Well done DMPC's?

[pwykersotz]

A lot of people have major problems with DMPC's in a group because of all the terrible things DM's tend to do with them. Has anyone had positive experience using them?

I have an example that my players seem to like. He's a level 28 from another campaign I had named Trever Callichrest Gryphos. The name is an anagram for his other name/title. He's a level 5 sorcerer in my world because his power/experience has been sealed in his own staff and he doesn't know it. He refuses adamantly to cast any spell that doesn't use light in some way.

Yes this makes him the Sorcerer of Light. Yes it is based off THAT joke.

This leads to the party trying to convince him to help make their loads "light" and that teleport is really just turning everyone into light and then back, all sorts of fun stuff. They've even nicknamed him Magical Trevor because, well, everyone loves Magical Trevor.

Also, of note, he's the only member of the party who's died in this latest arc. Eaten by a black dragon...not a fun way to go. But the party still ponied up the resurrection cost just cause they liked the guy.

Anyway, anyone have other examples?

[Keinnicht]

My DMPCs generally don't have any character traits. They just exist to balance the party.

That said, this also means that they aren't super-Mary Sues that are better than the party at everything. I also fudge their rolls less often than I fudge the other players rolls'. They're also the ones I nail with energy drain attacks, because I don't want the players to get hit by those nasty things.

[Gnoman]

The (accidental) DMPC sorceress in my current campaign avoids overshadowing the group by the fact that the guy who originally built her chose poor stats, skills, and spells (He used CON as a dump stat), and gave her a very submissive personality.

[Godskook]

DMPCs are advised against carte blanche because of the many issues they can provoke, but I doubt anyone would say that they're "always bad".

Currently, I have an NPC that the party actually *TRIED* to make into a DMPC, despite my intentions for him becoming a LBEG. In a couple levels, when his damage isn't quite as impressive, I might let them have him back, but for now, he was dealing more damage via dragonfire inspiration than the party melee was dealing, and that was too much thunderstealing for my tastes. I let the party keep the archers though.

[Fox Box Socks]

In the short term, I've found that DMPCs are best used as a Sacrificial Lion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SacrificialLion); that is, their primary function is to die at an opportune time in order to stress the gravity of the situation at hand. After all, Aleena's main function was to get killed by Bargle, just so the party knows that Bargle doesn't mess around. Have them make a heroic last-stand offscreen, have them rush headfirst into danger and get slaughtered, have them split up from the party and singnal their death by their objective not being completed. However they bite it, make it sting for the party. A few examples that have worked for me:

- The party is working for a very powerful and very heroic patron. He's witty, he's charming, he has a strong sense of right and wrong, he has a cool sword, the party sees him effortlessly dispatch a few mooks, he's set up a network of do-gooders throughout the region, whatever. He's a hero. He hires the party to do...something, They complete their task and return for their reward only to find that his house has been ransacked, he's nowhere to be found, and the place is crawling with thugs. Suddenly, the adventure morphs from "do the ultra suave guy's bidding" to "save the ultra suave guy's ass from whoever wants him dead".

- The party is chasing down a secretive death cult. Accompanying them is a cleric of some sort of lawful bent (he worships Bahamut, St Cuthbert, Moradin, etc). The PCs are at the end of a hallway approaching the area where they believe some sort of foul ritual is about to take place. Suddenly, cultists start pouring out the opposite end of the hallway. The cleric screws up his courage and declares that he'll hold them off as long as he can before literally shoving the party through the door and locking it. The PCs take the fight to the cult leader, but as it drags on eventually banging begins on the opposite end of the door, and eventually cultists begin entering the fray. After the battle is over, the PCs find their ally's trampled corpse in the hallway.

- The party is attempting to collect on a bounty placed on a local hobgoblin warlord, and they are cooperating with an opportunistic and headstrong mercenary who has agreed to assist them. They lay siege to the hobgoblin's fortress (really an old abandoned military outpost), but as they approach the warlord's private chambers, the mercenary decides to increase his profit margin by taking the warlord's head himself. In the middle of battle, he bolts for the staircase. The party is stuck mopping up, so they can't follow. Once they reach the warlord's chambers, they see the mercenary skewered to the wall by his own greatsword.

That's how I use DMPCs. Make it obvious that while they're useful, they're not the main character in this story.

