A Note On DMPCs

[Serpentine]

I've gotten into big arguments before about DMPCs. It's pretty well established that I'm fine with well-played ones.
For various reasons, I decided I'd remove my own from the game. These reasons included the arrival of a couple of new players, the fact that one player said once he prefers not to have them (although he didn't mind mine), that one new character is fairly similar in niche to her, etc.
So, my DMPC took aside another long-running character, and told her that, the next time she died, she shouldn't waste her money resurrecting her, just as long as she'd make sure to return her shield to her family. Not much later, she was stabbed to death in her bed and said shield stolen.
As soon as they realised she was dead, one of the characters (played by the same guy who said he preferred no DMPCs) stabbed our knife-that-can-Raise Dead into her to resurrect her. I was all "I was gonna get rid of her sillybuggers!" and gave them a choice: You could proceed with the resurrection, or she could be Unwilling so it would fail and we'd be down a DMPC.
They all declared that they wanted her back in the party. Especially the guy who said he didn't really like DMPCs. So, she came back.

My players won't let me get rid of my DMPC.
Whut.

[2-HeadedGiraffe]

You could have just made the call to have her be unwilling. You're the DM. Ultimately, you choose what happens to any given NPC. If they can't bring her back, that ought to have a huge impact on a group of characters and players who are so obviously attached to her.

[Serpentine]

...yes, I could have. I said that :smallconfused: But the players wanted her, so I let them have her.

[Tengu_temp]

You've created an NPC the players like so much they're willing to share spotlight with it. Well done. Many DMs fail to do that.

[Drascin]

Yeah, that happens with NPCs sometimes - players just like them. The problem with DMPCs is usually favoritism and giving them too much attention and plot power, and showing up other players. If she's doing nothing of the sort there's going to be no reason for the players to want a character removed - to them, it's just a friendly NPC they like, not the annoying DMPC that is better than all of them combined (which, by the way, I had my first experience with yesterday, trying a module under a player at my club. Now I understand why many people are so traumatized against such things... :smallsigh:). People like friendly NPCs.

Really, it's not unusual. It's happened to me in several campaigns. The players like an NPC so much they basically adopt him, groom him into an equal, and have him as much a member of a team as anyone. Then swear bloody vengeance when they inevitably die, because I'm much less merciful on NPCs than PCs :smalltongue:.

[Serpentine]

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

[Drascin]

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

The difference isn't awfulness, it's protagonism. You can actually have pretty good DMPCs. But the litmus test here is a simple question: do you think of her as "the character you play in the game" or as "a character in the world"? The first is a DMPC. The second is an NPC. That's really the only difference.

[Serpentine]

She is the character I play in my game.

[Paseo H]

I second the 'well done.'

I also find it funny when someone I want to become important to the player is barely given more than a second glance, but he ends up becoming overly attatched to someone completely surprising.

[Tengu_temp]

I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

DMPCs are NPCs.

[true_shinken]

Well done, Serpentine!
I never make DMPCs, but time and time again my players grow fond of NPCs I never intended them to like (like Flork, the cowardly goblin paladin with maxed Hide).

[Jarawara]

Plus, it appears it's quest-time, to get the shield back that was stolen. Kudos to providing a seemless entry into a new adventure, so that the 'adventures' will be player chosen, not DM-chosen.

[Serpentine]

Oh, we did that. Her shield'd actually already been nicked once, but they got caught. Spoilered for TMIThe plan (roughly - if it didn't happen, no loss, and I made sure there were resurrection options if it was only a partlyPK) was for the party to get slaughtered by the Naztharune Rakshasa and her lackeys while trying to retrieve it, and then get resurrected and hired (/pressganged) by the (epic level Rakshasa) person behind it all into another side-quest.
We ended up thrashing the thief (:smallsigh: No more holding back for these people!), catching her alive, and demanding to know where the shield was. Again, I gave them a choice (just cuz this wasn't the way I was expecting it to go): the shield could be somewhere that would probably result in severe danger and a side-quest (with said epic level Rakshasa boss, in which case we'd be back with my original plan when they try to confront him), or it could be nearby (in the basement) and we go on as usual. They picked the latter... and then they decided they were determined to track down the person in charge, which will probably result in their deaths and/or getting pressganged into a side-quest :biggrin:
Now I've gotta stat out an epic level Rakshasa that I never intended them to actually come into conflict with...

[Drascin]

She is the character I play in my game.

You must not be too attached to her if you were so insistent on having her die, then. Did you have another concept you wanted to try for your next one? :smallbiggrin: (generally, when my players start being suicidal, it's because they've had an idea for another character that tickles their fancy more than their current one. It's quite funny to see the normally levelheaded character conspicuously try to solo, say, a tank with a club. I keep telling them, we can retire characters while alive, you know, but they seem to find it funnier that way :smalltongue:).

But anyway, jokes aside, basically that's the distinction - a DMPC implies a level of attachment to one particular NPC, a bit of the DM feeling the "this is my character, my only real and most important piece in the game, I should play him to my best" feeling that players have towards their characters, that is very risky on a DM's hands - because in our heads, our characters are always cool and their stories play out with appropiate drama and awesome... but then reality happens, and we make do and develop the character in surprising ways. Except that when the person who plays them is also the person who decides aforementioned reality... well, that has a pretty high risk of getting out of hand very fast, as it's human nature to be instinctively more favorable to those things that bring us special enjoyment. That's why people are usually against DMPCs - on average, the risk of it ending badly is pretty huge.

But you have, apparently, managed to pull it off without inadvertently playing favorites, which is quite commendable. So congratulations indeed, Serpentine.

[Comet]

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

There is no such thing as a DMPC.

There. DMPC means "Dungeon Master Player Character", right? But the DM, or GM, can not be a Player, since they are fulfilling another role. As such, DMs cannot have Player Characters. Sure, they can have characters but those are, by definition, Non-Player Characters, since they are being played by something else than a Player.
Notice the capital letters here, everyone at the table is a player but only those who are not Game Mastering can be Players with a capital P. Player Characters belong to Players.

So, if we can agree that a DMPC is a silly term, I would continue from that point by stating that there are two kinds of NPCs.

Good NPCs.
Bad NPCs.

And that's it. Serp's character is a good NPC, apparently. The bad "DMPC" is just a bad NPC that gains too much attention from the Dungeon Master.

[valadil]

...yes, I could have. I said that :smallconfused: But the players wanted her, so I let them have her.

This is why you run successful DMPCs. You put them there if the players want them. The other kind of DMPC shows up even if they players don't want them. The problem isn't so much the DMPC as it is the DM who does what he wants to the game, with no regard for how the players feel about it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

There. DMPC means "Dungeon Master Player Character", right? But the DM, or GM, can not be a Player, since they are fulfilling another role. As such, DMs cannot have Player Characters.
No.

For the reasons you have stated, a DM should not have a Player Character in a game they are running. However, some DMs do - these are DMPCs.

