PDA

View Full Version : NPCs, DMPCs, and DM's former characters oh my!



Dark_Nohn
2010-10-15, 05:48 AM
Here's some questions I'd like to pose for the playgrounders:
Of course we all know DMPCs are only acceptable when doing a round-robin DMing, and only if you sit back and let eveyone else do all of the work while you soak the excess EXP, but in a normal campaign, how do you draw the line between someone the PCs are escorting but aren't completely defenseless, and a DMPC? How do you make the players realize that the guy the PCs are running missions for is only high level so that the PCs don't gank him, so you have a reason for him to have lots of high powered items that he's not immediately willing to share, and not because he's an old PC of mine that I want to show off? Why is it that anyone with a backstory must be a DM inserted PC or former PC, and how do you make the distinction between them obvious aside from just not writing backstory to the important NPCs?

I haven't been accused of this, personally, but I haven't ever actually DMed anything that I've prepared in depth... aside from that one D20 Future campaign... *shudders*

Whammydill
2010-10-15, 06:41 AM
The whole problem with DMPC's usually starts with the whole showing off thing. On the DM"s side of the table anyway. The problem on the players side of the table in your example is that they think anything presented must be killable/killed. If you cannot present anything without it getting a target painted on it's chest then thats the players being poor roleplayers IMHO.

I don't see how it can't be a problem if either one of those are true.

TricksyAndFalse
2010-10-15, 06:57 AM
How do you make the players realize that the guy the PCs are running missions for is only high level so that the PCs don't gank him, so you have a reason for him to have lots of high powered items that he's not immediately willing to share, and not because he's an old PC of mine that I want to show off?

I try to avoid these sorts of mission givers. If the guy is strong enough to take on all the PCs at once, it begs the question why he needs them to do missions for him at all.

I say let them gank him.

"You hit him and he dies. He was only a [3.5E level 1 commoner/4E level 1 minion]. You split 25 xp and the 100gp he was offering you five ways. The mission was all I had prepared for the night, ... so I guess you guys are going to set the inn on fire again?"


Why is it that anyone with a backstory must be a DM inserted PC or former PC, and how do you make the distinction between them obvious aside from just not writing backstory to the important NPCs?

What's an important NPC? It's a serious question, because I think the answer is enlightening.

Are they doing things PCs do? Do they have some degree of plot armor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor)? Will the plot fall apart if they die? All of these things make for a good case for the players to accuse you of running a DMPC.

My NPCs tend to fall into the categories of resources (like mission givers, followers, or helpful sources of information), antagonists, or comic relief. They all get enough backstory notes to fill their roles, and not much more. The resources and comic relief never take more stage time than the PCs are willing to give them. The antagonists are there for the PCs to conflict with. They are all important in the sense that they add to the fun, but none are so important that we can't have fun without them.

panaikhan
2010-10-15, 07:25 AM
To be honest, all of my DMPC's exist primarily because the player group is so small, and "no-one wants to play X"
They also seem to be surrounded by the same causality of Vesuvius' familiar ("what about what's-his-name - can't he help?" >plink<)

That said, it only takes one instance of "OK, you kill the CR1/4 messenger, and now the Mage's Guild and the Assassin's Guild can shoot you on sight" for the players to get the hint and NOT off every NPC they meet who has a name.

dsmiles
2010-10-15, 07:50 AM
I choose not to differentiate between any of those conditions. My players run all NPC's. I give them a character sheet and a brief rundown of the character's personality. The rest is up to them. Plus no escort missions. Bleh. :smallyuk: I hate doing those as a player, and I won't inflict them on my players.

Quietus
2010-10-15, 08:04 AM
An actual NPC should more or less fade into the background, when anything important comes up. If they have powers of their own, they may use them, but never to steal the spotlight - a healbot cleric is fine, 'cause all they do is go "Here's some hit points!". An NPC barbarian helping out the party.. is likely to steal the spotlight, so no.

That said, when I send an NPC with the party (and it does happen, I've got a middle-aged farmer traveling with my 3rd level party to go rescue his son, since he's part of their plan - their idea, though!), I tend to use roleplay to establish his personality, and then when things turn into a more tense situation, I'll basically say "And Mr. Petherton will basically do what you tell him to". I of course reserve the right to veto things, he won't be jumping in front of bullets for the PCs, and I may step into him if something happens relating to him that the players wouldn't know, but mostly at this point he's an animating spirit behind the cart he's driving, to keep the cart with the players will they explore a destroyed village.