[MeeposFire]

In 4e some of the best DMPCs are lazy builds. A lazy warlord (lazy as they make other attack and normally do not attack themselves) will make the entire party better and he will spend his actions making actual party members do attacks so the party always feels awesome and the warlord is not seen as the power but as the initiator of their awesome. They work very well and without your party around them they are nearly useless so they never make your party feel bad.

[ShaggyMarco]

In the 4ed game I currently play, we have a really enjoyable DMPC--he's an Artificer and exists only to make the rest of us look more badass.

That's honestly the best kind of DMPC--a buffing, empowering, NPC that makes everyone else more awesome.

I played a Shifter-sub Druid DMPC in a Red Hand of Doom campaign I was a part in. The only time he overshadowed the PCs was in the one session I let a friend of ours who had moved away and was in town for a game session play him for a couple of fights aka when he was being played as a PC.

I also ran a DMPC in a Star Wars Legacy era game. Like Fox Box Socks said, I used him as a sacrificial lion. He was a Jedi Master, accompanied by his apprentice (1 PC) to find a powerful presence in the force (another PC) on Manaan. The presence turned out to be a hired gun for a wealthy gambler (another PC). The brother of the apprentice, an Imperial Knight (the final PC), found out the Sith were invading Manaan with the intention of taking the PC with the powerful force presence, so he warned his brother and the Jedi Master and helped get everyone off planet.

Of course, when they all arrive at the Imperial Knight's transport (It's a trap!), the Sith Lord commanding the sith invasion force is waiting for them. The Jedi Master goes down keeping the Sith Lord busy while the PCs escape/blow up the ship the Sith Lord and Jedi Master are fighting in.

[Zanatos777]

I have seen and used very well done DMPCs. The two most notable were a Germanic Barbarian (cannot remember his name right now) in a Classical era Hunter game and Addie a human sorceress (turned goddess later) who the party taught how to be human.

Germanic Barbarian (I really wish I could remember his name)
The Barbarian was initially a cohort who was...vastly overpowered to be a simple cohort (well maybe just in combat). We discovered that he knew several languages and was a combat beast (which was great for us cause we weren't). He had an honor code and tribal beliefs which made him interesting. The big thing with him though was that he wasn't a Hunter. For some reason he never got powers so he couldn't deal with the more potent supernatural stuff. Still he was totally awesome, went one on one with a were-shark. He didn't win but he did give us the time to set it on fire and drive it off. We then had to spend a week treating him so that he didn't die from his injuries (I think the Storyteller had meant to kill him but I wouldn't allow it with my medicine rolls).

Addie "82"
Addie (the one I used) was a 'human' sorceress who the players adopted into their party and decided to teach her to be human. Due to the setting she was raised to believe she was a weapon and wasn't a person (all of which was fine with her, it was how she was raised after all). The party decided they didn't like that (it was the norm for sorceresses in the setting) and made a huge deal about helping her. They even started (OoC) identifying what aspect of Addie's family they symbolized (Father, Mother, Uncle, Brother) and such. One character actually gave up his whole revenge sub-quest (totally changing who the BBEG was and the direction of the game) to help her. It probably also helped that she acted as the party spellcaster since no one else was.

In another game we had only two players with two other NPCs who shifted in and out (we generally had a party of four but who the other two were would change). All these characters were clearly DMPCs but they all were extremely likable characters who we felt an emotional connection to.

DMPCs can be done well but it is extremely difficult. The main thing is that the players like them. I have found it helps if they are about as powerful as the other PCs, otherwise they are mentors or allies not party members. Also they should treat the PCs like people. There is nothing (almost nothing) worse than a character the PCs are supposed to like or work with but treat them terribly.

Examples of poor DMPCs (both from the same game oddly enough)

Centaur (again don't remember the name, its been like 10 years)
This character was one we encountered while...actually I don't remember how just that he had a connection to nature. He was an extremely respectful character who treated us with respect and was helpful. We were happy to bring him along to help us fight the ridiculously overpowered vampire we needed to defeat for really no reason. This guy sounds great doesn't he? that was all the first session he appeared in.

The next session? He started treating us like crap. Literally throwing his own excrement at my character for no reason. We couldn't get rid of him though because he was cosmically important (like all of us, which the DM kept telling us). He lost all pleasant qualities and replaced them with...childishness.