Here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GMPC?from=Main.DMPC) is a good description of how a DMPC can go wrong. If you avoid these pitfalls you can run a DMPC without harming a game but it can be very hard. Serp seems to be doing OK on that end; not everyone is as good at this as she is.

Also: Not all parties are the same. Some parties love taking the Plot Train to town; others like playing back-up to Gandalf and serving a smaller part in a bigger story. Like any storytelling tool know your audience before using a DMPC.

[Psyx]

Then let choice rather than death take the character away. Maybe they have a quest of their own, or want to visit family.
You should use the NPC's choice to ram home to the PCs things that they may not have thought about doing with their own characters... duty to family, or church, or nation, or whatever... or something else appropriate.

An NPC leaving for strong character reasons is a great opportunity to prompt your PCs into really thinking about matters for themselves.





I really am baffled by this insistence that if a DMPC isn't awful, then it must rather be an NPC.

One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.


I think DMPCs are awful. All of them. Never have an NPC who you won't have drown in a cess-pit in the next scene, or who you'd get upset about if they were murdered for their loot by the PCs. As soon as a GM emotionally attaches to NPCs they start being biased, and the NPCs start to suck. Enormously.

As a GM; if you 'need' to run a DMPC, then you're on the wrong side of the screen. Otherwise why not use a series of expendable NPCs, or just go without?

[MrEdwardNigma]

I also find it funny when someone I want to become important to the player is barely given more than a second glance, but he ends up becoming overly attatched to someone completely surprising.
Exactly! I'm running my first campaign now, and a character I had only described in my notes as "recruiter" who spends his time buying people drinks in a bar and getting them to sign up for the army has become one of the PCs best friends and most often visited contacts, while some of the PCs I'd put loads of work into got completely passed by or weren't even met.

Of course, they haven't figured out yet he's not just some friendly guy handing out booze... :smallbiggrin:

[HunterOfJello]

I'm in a similar situation.

I have a DMPC and a cohort (not the DMPCs) that I juggle while DMing. I'd like to get rid of the DMPC, but the 2 players seem to like him right now. It's strange that the players like the DMPC because he's CG and they're both evil. However, he is a good healbot and ranged attacker.

I'll probably get rid of him soon and make his death into a plot arc. Something involving demons and his soul trapped where it slowly become corrupted and he could return in the future as a Hellbred would be cool.

[Sipex]

Yeah, I've never understood the vile hate for DMPCs. All my experience with them have so far been good and my own DMPC would be difficult to remove from my group, they like him too much.

Maybe you guys have just had too many bad experiences.

[valadil]

One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.


How do you feel about a hypothetical DMPC that isn't played to win?

[BRC]

One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.
Not necessarily.
Once, on this board, I said "Suppose somebody makes a DMPC who regularly accompanies the party like a party member, who does not steal the spotlight, and generally makes the Game more fun." Somebody responded "Then That's Not a DMPC".
DMPC's get a bad rap because they are associated with Mary Sue power tripping DM's who drag the players through a plot that exists to show how amazing the DMPC is. People assume that Because the DM COULD make the DMPC a Mary Sue, make encounters that favor them, ect ect, that they WILL.


I think DMPCs are awful. All of them. Never have an NPC who you won't have drown in a cess-pit in the next scene, or who you'd get upset about if they were murdered for their loot by the PCs. As soon as a GM emotionally attaches to NPCs they start being biased, and the NPCs start to suck. Enormously.

As a GM; if you 'need' to run a DMPC, then you're on the wrong side of the screen. Otherwise why not use a series of expendable NPCs, or just go without?
Alright, maybe it's just me, but I feel a DM can run a character, and get emotionally attached to them without compromising their integrity as the DM. I am personally emotionally attached to the PC's my players run, my players are all very close friends, and so, by extension, are their characters. Yet I have no qualms about sending unspeakable horrors their way. I get attached to the villains I create, I spend lots of time crafting their stats and personalities, picturing them in my head, ect. Yet, I don't shed a tear when my PC's blind them and riddle them with bullets.

Don't confuse possibility with inevitability.

That said, I don't like DMPC's, but not because I think they're all spotlight stealing Mary Sues controlled by power tripping DM's. I don't like them for one simple reason: The slow down combat. One of my commandments of DMing is "Thou Shalt not Roll Against Thyself". Not because of any conflict of interest, but because it's boring for the players. While they may get sucked into the action, players in combat are generally just waiting for their turn to begin, whenever you have an NPC under your control fighting another, All the players are bored. A DMPC on the PC's side means not only another round, but more Monsters (or more powerful and complicated monsters) needed to challenge the PC's, all of which slows combat, the downside of adding another player without the benefits of actually having another Player.
Occasionally, I do have "Guest PC's", but I always hand control of them over to the Players.

[Psyren]

They are not universally bad - just very hard to do right. So the general trend of advice to "avoid using them" has some basis.

I just realized I could apply the above statement to Monks and Soulknives :smalltongue:

[Psyx]

"Yeah, I've never understood the vile hate for DMPCs. All my experience with them have so far been good and my own DMPC..."

You don't understand it because you use them yourself, I'd hazard. Obviously nobody who despises them would use them
.
If I want an NPC to join the party, then they do so... for a while. They certainly don't leech XP, nor gain it in a formal manner. they are NPC 'extras'. And I don't want to get attached - even subconsciously - because players pick up on non-verbal clues. This can lead to major problems, especially with 'plot critical' NPCs.

If I want a full-time NPC to join the group and grow with the players, then I'll get another player in the group. If -hypothetically- I didn't have enough players for a game, I'd run a game which required less players.


"How do you feel about a hypothetical DMPC that isn't played to win?"

I still don't like them. If they're their roleplaying with the group, the role could be better done by... another player. Alternatively, they are essentially 'stealing' player time. If the party want to roleplay amongst themselves; that's great. If I join in, then they are roleplaying for less time, and it detracts. Besides: When PCs are RPing between themselves, then I generally have far more crucial things to do that actively participate: I have a game and a cast of thousands to run, and can be using that time in a more effective manner.

The point has already been made that they also leech time in combat, and if they look cool in combat then it's lame. If they just heal in combat then they're just a cardboard cut-out and a crutch. The best thing for an NPC to do in combat is cower under furniture: It makes the players look and feel good, and takes no time up.

[Sipex]

"Yeah, I've never understood the vile hate for DMPCs. All my experience with them have so far been good and my own DMPC..."

You don't understand it because you use them yourself, I'd hazard. Obviously nobody who despises them would use them
.
If I want an NPC to join the party, then they do so... for a while. They certainly don't leech XP, nor gain it in a formal manner. they are NPC 'extras'. And I don't want to get attached - even subconsciously - because players pick up on non-verbal clues. This can lead to major problems, especially with 'plot critical' NPCs.

If I want a full-time NPC to join the group and grow with the players, then I'll get another player in the group. If -hypothetically- I didn't have enough players for a game, I'd run a game which required less players.