I think a good basic rule of thumb is "Am I okay with the players directing this character's actions?" - if the answer is no, leave them at home.

Greenish
2010-10-15, 08:06 AM
I choose not to differentiate between any of those conditions. My players run all NPC's.All NPCs?

"Well hello, Mr. Shopkeeper, have any fancy magic items you need to get rid of today?"

"Why yes, I do! Here, take these Bags of Holding… now, hold them open so I can pour this stuff in…"

dsmiles
2010-10-15, 08:10 AM
All NPCs?

"Well hello, Mr. Shopkeeper, have any fancy magic items you need to get rid of today?"

"Why yes, I do! Here, take these Bags of Holding… now, hold them open so I can pour this stuff in…"

Bad choice of words, perhaps. By NPCs I meant henchmen/hirelings/cohorts/other-NPCs-that-go-someplace-with-the-party.

I consider shopkeepers/inkeepers/government officials/everybody else pretty much just a part of the scenery.

Choco
2010-10-15, 09:23 AM
I try to avoid these sorts of mission givers. If the guy is strong enough to take on all the PCs at once, it begs the question why he needs them to do missions for him at all.

For the same reasons that the lvl 16 BBEG sends minions out to squish the lvl 1 PC's instead of doing it himself:

1) He is too lazy or arrogant (Those maggots are beneath me! YOU! Minion 932482, take care of them for me!) to do it himself.
2) He is trying to keep his presence/true power hidden from someone.
3) He is busy doing other things. Lets face it, even if you are Superman and can take on an entire army single-handedly, you can still only be in 1 place at a time. What do you do when the country is attacked by 4 seperate armies each coming from a different side?
4) He has to follow political/unwritten rules to avoid some nasty consequences. Almost like MAD during the Cold War. The US and USSR could not fight eachother directly, so they used much weaker proxies and espionage instead.


What's an important NPC? It's a serious question, because I think the answer is enlightening.

Are they doing things PCs do? Do they have some degree of plot armor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotArmor)? Will the plot fall apart if they die? All of these things make for a good case for the players to accuse you of running a DMPC.

My NPCs tend to fall into the categories of resources (like mission givers, followers, or helpful sources of information), antagonists, or comic relief. They all get enough backstory notes to fill their roles, and not much more. The resources and comic relief never take more stage time than the PCs are willing to give them. The antagonists are there for the PCs to conflict with. They are all important in the sense that they add to the fun, but none are so important that we can't have fun without them.

IMO "important" NPC's are those who are important to the game world (or just the PC's!) in some way. If the world were a game and you or me were NPC's we would probably be the equivilent of trash mobs. However, the leader of a country would be viewed as important.

It is bad form to give them plot armor, but there should be definite consequences for the PC's and the game world as a whole if they die. If the PC's were to assassinate the president of a country, there would be dire consequences.

That being said, to the OP, if you avoid showing off and/or constantly 1-uping the PC's you should be fine. There are ALWAYS bigger fish in the world after all, and if the players get pissed because someone more powerful than them exists then they seriously need to grow up.

TricksyAndFalse
2010-10-15, 01:28 PM
2) He is trying to keep his presence/true power hidden from someone.
3) He is busy doing other things. Lets face it, even if you are Superman and can take on an entire army single-handedly, you can still only be in 1 place at a time. What do you do when the country is attacked by 4 seperate armies each coming from a different side?
4) He has to follow political/unwritten rules to avoid some nasty consequences. Almost like MAD during the Cold War. The US and USSR could not fight eachother directly, so they used much weaker proxies and espionage instead.


I don't disagree with any of these reasons, but to me, these all strike me as potential DMPCs-in-the-negative-sense, and are the kinds of NPCs I prefer to try to avoid. One way to keep the PCs firmly in the role of the game's protagonists is to just never have powerful, benevolent NPCs that could act if only they didn't need to stay hidden/were taking care of the other problem/have to abide by the rules. Anyone stronger than or on-par with the PCs in my current setting are antagonists.

