all seen this plotline. It's roughly as original as "oh no, your employer was the evil guy all along." Well, if those two count as separate plotlines even.

[QUOTE=Tyndmyr;7618050]No, no, that's different. I kill the DMPC because I hate DMPCs. I'm not killing him because I hate the DM.

But as a DM, I see it as a massive lack of trust and keenly annoying.


People have strongly suggested that DMPCs or PCs not be killed, at least in their games. Some have gone so far as to say that anyone who would do so would be kicked out for it.

Darn tootin'. Well, more for the 'random killing' than for the stuff with some story leading up to it. I don't like it either way, but words cannot describe how much chaotic stupid irritates me.


It's not merely my experience. Look back over this thread. I'm hardly the only one to have bad experiences with DMPCs. I'd say roughly half the posters have. More than a couple have mentioned campaigns ending because of them. If that's not indicative of a bad DMing practice, I don't know what is.

That's partially true. It's not something that all DMs should do, nor is it something a rookie DM should do. I'll admit (and have, looking back on the thread) that my first DMPC was horrible. I couldn't divorce character and player knowledge way back then, but now that I can do a reasonably good job of it there's not so much problem.


Anyone who likes DMPCs:

Can you name any single DMing practice other than this which is vocally condemned by about half the people responding, but is still a good thing? I can't.

Not really, because this is a thread about DMPCs and I haven't paid that much attention to tangential mentions. This is largely irrelevant, except as you setting up a "Well if these don't work, then neither will the thing we spent nine pages arguing about" counter. Give me a list and I'll give a rundown of good, bad, and how to make it work.
(Taking off Xenogears' list), as a DM I won't just fudge rolls, I'll out-and-out fabricate them from whole cloth if I think it's necessary. 'Necessary' includes 'salvage what's left of the party after the encounter managed to make their day suck'.
I don't remember the auto-pass/fail of skill checks being mentioned, but it just seems so... marginal.
I've seen critical fumbles rarghed at on this board. Many hate 'em because they've only had experience with the retarded tables, but some of us DMs also bring in more sensible tables. IIRC, it was also Serp, me, and a coupla others bringing in somewhat reasonable arguments against people who adamantly refused to acknowledge what we were saying.

I am, however, quite against the use of sundering as a DM technique.


Personally I dislike DMPCs most of all because often, you can't make your complaints understood. A DM who loves their character being in the party is NOT open to critique of that practice- if nothing else, that claim has been proven by the DMs in this thread who use them.

The one time I've had a good DM that still used a DMPC, I didn't want to complain even though it was pissing me off, because I knew I wasn't going to win. It got pretty bad, to the point where I quit over some things related to it.

Yeah, I'm surprisingly resistant to people telling me "I don't like you rolling in private, show me all your rolls" or any other one of the numerous other things I do as DM. I can do without a DMPC, I just don't like to - I've done it on most of my PbP games, f'rinstance. A DMPC is honestly kinda necessary for me to get into the storyline and roleplay well. He may not even be speaking, but it's a useful tool for me because I can't really jump from NPC to NPC to NPC and play them all very well. Without it, the quality of my roleplaying degrades rapidly, which kinda kills any opportunity the players have for roleplaying well.


A few years after the game, one of the players admitted to me that all the players, who were my friends at the time, had gotten together before the game and had collectively decided to deliberately break whatever game I had planned. Apparently I had gotten a better score on some University scholarship test than the main instigator of this 'plan', and he wanted to punish me for it and had convinced the others that it would be a funny joke to play on me.

It wasn't funny.

So, I'm a bit sensitive to people throwing around "DMPC" accusations. I don't automatically assume the player is right with the "I know it when I see it" definitions.

I hate when players do that. 'Ruin the DM's day' is almost as much fun for us as 'Ruin the player's day' is for them. You'd think they'd learn.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 11:59 AM
Yeah, but if you come to a new group and everyone else in the group says "No, man, it's cool - the DM's good at it", would you take your pre-emptive shot or would you hold off and wait for it to actually happen?

Nah, I won't impose my personal preferences on the rest of the party. That would be equally wrong.

I will express my in character concerns, but ultimately go along with the rest of the party. I will, however, take reasonable IC precautions against betrayal and the like.

OOC, I will fully expect the DMPC to blow up into a huge mess as usual...but if players prefer to ignore my advice, I find it fitting that they should get to wait and see the results for themselves. They'll be begging for help soon enough.


But as a DM, I see it as a massive lack of trust and keenly annoying.

It's not that I distrust you in particular. It's no more a sign of distrust than saying "perhaps you shouldn't be smoking while you gas up your car". It's seen as an inherently dangerous situation for anyone to be in, not a statement regarding a particular DMs competence. I consider myself a fairly competent DM, but I don't touch DMPCs with a ten foot pole any more.