This is the thing though, I've played with them before too. I just think of it as another character. I dunno, I guess I don't see the DM, running the monsters and the DM, running a character as the same thing.

Also, my players have already stopped me from removing my DMPC on more than one occasion, they said they like him too much. Ditto on trying to give control to them. I actually tried both these things because this board convinced me that "DMPCS ARE THA EVULZ!!!!!!!!!!". Turns out my players disagree.

Also, I've never understood the arguement against DMPCs leech XP thing. If there wasn't a DMPC I'd make the encounters easier so therefore, less EXP. Since I play 4E, encounters are balanced by exp so they lose exactly how much EXP I would've leeched.

Overall (and this isn't a response to you Psyx, I'm just getting my thoughts out) I think those of you out there that are unsure shouldn't let the overall opinion colour your own. Figure it out for yourself and don't always believe what you're told.

[Comet]

For the reasons you have stated, a DM should not have a Player Character in a game they are running. However, some DMs do - these are DMPCs

You say DMPC, I say NPC that the DM treats like their own character. I'm just trying to communicate here that the term DMPC is a bit of a contradiction, hence its negative connotations for many.

Players have Player Characters, Dungeon Masters have Non-Player Characters. Some NPCs might resemble PCs in the amount of attention and fleshing out they get, but semantically they are still very much NPCs, due to them not being played by a Player.

But yeah, this talk about terminology isn't helping anyone, is it? Still, I stand by the notion that as long as everybody at the table is happy with how the DM is running things, there's no need to analyse whether an NPC is really a NPC or DMPC or whatever. They're just characters, some might get more attention than others but they're still all in the same category of "dudes that the DM controls".

[Oracle_Hunter]

You say DMPC, I say NPC that the DM treats like their own character. I'm just trying to communicate here that the term DMPC is a bit of a contradiction, hence its negative connotations for many.

Players have Player Characters, Dungeon Masters have Non-Player Characters. Some NPCs might resemble PCs in the amount of attention and fleshing out they get, but semantically they are still very much NPCs, due to them not being played by a Player.
That's fine, as far as it goes.

However, it becomes difficult to discuss a topic if you negate its existence. It is not that DMPCs don't exist separately from NPCs generally; a DMPC is a specific form of "Non-Player Character" which has unique issues of its own.

N.B. The main reason people fight about terms such as "broken," "overpowered," "versimilitude," and "DMPC" is because their definitions are not set in stone; indeed, few are. IMHO, before opening any sort of thread to discuss the meaning of a term it is helpful to provide a definition of the term you're describing.

In this case, Serp has said "here is my DMPC - a character that I treat as my personal PC while running the game." This definition is in line with an arguably common one (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GMPC) which makes it a good place to start a broad discussion on the concept. Trying to redefine the term in the middle of the debate is unhelpful at best.

[true_shinken]

They are not universally bad - just very hard to do right. So the general trend of advice to "avoid using them" has some basis.

I just realized I could apply the above statement to Monks and Soulknives :smalltongue:
Oh, I completely agree.
And I loled.

[Gorgondantess]

Huh. Well, most of my players usually end up hating my DMPC's.
Not in the "Wow this guy is stealing the spotlight way", but more in the "Wow this guy is hilariously a jerkass". So they love to hate them.:smallbiggrin:
Then I also had a sort of parole officer DMPC, which was funny because he was actually really nice to them and was just doing his job. They ended up killing him, and feeling really bad about it.
And then, most recently, I DMPC'd a werewolf character who had a string of hilarious critical misses and despite saving their asses half the time was viewed as the most incompetent character ever. I had him play with it and ended up as the buttmonkey- ambushes always targeted him, and I eventually started rolling d12s for his saving throws.:smallamused:

[Zeofar]

I think DMPCs are awful. All of them. Never have an NPC who you won't have drown in a cess-pit in the next scene, or who you'd get upset about if they were murdered for their loot by the PCs. As soon as a GM emotionally attaches to NPCs they start being biased, and the NPCs start to suck. Enormously.


There's a difference between a NPC who plays a role in a story and emotional attachment and between emotional attachment and bias. Willingly killing NPC's for no reason at all isn't good Dm'ing, it's self-sabotaging, erratic behavior. If one introduces an NPC for the sole purpose of drowning them in the next scene, it seems more like he enjoys killing random characters than anything else. If one feels that the DM has gotten back at him for killing a "DMPC" for money, it may be more likely that he is experiencing the normal plot or in-game consequences of his actions, not that the DM got upset.

What you're describing here aren't necessarily DMPCs, they're NPCs. Someone who isn't actively out to kill his NPCs isn't playing a DMPC; he's using and playing NPCs in a sensible manner. Someone who cares about the NPCs they create isn't automatically playing a DMPC; they simply are able to get involved in the game world and identify with a character. Interfering with the game just because the players did something you didn't want them to do is bad Dming. Playing all NPCs without any power and killing them because they're "just NPCs and don't matter" is bad Dming likewise. Not being able to get involved in the game and care about individual characters isn't just bad Dming, it's bad roleplaying as well.




One plays a PC to 'win', and to complete character goals IC and OOC - levelling, getting loot, etc. Therefore, one plays a PC to the best of one's abilities, within the structure of imposed Roleplaying limitations. If a GM plays an NPC 'to win' as it were, then they have created a Mary Sue or a character who has an edge over the other players.


You seem to be ignoring the possibility of playing a character for the sake of playing a character and experiencing a world. Some people don't look at Roleplaying as a limitation or a means to an end, but and end in and of itself. There are many characters who don't see "levelling" and "getting loot" as an IC goal, and many players who don't see it as an OOC goal either.




I still don't like them. If they're their roleplaying with the group, the role could be better done by... another player. Alternatively, they are essentially 'stealing' player time. If the party want to roleplay amongst themselves; that's great. If I join in, then they are roleplaying for less time, and it detracts. Besides: When PCs are RPing between themselves, then I generally have far more crucial things to do that actively participate: I have a game and a cast of thousands to run, and can be using that time in a more effective manner.


Whether or not one is speaking doesn't determine whether or not you are roleplaying; playing a character is not simply blurting out a set of words that fit his archetype. It involves the thinking that would happen if one was the character himself and using his mindset to approach the game. Responding, even mentally or non-verbally, to someone else's speech and actions is as much roleplaying as is making your own speech and actions. The DM's world and characters is as much a part of roleplaying as the player's own character. If playing your NPC's never involves roleplaying, then they must be unthinking, mute, or incredibly one-dimensional. Besides: not all DM's have the same problems managing their game as you and don't ignore what the players are doing even if they aren't actively participating as a character.



The point has already been made that they also leech time in combat, and if they look cool in combat then it's lame. If they just heal in combat then they're just a cardboard cut-out and a crutch. The best thing for an NPC to do in combat is cower under furniture: It makes the players look and feel good, and takes no time up.