I think powerful, benevolent secondary characters can work in books or on TV. I wouldn't take Gandalf out of LotR or Dumbledore out of Harry Potter. I think they work less well in role-playing games. The temptation for me is to have them swoop in to save the PCs if they get into trouble--not because I want to show off how awesome my NPC is, but because I don't want to see the PCs fail. This deflates tension, though, as the PCs now have plot armor of their own. But, tension is what makes stories exciting. So, I just don't stock my toolbox with such NPCs.


It is bad form to give them plot armor, but there should be definite consequences for the PC's and the game world as a whole if they die. If the PC's were to assassinate the president of a country, there would be dire consequences.

I agree with you, though I don't think this is what the OP meant by important. He seems to be talking about situations where the DM has crafted NPCs with detailed backstories and enough battle prowess to take on all the PCs. From my perspective, unless this is the BBEG we're talking about, I don't see how players couldn't come to the conclusion it's the DM's pet DMPC.


There are ALWAYS bigger fish in the world after all, and if the players get pissed because someone more powerful than them exists then they seriously need to grow up.

I only half-agree. I think that there should always be bigger-fish-antagonists, but not bigger-fish-benevolent-NPCs.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-15, 01:33 PM
All NPCs?

"Well hello, Mr. Shopkeeper, have any fancy magic items you need to get rid of today?"

"Why yes, I do! Here, take these Bags of Holding… now, hold them open so I can pour this stuff in…"

This, while hilarious, is precisely what happens when my players are told to play someone elses character who isn't there at the time.

"Oh, whoever will be so brave as to jump through that obviously trapped door?"

"Oooh, me, pick me!" *Bzzt*

"Well, who will bravely test if the trap resets?"

"Gurgle. Me, me, pick me! I love you guys. If I die, you can have my stuff!"

Duke of URL
2010-10-15, 01:37 PM
I'm DMing a PbP group right now in a playtest. Because of lack of applicants, the party is short a healer, so I made a cleric for them to take along.

Technically, this would be a "DMPC" as I'm controlling and RPing her. But I purposely created the NPC with a below-average intelligence, so that she'd be open to "suggestions" from the rest of the team (that, and INT is pretty much a dump stat for clerics). That is, I'm asking the other players to choose her spells and tactics (within reason, of course -- they aren't to make her cannon fodder) and than I'll play her actions out accordingly.

That said, if anyone wants in on this game as the team healer, it's not too late to retcon it... :smallbiggrin:

Choco
2010-10-15, 01:41 PM
Anyone stronger than or on-par with the PCs in my current setting are antagonists.

...

I only half-agree. I think that there should always be bigger-fish-antagonists, but not bigger-fish-benevolent-NPCs.

If the PC's are always the most powerful of the protagonists, even at lvl 1, why havent the antagonists already won?

I guess it's just different gaming styles. In most of my games, the PC's start out as little more than goldfish in a sea populated with sharks. They then work their way through the ranks to become the biggest fish (or have it thrust upon them when those above them get killed). To me it would just be weird if they started out at the top.

Comet
2010-10-15, 01:45 PM
I usually GM like this:

If I have to take a breath between narrating stuff, I let the players interupt me in between and declare some action of their own. They are not there to hear me talking, they are there to interact with me and create a cool story which belongs to everyone.

So, yeah. NPCs don't fight much on the players' side. Sometimes they do, yeah. but those moments are few and far between.

Bottom line: if the players feel like they are meaningfully contributing to everything that happens within the game, everything is cool. If they feel different, it's time for the GM to shut up.

Kylarra
2010-10-15, 01:46 PM
Higher level NPCs sending PCs to do missions is really not all that unexpected. He has other things to do and is delegating. It's what important people do.

That said, in my games, [major] accompanying NPCs will only be around if the players actively seek them out. Major being defined as near or higher "power" level to the players or otherwise significant beyond being the torchbearer, lootbearer, hireling.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-15, 01:59 PM
Hiring? Yeah. That happens. However, it's almost certainly not directly.

Mr Epicy McEpic has better things to do than hobnob around with the group of peons he hired for Trivial Job #37. More likely, he has people that can handle all the details, such as actually paying them and dealing with them. Following them around is right out.