Bird (yeah that was the character name)
Worse than the centaur. Yeah, this character was just as cosmically important as the Centaur but didn't even enter the game with redeeming qualities. She was a psionist (2nd edition so broken as all get out) which would have been great but she refused to help us. She was explicitly evil, stupid evil (She may have had a good alignment though as this DM though an Orwellian state was Lawful Good, still does) and we couldn't kill her because she would immediately know we were planning to and would easily kill us. She did kill our allies sometimes for kicks. The centaur at least amused the other PCs (at first until it became clear the DM wasn't joking) but this character was horrible. The DM of course thought she was the best thing ever.

Okay examples of good and bad. Does that help?

[Yora]

DMPCs are advised against carte blanche because of the many issues they can provoke, but I doubt anyone would say that they're "always bad".
I have yet to see a good reason why any game should have a dmpc at all. A rogue and a fighter can go adventuring as a perfectly working and effective party. The gm just has to make the adventures according to the abilities and resources the party has.

[mangosta71]

When I slip DMPCs into the party, it's always on a temporary basis and only for the purposes of a quest. They do not speak for the party, and I try to keep them out of any combat that the players engage in unless they need backup (because I miscalculated the challenge or something goes horribly, unexpectedly wrong).

[Tvtyrant]

I have yet to see a good reason why any game should have a dmpc at all. A rogue and a fighter can go adventuring as a perfectly working and effective party. The gm just has to make the adventures according to the abilities and resources the party has.

I don't see why you would need to mass ban them either. Having to find a "good reason" implies that they are inherently bad and you have to overcome that to make them "good." While they can be abused in the game I don't see and inherent reasons they are bad.

[Godskook]

I have yet to see a good reason why any game should have a dmpc at all. A rogue and a fighter can go adventuring as a perfectly working and effective party. The gm just has to make the adventures according to the abilities and resources the party has.

1.There is a fairly wide range of possibilities between "always bad" and "no good reason".

2.Tossing in a support DMPC to avoid having to reconfigure game balance is a fairly compelling reason. There are GMs who are just able to run the modules as written, and they shouldn't be expected to have to figure out how the adventure should be run without a healer or skillmonkey, for instance.

[Gnaeus]

I don't see why you would need to mass ban them either. Having to find a "good reason" implies that they are inherently bad and you have to overcome that to make them "good." While they can be abused in the game I don't see and inherent reasons they are bad.

I would prefer the term "never justified" to "always bad". Even the best DMPC is a minefield of potential problems, including (but not limited to) taking away spotlight from PCs, taking away game time rolling dice against yourself, bias in favor of the DMPC, perceived bias in favor of the DMPC, railroading, having to take sides if the party has a disagreement, etc. I wouldn't go so far as to say that every DMPC should be killed on sight, but I would say that I have never seen a DMPC whose role couldn't have been handled with less risk with another method.



2.Tossing in a support DMPC to avoid having to reconfigure game balance is a fairly compelling reason. There are GMs who are just able to run the modules as written, and they shouldn't be expected to have to figure out how the adventure should be run without a healer or skillmonkey, for instance.

Good example. Easily fixed with gestalt. Easily fixed with magic items. Easily fixed by rewriting sections of adventure that call for a trapsmith, for example, or just by not running a trap heavy game in a group without a skillmonkey. All of those things have less pitfalls than DMPCs.

[Godskook]

Easily fixed with gestalt.

Gestalt isn't an easy fix.


Easily fixed with magic items.

You mean by breaking WBL? How much change in WBL should this theoretical DM have, considering, as per the listed example, he doesn't have enough game knowledge to adjust the module in the first place.

Once that's settled, how is he going to decide what items are appropriate for his group? Where are these guidlines?


Easily fixed by rewriting sections of adventure that call for a trapsmith, for example, or just by not running a trap heavy game in a group without a skillmonkey. All of those things have less pitfalls than DMPCs.

And now you're blatantly ignoring the premise of my example. The DM in the example wasn't able to rewrite the module, so suggesting that he rewrite the module is missing the point.

[Gnaeus]

Gestalt isn't an easy fix.

You mean by breaking WBL? How much change in WBL should this theoretical DM have, considering, as per the listed example, he doesn't have enough game knowledge to adjust the module in the first place.

Once that's settled, how is he going to decide what items are appropriate for his group? Where are these guidlines?