I don't get how looking cool in combat makes an NPC or DMPC lame. I don't see how healing in combat precludes characterization. I don't see where you would get the idea that combat in RPG's is about always making the characters look and feel good. It seems like it would be a nightmare to DM for you: if the NPCs aren't weak, made to die, useless in combat, and never roleplayed, then the DM is doing something wrong. It appears as if your main goal in RPG's is to feel powerful and get more "player time," and this, of course, meshes brilliantly with your apparent goal to eradicate any and all meaningful characters controlled by the DM. If a DM plays NPCs or DMPCs in the same way, of course it will turn out horribly; on the other hand, I can hardly see a way that it wouldn't turn out horribly for a player to do the same thing.

[HunterOfJello]

I agree that if a DM creates a DMPC to "beat" his own game, then there is obviously something wrong going on. As said above, part of the problem is clear cut definitions of what a DMPC is. Also, regardless of the definition, they should be avoided by gamers new to DMing and should always be carefully balanced and watched over to not outshine the party and not be too useful.

A same level and power appropriate NPC/DMPC that hangs out with the party and is played like a PC who is a member of the party, can be very effective in the right games. Filling up a missing role or balancing out the party in terms of roleplaying or focus on their objectives can be great.

However, a DMPC that works too well or doesn't mesh in well with the game should be abandoned. I made a Dwarf Crusader to help start off the group in the last game I DMed. I ended up abandoning him after one session, because although he was only level 3, he was ridiculously effective in the group. He constantly healed (during combat) anyone who took damage, stopped the casters from taking damage through Shield Block and his glare stance, and was still effective as a melee damage doer. With the Crusader DMPC around, the casters were in practically no danger whatsoever turning the encounters into exercises in safely blasting.

~

It would be cool to see a guide or handbook written on DMPCs and suggetions on their use.

[Psyx]

There's a difference between a NPC who plays a role in a story and emotional attachment and between emotional attachment and bias. Willingly killing NPC's for no reason at all isn't good Dm'ing

That's not my point. My point is that you have to be willing to do it and keep a smile on your face while doing it. an author needs to keep a healthy and objective distance between him and his characters, otherwise the story suffers. If you were to shirk one iota in killing a PC in a hypothetical worthless and pathetic way, it would be a sign that you are too attached, and are potentially going to bend the rules in some manner in the future. And players can SMELL it.


I don't believe in using NPCs to fill in missing party roles, either. So long as there is at least three people in the group, any omission of role has essentially been a player choice. It's not my job to provide them with someone to use as a punch-bag just because nobody wants to play a melee character.

[Janus]

I've been playing D&D with two of my friends, and there's usually been a DMPC involved. However, there are multiple factors involved:

1) We're playing our characters from the MMO EverQuest.
2) We take turns DMing different adventures, so the DMPC later becomes a PC (or vice versa).
3) Party balance and roleplay. We already have a story set for our characters, and part of that includes the fact that they're in the same guild and work together. It'd also be difficult to get a dedicated DM who's familiar with EverQuest, anyway.

It's worked out so far. We haven't had any troubles with the DMPC solving everything. The only thing that comes up is that DMPCs tend to be rather quiet, given the player's knowledge and that it's kind of odd to watch the DM talk to himself.

[Sipex]

Yeah, my biggest issue with running a DMPC is when my players get stuck on something they look at me and go "Why haven't you said anything?"

I often have to prefix any input I give (which is rare) with "As my dwarf I think this." but I intentionally make bad decisions and insert stuff which fits his own agenda so they're not constantly convinced that my guy has the answers.

[valadil]

I often have to prefix any input I give (which is rare) with "As my dwarf I think this." but I intentionally make bad decisions and insert stuff which fits his own agenda so they're not constantly convinced that my guy has the answers.

You could always play the DMPC who is more of a hindrance than a help, constantly suggesting terrible ideas to the party who has no better lead to go on. I wouldn't do this unless I was willing to let them kick him out of the game or course. (Although there's no DMPC that I'd impose that I wouldn't be willing to kick out of the group.)

[Oracle_Hunter]

It would be cool to see a guide or handbook written on DMPCs and suggetions on their use.
It wouldn't be very long :smalltongue:

Seriously though, a true DMPC need only be liked by the Players to be successful. General tips to this end are:

- Don't make the DMPC a Protagonist
- Don't make the DMPC more powerful/effective than any other party member
- Don't use the DMPC to keep your PCs on the rails

You can, of course, violate any or all of these guidelines if you don't violate Rule #1; it's just that too many bad DMs misuse DMPCs and even good ones can find the temptation overwhelming.

As for when to use one? I can't think of a story reason to use a DMPC instead of a regular NPC, but the most likely reason to use one that I can think of is "I want to play in my own game."

[WarKitty]

It wouldn't be very long :smalltongue:

Seriously though, a true DMPC need only be liked by the Players to be successful. General tips to this end are:

- Don't make the DMPC a Protagonist
- Don't make the DMPC more powerful/effective than any other party member
- Don't use the DMPC to keep your PCs on the rails

You can, of course, violate any or all of these guidelines if you don't violate Rule #1; it's just that too many bad DMs misuse DMPCs and even good ones can find the temptation overwhelming.

As for when to use one? I can't think of a story reason to use a DMPC instead of a regular NPC, but the most likely reason to use one that I can think of is "I want to play in my own game."

We got stuck with one so we'd get on with the plot once. Not that we had to get back on the rails, but the kid would run off in a totally random direction if we sat around arguing for too long.

Meh...some of the party liked him, some of us didn't. Personally he was a bit too powerful for my tastes, although he's gotten better once the DM gave him real stats.

[BRC]

I think my guideline for a DMPC is not to make them too plot-integral, or at least give yourself an exit strategy. You won't know if they're good or not until you've actually used them and you see if the players like them.
If the players like them, have them stick around. If not, let there be some way you can get rid of them. If they are plot-critical for some reason (Which they probably shouldn't be), let there be a way they can leave. Maybe they teach the PC's that ancient language needed to save the world, or they get kidnapped and taken by evil forces to wherever the party was trying to take them anyway.
Remember Rule 1 of DMing is to make the game fun. I don't care how much the internet will inform you that you are a terrible person for having a DMPC, if your players enjoy it, keep it up.

[Oracle_Hunter]

We got stuck with one so we'd get on with the plot once. Not that we had to get back on the rails, but the kid would run off in a totally random direction if we sat around arguing for too long.

Meh...some of the party liked him, some of us didn't. Personally he was a bit too powerful for my tastes, although he's gotten better once the DM gave him real stats.
There is a difference between Plot Device and DMPC, of course. A Plot Device is just some manifestation of DM Fiat that says But Thou Must (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust). It sounds like the kid above was more of The Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad).

In any case, a DMPC used as a Conductor is usually a fully developed character that is played by the DM as a PC - and is also independently powerful enough to hose the party if they refuse to do what he wants them to do.