Kylarra
2010-10-15, 02:05 PM
Hiring? Yeah. That happens. However, it's almost certainly not directly.

Mr Epicy McEpic has better things to do than hobnob around with the group of peons he hired for Trivial Job #37. More likely, he has people that can handle all the details, such as actually paying them and dealing with them. Following them around is right out.Well yeah, I never have high-powered NPC #314 follow my PCs around, unless it's sneakily and spying and not to help them.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-15, 02:21 PM
Never us a DMPC - if you need someone to fill in for a missing role either make him a true NPC (i.e. more passive than active) or hand him over to the most competent Player to run (with the caveat that you can yank control in case of abuse). Leave the playing to the Players; as the DM, keeping the story rolling is more than enough work.

NPCs used for escort missions should never be designed to be immortal "in case the PCs decide to gank them" - that builds resentment. They need a good reason to hire the PCs and should generally hang back in case of combat. Either have the PCs approach the NPC for a job (the "guarding the caravan" approach) or make the NPC someone the PCs will want to interact with - and someone who can generate future hooks (the "escort the princess" approach). Trying to give the PCs either a Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad) or a Babysitter (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading) never ends well.

Sipex
2010-10-15, 03:45 PM
I play a DMPC.

Mind you, he's just the cleric because the party didn't want to play a leader.

icefractal
2010-10-15, 03:48 PM
I guess it's just different gaming styles. In most of my games, the PC's start out as little more than goldfish in a sea populated with sharks. They then work their way through the ranks to become the biggest fish (or have it thrust upon them when those above them get killed). To me it would just be weird if they started out at the top.See, this is fine, IMO. It's when people forget the "eventually become the big fish" part, and advance their NPCs arbitrarily high. "Oh, that village mayor? Actually 25th level, you'd better do what he says."

Sliver
2010-10-15, 04:05 PM
The PCs in my games are never the strongest... There are plenty of stronger good guys and bad guys... Actually, for my latest campaign, a planned quest for the PCs was to go find and recruit the adventurers that will fight the BBEG... :smalltongue:

And unless the NPCs have nothing to say, they won't just fade away. My games aren't "OMG you are PCs everything is focused on you!" but have other things happening at the same time. Sometimes too many other things...

Kylarra
2010-10-15, 04:10 PM
See, this is fine, IMO. It's when people forget the "eventually become the big fish" part, and advance their NPCs arbitrarily high. "Oh, that village mayor? Actually 25th level, you'd better do what he says."Village mayor nah, elite bodyguards of the king of the country, sure. :smalltongue:

Ormur
2010-10-15, 05:01 PM
I've perhaps handled the questgiving part of my campaign in a more heavy handed manner than my DM did. With him we pretty much sought them out and they were usually pretty reluctant to actually give us quests, let alone going with us on them.

I on the other hand have had higher level nobles and a dragon bossing the characters around but never in a way that actually forced the PC's to do what they asked. More like sending them to get reinforcements, negotiate, bounty hunt or run errands. Most of them probably weren't so powerful themselves, hence asking others to do jobs, but represented hierarchies that wouldn't be very wise to piss of. The option of declining was always there

Arbane
2010-10-15, 05:03 PM
I guess it's just different gaming styles. In most of my games, the PC's start out as little more than goldfish in a sea populated with sharks. They then work their way through the ranks to become the biggest fish (or have it thrust upon them when those above them get killed). To me it would just be weird if they started out at the top.

Huh.

The last campaign I was in, I felt more like plankton. Being a goldfish would've been a significant step up.

I remember the last adventure we were on was billed as a 'save the world' sort of thing, but I couldn't help feeling that if it was REALLY important, someone competent would've been on it instead of us.