None of those fixes are ideal, but they are all way less problematic than DMPCs. DMPCs risk ending games and friendships. If you mess up WBL, you just give more or less treasure in later encounters to fix it. Any DM who lacks the judgment and rules knowledge to fix WBL certainly doesn't need to be playing with dynamite like a DMPC.



And now you're blatantly ignoring the premise of my example. The DM in the example wasn't able to rewrite the module, so suggesting that he rewrite the module is missing the point.

Why can't he rewrite the module? That's part of being a DM. I can't think of any reason a DM couldn't rewrite a module that wouldn't also suggest that a DMPC is dangerous in his hands.

Edit: maybe if he is running a game in a living campaign where the module was set in stone by the rules. But I think in those cases he probably can't play a DMPC.

[Smeggedoff]

A previous dnpc in my current game ended up somewhat in the spotlight despite being designed to heal and buff the party and being controlled by a random PC each week (whoever turned up late that particular week).

She accomplished this by having the uncanny ability to have a free turn available to fire her crossbow just as any particular monster entered single digit hp :-/

She also one-shot the vampire boss of an adventure... twice, thanks to the sun domain and some flukey turn undead rolls.

...

Ok, and she had hot pink Armour and spoke with a valley girl accent, but I don't see what that's got to do with anything :P

[pwykersotz]

I suppose this would be a good time to note that Trevor in my universe has no "need" to be there. True the group doesn't have an arcane caster, but they don't need one for what I'm setting them toward.

I brought him in for one game as a throwaway character, and (despite having no idea that he was powerful at all) my party asked him to join. They liked his personality and the quirks he had.

Now, as with all the characters, he's got a lot of backstory that is rich with plot hooks for the PC's to explore. Or he could die. Either way, he's amusing to keep around for now. It also lets me play while GM'ing. I have to change my mindset and ask myself, "If I only knew as much as the PC's, what would I do?" but it's a ton of fun and a good challenge.

[Knaight]

I wouldn't classify that as a DMPC. Its an NPC who happens to travel with the players, which is an entirely different case, particularly if they were never even a planned companion.

[pwykersotz]

I wouldn't classify that as a DMPC. Its an NPC who happens to travel with the players, which is an entirely different case, particularly if they were never even a planned companion.

Hmm...

I get what you're saying, but he is in fact me. My character, raised from level 1 in another game, and I'm playing him as that same person. If attempting to play him in a balanced fashion that doesn't kill the game for my players makes him just an NPC, well then I'm very mistaken about the meaning of the term.

I do concoct awesome scenes in my mind where he does something incredible, but I make sure to hold off. Where's the fun in beating everything? I can already do that without a character. It just takes my hard work to make a solid encounter and says, "Ha, see, if you had DM powers you could do this!"

Edit: I didn't make note of what you said about the "planned party member" bit. He was planned as a person in the world, just not as a more active adventurer. I have, however, turned him into one. If he didn't start as DMPC, he is now."

[valadil]

The best DMPC I ever saw was unintentional. It was an NPC that traveled with the players. When the NPC tried to leave the group we complained until he stayed.

[olthar]

I've never intentionally put a DMPC into a game, but it has happened. My group was never one that was into hirelings or anything like that, but a few times they've gone to a tavern and been like "we're looking for x." They would never tell me when they were doing that, but each time I'd give them a chance that 'x' was there and may actually want to go adventuring with them. In over a decade of dm'ing it happened twice.

my DMPCs
I always have made my DMPCs essentially the same as the other characters except that they are one dimensional. So they have the backstory, plot hooks, issues, and rolls that everyone will have, but as far as personality goes they have 1 dimension. This allows the players to pretty much know what the character will say in a given argument.
The thief DMPC they picked up once was as greedy as they get so any time there was the potential for more money they knew he would advocate getting more money. They'd ask and he'd answer. Eventually they stopped asking (so I had to interject his wishes which they already knew). They were disappointed when he died because he was easy to deal with.
The 2nd DMPC was his replacement. To spice it up I gave him the exact same personality, but instead of keeping the money for himself he would always give it away. They liked him even more because he didn't care about keeping the money.
Both times the character was played straight in fights and they even went down one of the first guy's plot hooks (my attempt at having the character removed), but the players didn't mind because they felt like he was a member of the party.