EDIT: @BRC - that falls under "don't make them a Protagonist" :smallbiggrin:

Having plot-essential NPCs is great; just make sure you're willing to abandon the plot if they die or are ditched by the PCs.

[randomhero00]

lol @ OP sorry but that's kind of a funny situation.

My personal opinion though is that I have no problem with DMPCs. The DM is either good enough to play one and therefor good enough for me to be in the game, or not, and I probably wouldn't want to be in the game anyway.

[BRC]

EDIT: @BRC - that falls under "don't make them a Protagonist" :smallbiggrin:

Having plot-essential NPCs is great; just make sure you're willing to abandon the plot if they die or are ditched by the PCs.
Meh, "Protagonist" is different than "Plot Essential".

Lets say the DMPC is an Archivist who is the only one who knows how to unlock the ancient Vault and recover the Weapons of Champions Past so they can defeat the Great Evil.
The Archivist isn't the Protagonist, he's just the guy who opens the Vault. The PC's are the ones who take the Weapons and use them to kick some evil ass, but the Archivist is plot essential. They can't open the Vault without him.

Which is why, if the players don't like the Archivist, you need some way to get rid of him, you need an exit strategy. Let there be another way to open the Vault, or let him teach one or more of the PC's how to do it.

A Protagonist DMPC would be "You need to escort the Prince to the Royal Vault so he can recover the Sword of the First King and slay the evil dragon". THAT would be an example of a DMPC as Protagonist, the Prince is doing all the heroics, the PC's are just there to provide backup.

[valadil]

I think my guideline for a DMPC is not to make them too plot-integral, or at least give yourself an exit strategy. You won't know if they're good or not until you've actually used them and you see if the players like them.


Disagreed! I go by the G.R.R.M school of thought when it comes to DMPCs. Make them as plot integral as you possibly can. Once the PCs have bitten the plot, kill the DMPC. Brutally, if possible. Then watch the players scramble to recover the plot.

Of course some people would argue that what I just suggested is a plot device rather than a DMPC. I don't feel that way because you have to make the PCs believe you're using an DMPC, even if he isn't really going to stick around that long. Spend the first 5 sessions establishing that, yes, this guy is our DMPC and he has more plot than you. Then, when they're attached to the plot, cut the training wheels. Over the course of the game, the NPC may only be there for 20% of it, but while he's there, he has to be 100% DMPC.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Meh, "Protagonist" is different than "Plot Essential".

Lets say the DMPC is an Archivist who is the only one who knows how to unlock the ancient Vault and recover the Weapons of Champions Past so they can defeat the Great Evil.
The Archivist isn't the Protagonist, he's just the guy who opens the Vault. The PC's are the ones who take the Weapons and use them to kick some evil ass, but the Archivist is plot essential. They can't open the Vault without him.

Which is why, if the players don't like the Archivist, you need some way to get rid of him, you need an exit strategy. Let there be another way to open the Vault, or let him teach one or more of the PC's how to do it.
If the Archivist is needed to open the Vault and the PCs don't want to take along the Archivist then I guess they didn't really want to open the Vault in the first place :smalltongue:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having NPCs (or DMPCs) who are plot essential in the above fashion provided you (the DM) are willing to deal with Plot Failure. In fact, including an annoying NPC that is essential to the plot is a classic way to "spice up" an otherwise ordinary adventure - albeit a method that often results in the PCs either discarding the adventure (i.e. it's not worth the aggravation) or working to find some way to finish it without the NPC's assistance.

If anything, the only harm with making a DMPC an essential part of the plot is that your PCs may feel resentful that he has explicit Plot Armor. Now, if you make it clear the DMPC doesn't have Plot Armor the PCs are less likely to turn on him.

[BRC]

If the Archivist is needed to open the Vault and the PCs don't want to take along the Archivist then I guess they didn't really want to open the Vault in the first place :smalltongue:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having NPCs (or DMPCs) who are plot essential in the above fashion provided you (the DM) are willing to deal with Plot Failure. In fact, including an annoying NPC that is essential to the plot is a classic way to "spice up" an otherwise ordinary adventure - albeit a method that often results in the PCs either discarding the adventure (i.e. it's not worth the aggravation) or working to find some way to finish it without the NPC's assistance.

If anything, the only harm with making a DMPC an essential part of the plot is that your PCs may feel resentful that he has explicit Plot Armor. Now, if you make it clear the DMPC doesn't have Plot Armor the PCs are less likely to turn on him.
Well that gets into my thing about "Exit Strategy"
So the plan is to open the Vault and get the Weapons. They need the Archivist to do that. However, the Players (not the PC's, the PLAYERS) hate the Archivist, and you decide you could do better without him, so he gets eaten by a dragon, and the Dragon Turds can't be used as a component for the Ressurection spell.
I'm saying "Give them a new way to open the Vault".
You're saying "Forget that Vault! Things are just now getting interesting!"
Both are examples of an "Exit Strategy". The Story must continue without the DMPC, whether or not the Plot does.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well that gets into my thing about "Exit Strategy"
So the plan is to open the Vault and get the Weapons. They need the Archivist to do that. However, the Players (not the PC's, the PLAYERS) hate the Archivist, and you decide you could do better without him, so he gets eaten by a dragon, and the Dragon Turds can't be used as a component for the Ressurection spell.
I'm saying "Give them a new way to open the Vault".
You're saying "Forget that Vault! Things are just now getting interesting!"
Both are examples of an "Exit Strategy". The Story must continue without the DMPC, whether or not the Plot does.
IMHO, this sort of "exit strategy" is essential running any sort of RPG at all. I've yet to run a game where my response to "PCs do X" is a pained shrug; to DM is to resolve the actions of Players through their characters.

Deciding whether the Plot NPC's death results in a "All Roads Lead To Rome" or a "Let's Do Something Different" response is a matter of personal style. For me, the "All Roads" approach ultimately trivializes PC choices - even if you're certain the Players don't notice. If my Players have decided to let their PCs allow a Plot NPC die even when the PCs know he is essential to the Plot I will always ask them "OK, now what?"

In short: while the point that a DM needs an Exit Strategy to deal with the loss of Plot NPCs is true, it is not a special precaution that needs to be taken with plot-essential DMPCs; it is something a DM should do with every element of a story.

[BRC]

IMHO, this sort of "exit strategy" is essential running any sort of RPG at all. I've yet to run a game where my response to "PCs do X" is a pained shrug; to DM is to resolve the actions of Players through their characters.

Deciding whether the Plot NPC's death results in a "All Roads Lead To Rome" or a "Let's Do Something Different" response is a matter of personal style. For me, the "All Roads" approach ultimately trivializes PC choices - even if you're certain the Players don't notice. If my Players have decided to let their PCs allow a Plot NPC die even when the PCs know he is essential to the Plot I will always ask them "OK, now what?"