Dark_Nohn
2010-10-15, 06:15 PM
Of the campaign I'm about to run, the two specific instances involve (first) the PCs escorting two NPCs with equal character levels but have a sort of curse on them, and are potential returning BBEGs after they become more powerful. The (second) is a rather powerful wizard (level somewhere above 21) whom believes himself to be a better asset behind the scenes than fixing every thing himself, and spends all of his time researching epic spells and making magic items,

2) He is trying to keep his presence/true power hidden from someone.
3) He is busy doing other things. Lets face it, even if you are Superman and can take on an entire army single-handedly, you can still only be in 1 place at a time. What do you do when the country is attacked by 4 seperate armies each coming from a different side?
He fits these quite well, moreso #3 than #2, but aside from never preparing spells for personal defense, and instead those that he needs to craft items or research spells, relying on constructs and magic items to defend himself should the PCs attack. I was planning on him providing the PCs with a small degree of plot armor versus plot (for dramatic rescues via teleportation against stuff like a tunnel caving in on the PCs, maybe after they starve for a few days,) but won't interfere if the PCs die via monsters, traps, or any other non-plot related fiasco. He wouldn't directly help the PCs fight any BBEGs, but might supply them with magic items, intel (in the form of Knowledge checks if the PCs ask, and he has the relevant skill.) If he does ever fight, I'll either have the wizard win if it would be obvious that he would win (and usually relying on constructs,) or more likely give off a "Worf Effect," (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect) by having him incapacitated, or if the PCs are high enough level, eventually killing him off for good.
In either case, the only plot armor that I provide to anything that's good is alignment penalties for killing them off, and making the evil spectrum of alignments unplayable in this campaign.

Crow
2010-10-15, 06:28 PM
Never us a DMPC

To each their own. I run one quite often. This group (2 fighters and a paladin), I am the scrying, magic-dispelling, and buff-delivering wizard.

Sliver
2010-10-16, 04:48 AM
If the PC's are always the most powerful of the protagonists, even at lvl 1, why havent the antagonists already won?

I guess it's just different gaming styles. In most of my games, the PC's start out as little more than goldfish in a sea populated with sharks. They then work their way through the ranks to become the biggest fish (or have it thrust upon them when those above them get killed). To me it would just be weird if they started out at the top.

I played Feeding Frenzy a couple of times... Maybe my next game will involve the PCs actually being fish, forced to fight among the bigger fish for feeding while avoiding the barracuda... Or a shark, later on...

TricksyAndFalse
2010-10-18, 07:07 AM
If the PC's are always the most powerful of the protagonists, even at lvl 1, why havent the antagonists already won?

I'm using the word antagonists because not all of them are evil, and many of them are working at cross purposes, antagonizing each other in addition to the PCs.

I have a group of snake cultists trying to trick the PCs into bringing their god into this world. They are definitely evil. Their leader is my BBEG.

I have a petty lord who is fully aware the PCs are powerful heroes and sees that as a threat to his own power. He makes up missions to both gain more politcal power, and because he's hoping the PCs get killed. The PCs have expressed interest in the snake cult, and he's had dealings with the cult leader. He's sicking the PCs onto the cult in the hopes that either the PCs die, or they kill the cultists and cover up his treachery. He's simply extremely selfish, not exactly evil.

I have a would-be king beginning to move armies into the area. His actions are displacing the goblin tribes into the path of the PCs. He's currently in control of some of the border counties of the PC's home nation, and his patrols are trying to bring the PCs in for questioning after they foiled his gambit to get the bishop to name him king. He's technically good, but an unwitting major pain for the PCs.

My setting isn't good vs evil. It's cultists vs would-be-king vs petty lord. They're all against the PCs with only the petty lord actually wanting them dead (and then, not before he's squeezed every iota of usefulness out first). The antagonists haven't already won because they are keeping each other in check.

In a game I'm planning for the future, the antagonists will have already won. The PCs will be from the ruling families of a conquered nation. They're on the run from the conquerors. Eventually, they'll be able to recruit allies to help them retake their homeland, but they'll always be the coolest. Their allies would never be able to succeed if it weren't for the PCs.

Choco
2010-10-18, 08:03 AM
Stuff

Ah, that makes more sense now.

That's how I try to do my games too, where no one in the world has the exact same goals as the PC's, so no matter how close they may be they don't always see eye to eye. However, the PC's usually end up picking a side and when they do, they are obviously not the most powerful on that side at first. Unless of course they decide to start their own side, which can happen. That, and most times a 'benevolent' NPC helps them out, it is either as a reward for the PC's helping him out in the past or he is trying to get their favor for future help.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-18, 08:23 AM
If your players kill the quest-givers, unleash consequences on them. Send guards and bounty hunters (read: other adventuring parties) and don't pull any punches. Push their alignments towards evil and possibly chaotic, with falling consequences for paladins and clerics of good/LN gods.