Darn tootin'. Well, more for the 'random killing' than for the stuff with some story leading up to it. I don't like it either way, but words cannot describe how much chaotic stupid irritates me.

IMO, chaotic stupid is best dealt with by letting the characters deal with the normal consequences of their actions. If you can't think of any plausible consequences...odds are they're not actually chaotic stupid, just evil. However, the sort of idiots that set random towns ablaze and kill entirely at random? Easy as pie to think up perfectly realistic, bad results for such behavior.


That's partially true. It's not something that all DMs should do, nor is it something a rookie DM should do. I'll admit (and have, looking back on the thread) that my first DMPC was horrible. I couldn't divorce character and player knowledge way back then, but now that I can do a reasonably good job of it there's not so much problem.

Like most issues of DMing, difficult situations can be cumulative. Any "tough DMing situation" described here or elsewhere is especially difficult for new DMs, DMs without a firm grasp on rules, etc. It's especially important for new DMs to be cautious when designing a campaign, and as with anything, experienced DMs are likely to be able to bend the usual conventions for campaign and have it turn out aright.


Yeah, I'm surprisingly resistant to people telling me "I don't like you rolling in private, show me all your rolls" or any other one of the numerous other things I do as DM.

Tbh, this is probably a sign that they feel you're fudging rolls, and that they dislike it. I'd consider some sort of compromise if that's a widespread feeling in the group. For example, some rolls just explicitly have to be secret. The rules say they do, generally because if they didn't, they'd spoil player knowledge and reveal too much. Those you pretty much can't change.

But there are plenty of rolls you can roll publicly. If a certain type of roll is causing problems(SoD saves, for example), try rolling those in the open all the time. Sure, you really can't fudge them then, but as an experienced DM, you likely don't need to fudge rolls often anyhow, and it'll reassure your players than you're not cheating/railroading them.


I can do without a DMPC, I just don't like to - I've done it on most of my PbP games, f'rinstance. A DMPC is honestly kinda necessary for me to get into the storyline and roleplay well. He may not even be speaking, but it's a useful tool for me because I can't really jump from NPC to NPC to NPC and play them all very well. Without it, the quality of my roleplaying degrades rapidly, which kinda kills any opportunity the players have for roleplaying well.

Using a variety of NPCs and a single character are very different forms of roleplaying, yes. If you find it easier to roleplay a single character, there are ways to develop a storyline that heavily involves a single player without them being a DMPC. For example, if a specific character never joins the party on adventuring, I wouldn't class them as a DMPC.

In particular, it's not unusual for PCs to have someone they frequently work for, perhaps a local guild leader or someone in another position of authority. My players actually LOVE the predictability of working for the same guy constantly, and just receiving missions. I find this odd, since I'm much more sandbox-oriented, but eh, whatever works for them.

So, in short, you can have a persistent NPC with solid backstory, good roleplaying, all that jazz, and not worry about falling into DMPCing.


I hate when players do that. 'Ruin the DM's day' is almost as much fun for us as 'Ruin the player's day' is for them. You'd think they'd learn.

This gets back to what I said before about gaming groups with a very adversarial DM-player viewpoint. Just because you're on opposite sides of the screen shouldn't make you enemies. However, I tend to stick with the same gaming groups over long periods of time...usually across multiple campaigns, so perhaps it's different in some pick up groups where players don't know each other as well.

shaddy_24
2010-01-03, 12:10 PM
*shrug* I've done a *lot* of roleplaying with a lot of groups. I've yet to see a DMPC that didn't go horribly bad eventually. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes when you can see the signs are worthwhile. My typical current character is a TN paranoid wizard. Paranoia is all sorts of useful. Fun to roleplay, too.

My party member actively draged a DMPC along with them. Would you instantly kill them when you joined the game? If yes, the rest of the party would have rolled initiative with you, or gotten angry in and out of character.

I didn't really plan on him joining them long term. He was with them because they were helping a large group of civilians escape enemy territory after their town was taken over. He joined the party in the defenses after most of the soldiers were killed in an early fight, and they brought him with them when they got the civilians to safety. They loved him. He was arrogent, and acted superior to them out of combat. In combat though, he would risk his life to try and protect them. They realized he actually cared for them, and that ment something to them.

However, many of the people on this thread have stated that as soon as he started acting superior and arrogent, they would have rolled initiative and nuked him, or slit his throat while he slept. Why? Because he's a DMPC. Sure, they might offer IC reasons, such as "He bothered me" or "He was really arrogent." I'm sure that the guards in a city would take that as an excellent argument, and immediately agreed not to arrest the PC. Also, I'm sure the other PCs would have to accept that as well. After all, their friend bothered the person they don't know, so it was obviously acceptable for the person they didn't know to kill their friend. Everyone knows that's how things work.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't work here. You'd be the only one in my party that didn't want him along, and killing him would make you very unwelcome with all of them. Maybe your experiences don't cover all possible situations, and maybe your reactions don't either.