In short: while the point that a DM needs an Exit Strategy to deal with the loss of Plot NPCs is true, it is not a special precaution that needs to be taken with plot-essential DMPCs; it is something a DM should do with every element of a story.
Well yes. I'm just bringing it up as part of my Thesis that you don't know if a DMPC is going to work until you use it and see if the Players like them.
1: There is a higher chance of DMPC's being disliked than other plot elements. Lets say rather than an Archivist, the PC's just use an Amulet to open the vault. There are more potential problems that arise from an Archivist tagging along with the party, than from an amulet sitting in one of their pockets, so having an exit strategy is more important. What's more, removing a DMPC is more likely to be up to the DM. The PC's may have no reason to dislike the Archivist, he's helping them out after all, but the Players may dislike him, so removing him from the campaign is probably going to be up to the DM, rather than waiting for the PC's to just up and murder him/ let him die. The point of the game is to maximize player enjoyment.
2: They may dislike the DMPC, but like the Plot. What if my Players LOVE the idea of finding this Vault and retrieving the weapons, they just don't like the Archivist. What's wrong with getting rid of the Archivist without scrapping the entire Vault plotline?

[Oracle_Hunter]

1: There is a higher chance of DMPC's being disliked than other plot elements.
True. Additionally, a DMPC is more likely to be disliked than a regular NPC.


2: They may dislike the DMPC, but like the Plot. What if my Players LOVE the idea of finding this Vault and retrieving the weapons, they just don't like the Archivist. What's wrong with getting rid of the Archivist without scrapping the entire Vault plotline?
Well, that raises the question as to why you introduced a DMPC in the first place.

If it was "to play in my own game" then you probably want to see the Plot resolved as well. Here, you'll probably nuke DMPC #1 and replace him with DMPC #2 while finding a way to keep the Plot intact. Presumably DMPC #2 will somehow be less annoying to the PCs :smalltongue:

I... honestly can't think of any other reason to use a DMPC in a campaign, ever. Even the "fill out a party role" excuse is better served with a hireling or someone willing to fade into the background instead of being a major character.

[BRC]

Well, that raises the question as to why you introduced a DMPC in the first place.

If it was "to play in my own game" then you probably want to see the Plot resolved as well. Here, you'll probably nuke DMPC #1 and replace him with DMPC #2 while finding a way to keep the Plot intact. Presumably DMPC #2 will somehow be less annoying to the PCs :smalltongue:

I... honestly can't think of any other reason to use a DMPC in a campaign, ever. Even the "fill out a party role" excuse is better served with a hireling or someone willing to fade into the background instead of being a major character.
Because I thought it would be a fun and interesting plot point, that's why.
Is your stance here that I should never use a DMPC except as a plot point I cannot fill any other way?

[Tengu_temp]

I... honestly can't think of any other reason to use a DMPC in a campaign, ever. Even the "fill out a party role" excuse is better served with a hireling or someone willing to fade into the background instead of being a major character.

What's wrong with the NPCs having major plot importance? In fact, I prefer this to using random hirelings, it's much more interesting that way. Just make sure that the PCs know they're still the main characters of the story.

[randomhero00]

What's wrong with the NPCs having major plot importance? In fact, I prefer this to using random hirelings, it's much more interesting that way. Just make sure that the PCs know they're still the main characters of the story.

I agree. If your DM is good, playing a DMPC is often good for the story. And makes it better than it would have otherwise. Its just a tricky skill to learn. And of course, you have to have players that trust the DM as well. Otherwise they may get jealous or paranoid if the DMPC keeps skating death or rolling nat20s.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because I thought it would be a fun and interesting plot point, that's why.
Is your stance here that I should never use a DMPC except as a plot point I cannot fill any other way?
Actually, it's more of a "why would you use a DMPC instead of a NPC?" question. A NPC that travels with an adventuring party is not automatically a DMPC; a DMPC is literally a PC run by the DM.

Look, I'm all about defining terms so he's what I'm working with as a definition of a DMPC:

Sometimes, a Game Master doesn't have enough players to run a decent game. Or else, he just wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either way, he stats out an important NPC to travel with the party and fill any missing roles no one else wants to play. It's almost like the GM has a Player Character of his own, thus this concept has come to be known as the GMPC.

EXTENDED DISCUSSION
Sometimes NPCs travel with party members, but they almost never have the same range of abilities as an actual PC. At most you might stat out an NPC like a full PC for the duration of a single adventure or to provide some flavor - he travels with the PCs, participates in the adventure, and maybe even gets a bit of the glory. That's one thing.

Another thing entirely is statting out a character to run along with the PCs over the long term. Maybe he's always there, or perhaps he simply is a reoccuring feature of the campaign; in any case he is designed to be a full equal to the party in terms of the campaign - a Protagonist.

This latter version is what I'm talking about - and, to be honest, what I think Serp is talking about. I can see no reason to include such a creature in a campaign unless you, as the DM, feel the need to "have his cake and eat it too;" participate as a protagonist in your own story. I see too many pitfalls down that road to indulge in it myself, but for some groups (and some DMs) that may be just the road to take.

The special case of "I don't have enough Players" is something I don't have to worry about, but even were that to happen wouldn't it simply be better to make the "filler" NPC someone subordinate to the PCs rather than their equal? I don't mean like a slave or something; just someone who is there to do a job rather than weave a story.
Hopefully that cleared things up a little :smallsmile:

[randomhero00]

Actually, it's more of a "why would you use a DMPC instead of a NPC?" question. A NPC that travels with an adventuring party is not automatically a DMPC; a DMPC is literally a PC run by the DM.

Look, I'm all about defining terms so he's what I'm working with as a definition of a DMPC:


EXTENDED DISCUSSION
Sometimes NPCs travel with party members, but they almost never have the same range of abilities as an actual PC. At most you might stat out an NPC like a full PC for the duration of a single adventure or to provide some flavor - he travels with the PCs, participates in the adventure, and maybe even gets a bit of the glory. That's one thing.

Another thing entirely is statting out a character to run along with the PCs over the long term. Maybe he's always there, or perhaps he simply is a reoccuring feature of the campaign; in any case he is designed to be a full equal to the party in terms of the campaign - a Protagonist.

This latter version is what I'm talking about - and, to be honest, what I think Serp is talking about. I can see no reason to include such a creature in a campaign unless you, as the DM, feel the need to "have his cake and eat it too;" participate as a protagonist in your own story. I see too many pitfalls down that road to indulge in it myself, but for some groups (and some DMs) that may be just the road to take.