On NPCs traveling with the party: make sure that they have personalities the group likes, and don't let them steal the spotlight - they can have important plot parts, but even then it's the PCs who should show initiative and be the main characters. Don't make them too strong - ideally they're a bit less optimized than the PCs, and focus on supporting rather than dealing a lot of damage.

Serpentine
2010-10-18, 08:30 AM
Hooboy, here we go again :smallsigh:
Of course we all know DMPCs are only acceptable when doing a round-robin DMingI disagree with your premise.

in a normal campaign, how do you draw the line between someone the PCs are escorting but aren't completely defenseless, and a DMPC?In my games, the only "someone the PCs are escorting" I've used was a nonmagical child who was almost constantly forgotten, and is now a parrot who is pretty much completely forgotten.
The DMPC is a character whom I happen to run.

How do you make the players realize that the guy the PCs are running missions for is only high level so that the PCs don't gank him, so you have a reason for him to have lots of high powered items that he's not immediately willing to share, and not because he's an old PC of mine that I want to show off?Never had the first nor last problems at all. The only very high level NPC we've actually come across (so far) was a former adventuring Wizard who was the owner of an extremely successful magic item franchise. Reason for high level: Check. Reason for lots of high powered items: check. Reason he's not immediately willing to share: because he's a businessman and a discount is to be our reward for performing the task (except I had already decided that he'd be killed off when the party face decided to wrangle for the discount to be until he (the Wizard quest-giver) died, haha).

Why is it that anyone with a backstory must be a DM inserted PC or former PCWhat? :smallconfused: I don't even know what the question is. All my NPCs have backstories, even if I don't come up with one until it's an issue.

and how do you make the distinction between them obvious aside from just not writing backstory to the important NPCs?My DMPC is a character that is pretty much exactly the same as if I were a player instead of a DM, except in that it is played by me, the DM. She joins the party and participates in every way any other character does.
NPCs... aren't, and don't.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-18, 08:40 AM
My DMPC is a character that is pretty much exactly the same as if I were a player instead of a DM, except in that it is played by me, the DM. She joins the party and participates in every way any other character does.


You see, I think this is a bad approach. PCs should be the main characters, NPCs are the supporting cast. You're making one of the NPCs a main character, forcing the PCs to share spotlight with it rather than giving them more opportunities to shine. The fact that it's very easy to make a DMPC all-knowing doesn't help.

Serpentine
2010-10-18, 08:47 AM
You're making one of the NPCs a main character, forcing the PCs to share spotlight with it rather than giving them more opportunities to shine.Meh. Negligible, and my players seem happy to have a shield around.

The fact that it's very easy to make a DMPC all-knowing doesn't help.I don't do that. In fact, I once had her advise the party to do something I, as DM, didn't want them to do, because she, as a character, would have done that.

In any case, I will (hopefully, if my would-be co-DM does actually do something) be doing it round-robin style soon, anyway.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-18, 08:56 AM
Meh. Negligible, and my players seem happy to have a shield around.

Well, if they don't mind that then I guess it works for your group.

Choco
2010-10-18, 09:18 AM
On NPCs traveling with the party: make sure that they have personalities the group likes, and don't let them steal the spotlight - they can have important plot parts, but even then it's the PCs who should show initiative and be the main characters. Don't make them too strong - ideally they're a bit less optimized than the PCs, and focus on supporting rather than dealing a lot of damage.

Yeah, I can't stress enough how important that first part is. If the players don't like the NPC, they will not like travelling with them, no matter the reason (unless the NPC is a prisoner that they carrying around in a cage and enjoy taunting him of course :smallamused:).

When I have NPC's travelling with the party, it is almost always in 1 of the following situations:

1) Powerful character travelling with the party because it would be out of place otherwise. A paladin asks the party to help her destroy a den of undead, so of course she will go there with them. Of course I don't do any fights with that character in the party: they either do the Scooby Doo thing and split up as soon as they get to the den (no random encounters on the way), or the NPC is killed in front of the PC's to show off the power of a villain, or the NPC dies/is incapacitated fighting a powerful villain that the PC's then have to finish (basically weakening up a normally too powerful foe to be beatable by the PC's).