No, no, that's different. I kill the DMPC because I hate DMPCs. I'm not killing him because I hate the DM.

And as many others have said, I'd take that as a sign that you don't trust me to run a good game for you. I'd take it as a sign that you feel you have to step in and fix my mistakes, rather than talk to me about them. It would feel like you're saying, "I can do this better than you, here, let me show you how to do it properly."

The fact that you felt you have to step in IC to fix my OOC problem would bother me. Have you ever thought of that?


People have strongly suggested that DMPCs or PCs not be killed, at least in their games. Some have gone so far as to say that anyone who would do so would be kicked out for it.

I don't know if I'd kick you out. I probably wouldn't. I'd most likely talk with you OOC about why you feel the need to step in and fix things yourself, rather than trust me to run a good game, or ask me OOC to fix them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the other players requested you leave though.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 12:22 PM
My party member actively draged a DMPC along with them. Would you instantly kill them when you joined the game? If yes, the rest of the party would have rolled initiative with you, or gotten angry in and out of character.

Already answered. My character would likely express his opinion, then go along with the remainder of the party. I would take precautions vs betrayal, and have a plan prepared to kill the DMPC when they do go bad, but will wait for the rest of the players to see the train wreck first.

They listen so much better in the future when you predict what was going to happen and let them see it.


I didn't really plan on him joining them long term. He was with them because they were helping a large group of civilians escape enemy territory after their town was taken over. He joined the party in the defenses after most of the soldiers were killed in an early fight, and they brought him with them when they got the civilians to safety. They loved him. He was arrogent, and acted superior to them out of combat. In combat though, he would risk his life to try and protect them. They realized he actually cared for them, and that ment something to them.

Eh, PCs will do the damnedest things. I once saw a PC feel sorry for a fairy with no ability whatsoever. A fairy who lived off eating rubies. The guy was feeding her our party loot in bulk. *shrug* There's no 100% way to predict player actions.


However, many of the people on this thread have stated that as soon as he started acting superior and arrogent, they would have rolled initiative and nuked him, or slit his throat while he slept.

Or just walked away. If that's an easier solution, why make things complicated?


I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't work here. You'd be the only one in my party that didn't want him along, and killing him would make you very unwelcome with all of them. Maybe your experiences don't cover all possible situations, and maybe your reactions don't either.

You haven't read everything I posted then.


And as many others have said, I'd take that as a sign that you don't trust me to run a good game for you. I'd take it as a sign that you feel you have to step in and fix my mistakes, rather than talk to me about them. It would feel like you're saying, "I can do this better than you, here, let me show you how to do it properly."

The fact that you felt you have to step in IC to fix my OOC problem would bother me. Have you ever thought of that?

As already stated, I have never, ever seen an example of where an OOC request has worked vs a DMPC. Others have said the same. Now, this doesn't mean that no DM anywhere will listen...but it does imply the odds of this technique working are rather low. Odds of resorting to plan "Ditch the character in-game" are rather high.


I wouldn't be surprised if the other players requested you leave though.

Never been asked to leave a gaming group, nor has any situation like that ever come up.

It's simple. I may wish to kill off DMPCs, but I work with the party toward that goal, just like I would any other. Intraparty conflict is a recipe for disaster.

Fhaolan
2010-01-03, 12:55 PM
This gets back to what I said before about gaming groups with a very adversarial DM-player viewpoint. Just because you're on opposite sides of the screen shouldn't make you enemies. However, I tend to stick with the same gaming groups over long periods of time...usually across multiple campaigns, so perhaps it's different in some pick up groups where players don't know each other as well.

Yep. I can list at least... hold on, let me think... four instances of the top of my head where I was invited to play with a new group, and as a player watch as somebody else brings their OOC problems into the game, have their character act in ways that made me think they had written Chaotic Stupid on their character sheet for alignment, and then go on a several-hour rant on the DM's favoritism, Killer DM-tendencies, DMPCs, and other things, because the DM had the NPCs act in perfectly reasonable ways in response.

There are bad DMs, there are also bad Players. Not in that they are unskilled at the game, but that they are advesarial, unreasonably competitive, bring RL issues into the game, and generally not fun to be around. And the group tries to work because they are all nominally 'friends', and they don't want to admit that this one guy is really an idiot or is mentally unbalanced and shouldn't really be playing a roleplaying game in the first place.