So DMPCs can be ok, but you need to resist the urge to actually play the character. You're playing everyone else in the world. Save your creative energy for the thousands of npcs who have lives outside of their 10-second interaction with the characters. Instead of having the king give them a quest to the captured princess from the evil ogre and nothing happens except for that, have other parties interested. The king wants you to save the princess because the other kingdom may try and do so and take her hostage after, and the king's chancellor doesn't like you guys so he sends another party after it against the king's orders, but another dude in the court knows this and squeals to the king so that when you get back the king is kind of busy executing his chancellor who was plotting against him.

Be interesting and creative for that stuff, put in a DMPC if and only if the party needs (read: wants) it and then don't go crazy with it.

[AslanCross]

The only DMPC I ever ran was once a PC, so she wasn't an especially optimized Mary Sue that I inserted into the party to make everyone feel insignificant. The player had to quit due to academic issues, but simply having her disappear wasn't really something I wanted to do, since the party depended a lot on this PCs' character for roleplaying (they were all beginners and were still a bit awkward), so I kept her around to kill her off in the PCs' first encounter with an LBEG. It worked out quite well.

I think as long as the players understand the purpose of the character as a means to an end (and I do stress as to an end, meaning she doesn't hang around forever to look pretty) and not as a DM's pet, a DMPC is acceptable.

[Jjeinn-tae]

My forte for DMing is solo campaigns, and they tend to drift into a Fire Emblem style of build an army of flavorful characters, these have almost universally gone over well for my players. Even in larger games, I have tended to allow them if the players are going out of their way to acquire that sort of ally, but I tend to prefer contacts in groups larger than 2 players.

I really think the key is to have the characters be likable sorts, and give them at least one major failing stat-wise, that although allowing them to contribute positively to combat, prevent them from overshadowing people, but boosting party members is good as well.

Some examples from an Eberron solo campaign, used as an introduction to Eberron.

Cael AnonThe player was a Warforged warrior of Cyre, the intro had "him" fighting the forces of Karrnath, Cael was part of the Valenar reinforcements that I decided were in this battle. The battle was during the Day of Mourning, and the player decided to live peacefully in newly founded Valenar for a couple years before Cael came in and dragged him off into adventure.

Frankly I think I lucked out with him working, his ideas were to get an airship, and acted as leader of their two person crew for the brief bit while the warfoged decided to make something of himself in a way the warforged were meant to. From the point the warforged took the name Cyre (yes, it took him 2 years to decide he needed a name) Cael provided an unshakingly loyal ally who was able to help put the tactical conditions that Cyre requested into the field when they were needed (being an illusionist). Were this a duo campaign even, he wouldn't have worked at all.


Arden A huge improvement of an ally over Cael, frankly, Arden was a cleric of the Silver Flame who got tied in with Cyre when his third and final chance to officially be among the clergy brought him to the pub that Cyre decided to get a job defending. Arden was insistent on using the standard equipment of the Silver Flame's militant clerics, a Longbow, and a Chainmail Shirt, his strength was 6 which didn't make that particularly effective, but he had a drive to become an exorcist, and Cyre spent quite a bit talking to him.


From those two, looking back at that, I really think they only worked because my player enjoyed the roleplaying aspect, I've played several campaigns with this one, and he's said that this was his favorite campaign, mainly because of those DMPC's.

Even with my success of using them, I would hazard against using DMPC's, I they take a lot of work, and I really think it requires a special brand of player (and a well played DMPC as well) to actually have them be an enjoyable addition to a campaign.

If you do use a DMPC, give them something they need to do. It's unrealistic to assume Joe the Fighter can spend all his time fighting alongside the party, he has a life too, and will need to bow out occasionally, if not only with the party once in passing. Cael's place was along the player's in those two, there many DMPC's in Cyre's army there, but they were accrued over a long period of time, and all had to duck out occasionally except for Cael and one other early one, all the others had their own affairs to deal with, which is probably another thing that really made them work.