2) Escort of a weaker character. Normally escort missions suck, but that is almost always because the character being escorted is a dumb POS that loves to purposely run into danger to "challenge" the party. I play them smart: They are competent enough to stick close to multiple members of the party and away from the enemy, and more importantly out of any line of fire. Very rarely do they participate in combat and usually spend all their rounds just being out of the way without leaving themselves open to being captured/killed cheaply. Sometimes the PC's use them to do grunt work like delivering potions between the front and back lines.

Sipex
2010-10-18, 09:23 AM
I think DMPCs can work but a lot of people are iffy because they're often played poorly (by DMs who really just wanted to play instead of DM). To play a proper DMPC you need to make sure your character doesn't do the footwork or outshine the PCs but instead just supports where needed. In an important situation it should be the PC doing most of the leg work and heroics with your guy acting as backup.

In addition, give your PCs some reign over your DMPC as long as the actions they request are reasonable for your class. Make him/her the NPC which you control most of the time but the PCs have access to if they need a specific task performed to help solve a problem.

Serpentine
2010-10-18, 09:50 AM
Well, if they don't mind that then I guess it works for your group.Yup, and thank you for taking that angle :smallsmile:
I was actually 3/4 intending to remove her from the game, for my own reasons. If my hopeful co-DM does indeed co-DM, I won't, as I'll need my own character. If he does not, then removing her is higher on my list of priorities, as his character is similarly tanky, and my DMPC will be much more likely to be stepping on the toes of a PC.

ErrantX
2010-10-18, 10:21 AM
In my current campaign I introduced I guess what would be called a DMPC. He started off as lame teacher's assistant from Morgrave Univerity (we run in Eberron). He is timid, shy, and generally worthless but very smart. The PC's took to him immediately and loved him, they started bringing him everywhere, teaching him and made a helpful NPC into a DMPC. Now he can fight and cast spells. The party made him. I dunno, I know a lot of people are suspect of DMPC's, but I never include them for longer than a session except in this case. They just bring him everywhere.

-X

Glyde
2010-10-18, 10:47 AM
High powered captain of the ship, says he'll stay behind while the party investigates the ruins. The party insists that he comes along - Sometimes, the players just simply don't mind.

There are often going to be higher leveled good guys than the PCs. I mean, the high priestess of St Cuthbert is going to be a little more powerful than my first level rogue. Why isn't she and her paladins investigating the vanishing children? Because they have other things to do and if they did it, then the players wouldn't be the ones having all the fun, and that's what it's all about. There has to be a little bit of arbitration in the game in the name of fun. Sure, Mrs Amazing Priestess could cast divination or scrying, but that goes against the purpose of the game.

Now, once the PCs get into the higher level, hero-tier category, then yeah the only things more powerful usually should be the bad guys.

Crow
2010-10-18, 11:39 AM
The priestess uses divination and scrying so she knows where to send her subordinates (the party) to battle the bad guys there. Sure, she could do it herself, but as a high level cleric, it makes more sense for her to use her time battling threats which require high level good guys, while her low level subordinates deal with the small fish.

But yes, once the players get into high levels, they should be the big cheese.

Glyde
2010-10-19, 01:07 AM
It was a reference to Shackled City. No, the priestess doesn't scry or divine anything. That takes out half the fun of diving into the dungeon.

BG
2010-10-19, 01:45 AM
I have to consider these issues also, because I usually only have 2-3 players at a time.

A lot of the games I run have a pile of NPCs who can become semi-DMPCs. I include the "semi", because the idea with each of them is that essentially the NPCs are tools that the players can use. It also means they can switch out different NPCs depending on what they need to do. By the time the party recruits an NPC, they will generally do whatever the party wants or needs them to do (nothing horribly suicidal, but my players are smart enough to not abuse the help), and in more complicated games, they become pawns for the PCs' power bids.

The thing I like about this system is that after I don't have to worry about saddling the players with an NPC they hate. If they don't like one, they can grab another.

The only other game where I will just give the players a free hireling guard NPC is Star Wars, just so that I can actually get all of them to leave the ship behind without worrying that it'll get stolen or blown up.