The special case of "I don't have enough Players" is something I don't have to worry about, but even were that to happen wouldn't it simply be better to make the "filler" NPC someone subordinate to the PCs rather than their equal? I don't mean like a slave or something; just someone who is there to do a job rather than weave a story.
Hopefully that cleared things up a little :smallsmile:

That's a good point. I would say the advantage to having a DMPC is that they often have more of an attachment, and therefor roleplay them better. Its also good if you take turns DMing, means the DM has his character up to date and waiting for him. But honestly most of all in my experience I've just seen DMPCs roleplayed bettered than NPCs.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's a good point. I would say the advantage to having a DMPC is that they often have more of an attachment, and therefor roleplay them better. Its also good if you take turns DMing, means the DM has his character up to date and waiting for him. But honestly most of all in my experience I've just seen DMPCs roleplayed bettered than NPCs.
Ha, probably 'cause the DM has more investment in a given DMPC than the host of NPCs he controls :smallamused:

For rotating DMs I support the idea of a rotating cast - don't send your PC on adventures you run. Been trying to get a SR3 game up and running with that idea, but my friends are not as keen on DMing as I am :smalltongue:

Personally speaking, all of the best NPCs I've experienced have been NPCs. They are repeat players, to be sure, but not once have I ever considered them a "member of the party" - they're simply allies or foes, or occasionally fellow travelers on the road.

Amongst my Players, they show the greatest affection for "The Boulder" - an NPC with less characterization than some bartenders I've made. They're rezzed him twice already, so I'm going to have to make something out of him, I suppose :smallbiggrin:

[valadil]

I... honestly can't think of any other reason to use a DMPC in a campaign, ever.

If I planned on running a highly isolated campaign I'd think about including a DMPC. What I mean by that is a game where the players where going to be away from potential NPCs for extended periods of time. In that case, I think adding someone else to the conversations would not be a bad idea.

[Serpentine]

Re. Terminology: From now on I'm using PC, NPC, and DMC - Player Character, run by a player, makes up the party; Non-player Character, a character which is part of the game-world, can be interacted with by PCs, but even if it joins the party for a while is not considered a full member; Dungeon Master Character, a character run by the Dungeon Master which is considered a full party member and is generally just the same as a PC in almost every meaningful way except the person running it.

Re. Getting rid of my DMC in a non-fatal manner: Alas, it's not really an option at this point.
1. She's exiled from her home and is just killing time 'til she can go back, which, as DM, I don't expect to happen for a long time. I suppose I could have her brother escape the city and drag her away for whatever reason (it's what happened to my last character when I first started DMing), but
2. We're on an entirely new continent far away from anyone who would actually know us.
3. She has a sense of duty to complete the task given to them, or at the very least to stay near the only other character at this point who came from the original continent and to protect her with her life. The only way she would abandon this other character is through death or if forced e.g. by being taken away. But
4. It is clear that she's such an institution, and the players are so inclined to investigate anything that happens, that if she was taken away by force, they would set out to rescue her.
I did have a couple of characters randomly whisked away by a mysterious figure, but that was under extreme circumstances involving break-ups and dramas and things, and also it made sense for the god of Chaos to grab those characters. And it's just plain cheap.

Re. DMCs are always always bad: Well, for starters, you're obviously wrong. But more specifically, my character is - and would be even if I were just a player - a backgroundy, followingy character with a simple personality and straightforward, easy mechanics; she is built just the same as any other character, with the exact same limitations and freedoms; she is low-optimisation, low-spotlight, low-maintenance.
I am as emotionally vested in this character as I am in just about any other, but that investment does not extend to keeping her alive at all costs, granting her unfair favours, and so on - as it does not for any of my characters. Hell, a lot of the time I love my characters at least as much for their flaws and weaknesses and failures as for their Crowning Moments of Awesome; the former, moreover, just makes the latter more impressive, and in one case with this character they were actually the one and the same moment (she was chopped in half! Vertically! That is so cool!).
One of my main concerns was a clash of niches with a new character, but the general consensus seems to be that this will be entertaining, not frustrating.
Most importantly, my players like her, and went out of their way to keep her in the game when I did my best to remove her for a number of reasons including the sort that you regularly bring up (rolling against myself, slower combat, etc).

Re. "well dones": Thanks :smallbiggrin: I feel a lot better about my decisions involving her, now.

edit: As long as I'm here, can you Dimension Door if you're bound and/or pinned? What about the Warlock version? Or the Shadowdancer one? Cuz I'm pretty sure that Rakshasa shouldn't've been that easy to catch...
Gorram Irresistible Dance -.-

[Earthwalker]

Firstly well done Serpentine I think it’s a major achievement getting your players invested in your DMPC, clearly the sign of a well run game.

For a lot of people it seems like what defines a DMPC is all the bad things about them. If you display all these bad traits then you are a DMPC and not a NPC and as such all DMPCs are bad. To be honest after reading all this thread I still aren’t sure what I think a DMPC is. Or rather I aren’t sure if I have ever used one or not.

I am going to give a couple of examples here as I think it might help with some issues people have stated.

In my current rune quest game, that has 3 players. The adventuring party has 5 characters, 3 PCs and 2 NPCs. The two NPC get equal shares on treasure and it being rune quest get plenty of skill improvement (happens naturally as there is no xp awards in runequest) when killed the party funds even paid for them to be resurrected. I don’t think of these two as DMPCs more just as NPCs. The reason I have two in the party is simple, it stops the “what shoud we do” effect.
If presented with a challenge and a friendly NPC one player in my group would always ask the NPC what we should do. Then basically carry out what they were told as it must be right the GM told me so.
With two NPC when ask I always give conflicting information (or rather the information I think each NPc would feel was important, or a plan they would prefer). It has helped a lot getting the player in question to think more what he (or rather his character) would want to do.

The second example is from an old DnD game with rotating DMs.We knew going in we were going to plan on keeping the same world and characters, the first proposal was for us to build a party of four characters, then when someone DMed then there character would still be there with the group. My plan was different.
I ran first and the other three players made characters. After a while the group found a small stone with a earth rune carved into it. When the character controlled by the other player that was going to DM touched it, it teleported him to a limbo plane and my character appeared (we both made clerics but of different gods). After a while his character reappeared. More stones were found and the other characters in the group managed to get duplicates held in limbo. Some players had the chance to play two characters (tho not both at the same time) me and the other DM would swap out characters in and out of limbo. Being in limbo you go to “feel” what was happening on the material plane and gained XP as your other half did. This meant the group was kept the same level but we always had a reason why his or my character wasn’t there.

[Psyx]

Seriously though, a true DMPC need only be liked by the Players to be successful.

I kinda disagree. Not only must they be liked by the players, but they must not be any hindrance to the game or the GM. If the GM is spending more time rolling for his pet character than the monsters, it's obstructive and it's detracting from the time that you're spending with your players. Every minute you spend playing with yourself is a minute less time that you're spending running a good game.



The Archivist isn't the Protagonist, he's just the guy who opens the Vault. The PC's are the ones who take the Weapons and use them to kick some evil ass, but the Archivist is plot essential. They can't open the Vault without him.
Which is why, if the players don't like the Archivist, you need some way to get rid of him, you need an exit strategy. Let there be another way to open the Vault, or let him teach one or more of the PC's how to do it.