[DragonOfUndeath]

I am currently in a 4th ed campaign with a possible DMPC
we are in a small town that was a city before a horde of orcs razed it.
We defended a brothel from a shadow wolf and the second-in-command joined up with our Ranger (bow-focused) to hunt the summoner while the rest of us hunted down the wolf which had survived us. Captain something (we renamed him Sir Jerkas* cause he hates adventurers) is gonna join us with the ranger next session. The Rogue (me) is planning on using him as a Meatshield(tm) while we fight the Wolf. If he survives we (even the paladin {Yay Bluff Checks:smalltongue:}) are gonna get him to pick up the Gold Coins (500gp) from the altar to the Raven Queen (evil in this setting) inside the cave where the wolf resides. Doing so makes 100 Stone Ravens (homebrewed swarms) peel of the wall and attack the thief (We know this cause I picked it up)

tl;dr: We have a DMPC City Guard that hates adventurers, is a meatshield and has a plot going to kill him for our personal gain.

He is a character you love to hate. We actually want him to survive so we can continue to cause him bodily harm and plot his demise. We love his existence but not him.

[Tvtyrant]

None of those fixes are ideal, but they are all way less problematic than DMPCs. DMPCs risk ending games and friendships. If you mess up WBL, you just give more or less treasure in later encounters to fix it. Any DM who lacks the judgment and rules knowledge to fix WBL certainly doesn't need to be playing with dynamite like a DMPC.


What. If a group is so volatile that a DMPC is "playing with dynamite" then they are going to have a lot more problems then just the DMPC no matter what is done. Honestly, "End friendships"??

And I don't personally feel you need to justify a DMPC at all. If a DM wants one they can have one; they do 90% of the work, why would I need to find justifications to allow them to enjoy it the way they want? Now, if something goes wrong like the allow themselves Planar Shepard at 3 levels higher then the party yes you are justified in putting a stop to it, but the justification should be case by case in getting rid of it, not case by case for it.

[Fhaolan]

This discussion shows up every 6 months or so. It usually ends up firmly divided between two sides who cannot agree as to what a DMPC actually *is*, with a few individuals throwing insults and demanding that the other side change their way of having fun because they are 'playing D&D wrong'.

Any example you cite of a DMPC not being a cataclysmic failure cannot be a DMPC by the definition of the anti- side because it will be 'just a normal NPC'. Any example you cite of a DMPC being a cataclysmic failure is not a DMPC by the definition of the pro- side because 'they are not being treated as a PC'.

I recommend that you just assume that this happened, and go on with your life. It's not like you are going to change anyone's mind with examples pro- or con- because both sides are fairly firmly entrenched at this time. The argument has been going on for *years* now.

[AslanCross]

None of those fixes are ideal, but they are all way less problematic than DMPCs. DMPCs risk ending games and friendships. If you mess up WBL, you just give more or less treasure in later encounters to fix it. Any DM who lacks the judgment and rules knowledge to fix WBL certainly doesn't need to be playing with dynamite like a DMPC.


While I agree that DMPCs are problematic, I'm not sure I agree that the ego-stroking of a DM or the misunderstanding of the DM's motives are "playing with dynamite." There must be some serious hangups in people who never speak to good friends again just because a DMPC was introduced, even if the DMPC was introduced badly. It's probably happened, yes (like how marriages can break up over items in an MMO), but I don't necessarily think these are the norm.

I think if the DM communicates the necessity of the DMPC just fine and stresses that it's a temporary measure, the group should have no reason to get angry, let alone end their friendship with the DM.

[Vknight]

My experience with DMPC is that it can be done right or horribly.

Examples

Jester; Anti-Hero & Joker copy cat befriended the party & was a useful addition supplying the guy with skills in everything. He was funny & enjoyable the players enjoyed him & kept the game going.

Jester (After a power Transfer from a character that was equivalent to Darkseid fused with Galacticus, Power wise he is a good guy)
This was the parties idea to save his life. One encounter later & Jester was gone searching the universe to experiment with his powers. (Kicked him out realizing what had happened)

[Serpentine]

DMPCs are advised against carte blanche because of the many issues they can provoke, but I doubt anyone would say that they're "always bad".It has been stated with exactly those words, insisted upon, and even claimed that any DMPC that is NOT bad cannot therefore be a DMPC at all.

I recently tried to remove my DMPC from my game for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I was about to have several new characters join the party one of whom has a very similar niche to my character. My players insisted that she stay, so I let her. That isn't to say that she's immune from death or that she won't have reason to leave at some future date or anything, it just means I won't go out of my way to get rid of her.
When I introduced her at the start of my campaign it was mostly just because it was standard practice - the DM in all the games I'd played had a character in the party. I made sure, though, that she was a fairly backgroundy character. I removed my previous PC, a loud, wild, slighly crazy tiefling Ranger, and replaced her with a subdued, follower-personality, simply-motivated, easy-to-roleplay Knight.
At the time, most of the other characters were squishy caster-types. For most of my game this has been especially true because the player of the dragon-hunting Fighter had to leave the game for real-life reasons.
My DMPC's job is to get hit so that the others don't. This does tend to result in more rolling-against-myself than I'm comfortable with, but every time I've talked to my players about it they seem more than happy for those dice to be rolled against myself rather than against them. I'm considering just giving my character always-average rolls to save time, but that removes the possibility of critical fumbles which, although it also prevents critical successes, doesn't seem fair. Maybe I'll just make her always deal average damage, instead...
Anyway, this Knight is a shield-bashing axe-wielding Lawful Good dwarf. One of the new characters in my game is a shield-bashing dungeoncrashing Lawful Good human Favoured Soul. Rather than stepping on his toes, like I expected, my party enjoys the comraderie and contrast between the two characters.
So, basically, my group likes my DMPC, I'm well and truly concious of the pitfalls of that type of character, and she is overall a benefit to the game. In fact, the player who had previously expressed a preference against DMPCs was the very same character who saved her life and took the lead in insisting she stay.

Overall, I understand that DMPCs can be "dangerous" and that many DMs have abused them. However, I believe that if a DMPC is restrained by the same rules and guidelines as any other character, doesn't step on the toes of other characters, doesn't overshadow them, and is enjoyed by the players, then there's no reason at all why it shouldn't be allowed in the game.

[Theodoriph]

After thinking about my experiences with DMPCs (both as a DM and a player) I've found DMPCs them to be ok as long as the following guidelines are followed.

1. Avoid Tier 1 and strong Tier 2 classes if possible.

2. Don't optimize. This is very important if you're violating rule 1 and playing a cleric. ;)

3. Ideally, be a support character.

4. Don't take a share of the wealth. Have your DMPC get "treasure" from other sources. Maybe he goes on a solo sidequest one day when you don't think the PCs will need him and he finds some new armor. Yes you can claim that because the DMPC makes the monster's ECL higher by raising the average party level, the wealth gained is greater and so it evens out...but in the minds of players, it doesn't. Just reduce the wealth gained by the DMPCs share and have the players split it.

5. Avoid having your DMPC provide advice and avoid the tendency of the party to seek advice from him. If the party forces your hand and wants an opinion and having him claim that the party needs consensus is silly in the specific case, roll a die openly (1-10 yes, 11-20 no or, 1-2 Suggestion A, 3-4 Suggestion B, 5-6 Suggestion C). That way they know what he says doesn't come from you.

6. Don't be seen and be heard as little as possible.

7. The DMPC has no alignment. He is equally comfortable putting himself at risk for the sake of others as he is burning down orphanages depending on what the party wants.

8. Have the DMPC be a part of the story in some way. This gives him some legitimacy for being there (E.g. You've answered the king's call for adventurers to slay the evil X. The King's son is tired of palace life and sneaks off to adventure with you) and often provides you with interesting plot options (E.g. If the Prince becomes ill from a monster's poison or disease and/or dies).

9. Be comfortable with the idea of the DMPC dying.

[Serpentine]

1. Avoid Tier 1 and strong Tier 2 classes if possible.Sure, UNLESS it's a particularly high-powered party, and/or with low optimisation. Basically, it's safer to have a lower-tier character, but the goal is to be half a step behind the rest of the party (never so far back as to be useless or a liability).

2. Don't optimize. This is very important if you're violating rule 1 and playing a cleric. ;)As above. Don't optimise in comparison to the rest of the party. I'm pretty, well, anti-optimisation in my games, anyway, so that's not an issue.

3. Be a support character.Yes, although exactly what a "support character" is can vary. My dwarf, for example, is a melee damage-dealer. That isn't really a support character by most standards. However, as most of the party is squishy casters, she "supports" them by taking the blows for them.