See: To me, that's simply bad plot. The players should open the vault and 'claim' the satisfaction from completing that goal. Their tale: Their glory.
Now, perhaps only a certain key/scroll/ritual opens it and they NEED that, but the key to success shouldn't be an NPC unless you plan on having them have to bodyguard them against threats (which is still a bit lame, as bodyguard missions suck) or unless you specifically plan on throwing them a curve-ball by killing him before he does his job.
Additionally, if you make the DMPC essential for opening the vault, then you've just forced your players to work with him (even if they hate the character) and you've just pretty much told them that 'your' PC is indestructible. See: Bad plot.



Of course some people would argue that what I just suggested is a plot device rather than a DMPC.

If a DMPC isn't a plot device, they shouldn't be there. No NPC should just be along for the ride, because that basically translates as 'I want to play my own game'.

And... why would you give an NPC XP anyway, if you're not 'playing' him. You can't give yourself RP rewards. You're not fully contributing as a character, because if you were, you'd be kinda cheating...

[Serpentine]

I kinda disagree. Not only must they be liked by the players, but they must not be any hindrance to the game or the GM. If the GM is spending more time rolling for his pet character than the monsters, it's obstructive and it's detracting from the time that you're spending with your players. Every minute you spend playing with yourself is a minute less time that you're spending running a good game.The point of the game is to have fun. If the DMC is contributing to those players' version of fun, then it is successful. If it is not, then it is not.

[BridgeCity]

In the campaign I'm in now, our DM has a PC. He has never stolen the spotlight, never dragged us on a railroad, doesn't take any of the loot (he is independantly wealthy) and has become a valued member of the team.

In fact, we forced our DM to write some adventures that centered around the DMPC because we liked him and wanted to get to know his background better.

I say there are no bad DMPCs, just bad DMs.

[mucat]

Serp, clearly your players find that their characters' cleric friend makes the game more enjoyable, so that's all the justification you need for her presence. Seems like some folks are strangely dogmatic about what makes the game fun, and how having a close NPC associate automatically flies in the face of that. Fun is what makes the game fun, and the character you describe onviously passes that test, as far as the players are concerned.

I'm still not sure I'd use a label like "DMPC" or "DPC" for her. To me, such a character is a friendly NPC who travels with the party. The characters don't know she's an NPC, and it seems odd to enforce some sort of in-game wall on what an NPC will never do. If an NPC companion makes the game less fun, then sure, get rid of 'em...but that applies to any aspect of the game.


Re. Getting rid of my DMC in a non-fatal manner: Alas, it's not really an option at this point.

[reasons]
Well, as I said above, there's no reason you should get rid of her...but if a circumstance arose where you wanted to separate her from the party, short-term or long-term, it shouldn't be that hard. Just arrange so that two vital tasks need to be done immediately in different places...and for one of them, the NPC is clearly the right person for the job.

Hell, to make it less of an obvious ploy, have three urgent tasks, and make the players do a little detective work before realizing that one of them can be handled using some unique skill or social contact that the NPC possesses. Then they'll feel like they just won a partial victory, even though they have to separate from their friend for a while.




edit: As long as I'm here, can you Dimension Door if you're bound and/or pinned? What about the Warlock version? Or the Shadowdancer one? Cuz I'm pretty sure that Rakshasa shouldn't've been that easy to catch...
Gorram Irresistible Dance -.-
According to the SRD, Dimension Door (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dimensiondoor.htm) has only a verbal component. So if the Rakshasa could speak, or had Silent Spell and a fifth-level spell slot, then it could poof away from them.

[Serpentine]

Dagnabbit, she could've gotten away :sigh: But I negotiated my decision with the players, including the Warlock with whom I made it clear that whatever applied to the enemy, applied to him.
Not a Cleric, by the way, but a Kerniggit. She gets hit so the others don't.

[faceroll]

I have a friend who shows up very irregularly to sessions. He plays a human fighter. When he's away, which is about 19 sessions out of 20, the DM plays his character. The character gets an equal split of the loot (the character insists on it), and an equal share of the xp. The DM likes the character, as he is well built and well equipped and frequently splatters demon brains all over the walls. The DM will put items in the treasure specifically for the DMPC. Outside of combat, the DMPC will occasionally offer advice, direction, or initiative when the party is having difficulty making a decision. Our DM is very fair, though, and will always play the dice as they land. He rolls in the open, for everything.

No one in our group has ever had a problem with it, and frankly, I don't see what the big deal should be.

[Coidzor]

My players won't let me get rid of my DMPC.
Whut.

Well, that was badly managed of you.

Stabbed to death in bed, really? :smallconfused: Very surprised when I read you went that route.

[Serpentine]

Meh, it made sense for the enemies. They tried to rob her bloodlessly, but the party was too good and got it back. Their handler could bampf, among other things, and has a very wealthy, powerful and influential boss, so it would be simple to track down where they went. Bampf in, grab the shield, owner wakes up, stab her to keep her quiet, bampf out.

[hewhosaysfish]

edit: As long as I'm here, can you Dimension Door if you're bound and/or pinned? What about the Warlock version? Or the Shadowdancer one? Cuz I'm pretty sure that Rakshasa shouldn't've been that easy to catch...
Gorram Irresistible Dance -.-

To expand on what mucat said:

The Dim. Door spell has a verbal component but not somatic and so can be used when bound but not when silenced (or gagged).

The Shadowdancer's Shadow Jump is a Supernatural ability. Supernatural (and spell-like) abilitites have neither verbal nor somatic components and so can be used when both bound and gagged.

A Warlock's invocations are technically spell-like abilities but they do have somatic components (explicitly described as being an exception to the normal rules for spell-likes) but they don't appear have verbal components. So a Warlock could use Flee the Scene when gagged but not when bound -putting him in the exact opposite situation to the Wizard with Dim Door.

Note that Warlocks can technically use Baleful Utterance or Word of Changing when while under a silence spell. Isn't that groovy?

Thank you for your attention. You may now resume talking about the actual topic. :smallbiggrin:

[true_shinken]

As long as I'm here, can you Dimension Door if you're bound and/or pinned? What about the Warlock version? Or the Shadowdancer one? Cuz I'm pretty sure that Rakshasa shouldn't've been that easy to catch...
Gorram Irresistible Dance -.-

Dimension Door has no somatic components, so yes, you could use it while bound or pinned. Unfortunatelly, all Warlock's invocations have somatic components according to Complete Arcane, so Flee the Scene wouldn't work, as silly as it sounds.

[Serpentine]

Don't go yet! Would she have taken the ropes with her, remaining bound? They all decided yes...
I guess I'm just gonna have to get the Warlock bound at some point, so's it's not unfair.

[true_shinken]

Don't go yet! Would she have taken the ropes with her, remaining bound? They all decided yes...
I guess I'm just gonna have to get the Warlock bound at some point, so's it's not unfair.

No, you wouldn't take the ropes with you.
That said, a Warlock couldn't use Flee the Scene while bound anyway.