4. Don't take a share of the wealth. Have your DMPC get "treasure" from other sources. Maybe he goes on a solo sidequest one day when you don't think the PCs will need him and he finds some new armor. Yes you can claim that because the DMPC makes the monster's ECL higher by raising the average party level, the wealth gained is greater and so it evens out...but in the minds of players, it doesn't. Just reduce the wealth gained by the DMPCs share and have the players split it.Again, depends on the group. My players have no problem with my character taking her share of the treasure. Most of it ends up in the "party loot bag" anyway - I actually have a bit of a problem with my players not getting too excited about the treasure :/

5. Avoid having your DMPC provide advice and avoid the tendency of the party to seek advice from him. If the party forces your hand and wants an opinion and having him claim that the party needs consensus is silly in the specific case, roll a die openly (1-10 yes, 11-20 no or, 1-2 Suggestion A, 3-4 Suggestion B, 5-6 Suggestion C). That way they know what he says doesn't come from you.I've made it clear that any advice coming from my character is coming solely from that character, not from me. Once they asked her opinion on whether they should head into the dragon graveyard straight away even though the sun was setting, or camp outside of it and head in the next day. As DM, I wanted them to go in straight away (a Big Event was meant to happen that night, and they kinda needed to be there). My DMPC, however, being a sensible sort, preferred to stay on the rim.

6. Don't be seen and be heard as little as possible.This one I can't agree with. A DMPC that isn't seen nor heard nor interacted with may as well be a set of magic items. A DMPC should tend to be in the background a bit and shouldn't take priority over DMing, but it should still have a role in the party outside of combat.

7. The DMPC has no alignment. He is equally comfortable putting himself at risk for the sake of others as he is burning down orphanages depending on what the party wants.Another one I strongly disagree with. Every character has an alignment, and so should the DMPC. The DMPC, unless that would make for an interesting story, shouldn't try to dictate the alignment of the party and, as with most/many characters, should fit into the party's morality and goals (even if it's just a charade), but they should still have his own opinions, history, ethics, goals and feelings.

8. Have the DMPC be a part of the story in some way. This gives him some legitimacy for being there (E.g. You've answered the king's call for adventurers to slay the evil X. The King's son is tired of palace life and sneaks off to adventure with you) and often provides you with interesting plot options (E.g. If the Prince becomes ill from a monster's poison or disease and/or dies).Yes, as much as any other character, really. In my DMPC's case, she was the one who fetched the party for the quest-giver and was sent along with them.

9. Be comfortable with the idea of the DMPC dying.Probably a bit more than with an ordinary PC, yeah.

[Fiery Diamond]

The best DMPC I ever saw was unintentional. It was an NPC that traveled with the players. When the NPC tried to leave the group we complained until he stayed.

This happened to me, too, except I was the DM. She was a rogue and not very good in combat or able to do that much socially, since she was an undercover princess. She was supposed to tag with them for the first story arc, which turned into an escort mission for her once they figured out who she was, and then leave. When she tried to leave, they gave her all kinds of reasons why she shouldn't until she agreed to stay.

[Gnaeus]

What. If a group is so volatile that a DMPC is "playing with dynamite" then they are going to have a lot more problems then just the DMPC no matter what is done. Honestly, "End friendships"??


Honestly. I have been gaming for more than 25 years, in a number of cities all over the US, and I have seen it happen, with DMs who I otherwise considered good DMs, more often than I like to remember.

I honestly believe, based on my own experience, that there are no safe DMPCs. There are only DMPCs who haven't blown up the game YET. There are just too many hidden traps involved. Yes, they can be an effective tool. In my experience and belief, there is always a less problematic tool for the DM to get the same result.

[Gullintanni]

This one I can't agree with. A DMPC that isn't seen nor heard nor interacted with may as well be a set of magic items. A DMPC should tend to be in the background a bit and shouldn't take priority over DMing, but it should still have a role in the party outside of combat.
Another one I strongly disagree with. Every character has an alignment, and so should the DMPC. The DMPC, unless that would make for an interesting story, shouldn't try to dictate the alignment of the party and, as with most/many characters, should fit into the party's morality and goals (even if it's just a charade), but they should still have his own opinions, history, ethics, goals and feelings.


I think Theodoriph's school of thought is that DMPC's should be treated like hirelings, rather than characters. This perspective regarding DMPC's is usually the result of the philosophy that the DM should not EVER be steering the adventure from the PC side of the table, so in order to prevent that, the DMPC's thoughts, feelings, opinions etc. should be minimized.

I tend to agree with that particular school of thought. If I include a DMPC, I tend to assign it to fill a missing party role. I also tend to have that character assigned by some patron who advocates that the party could use the help. This mandate requires the DMPC to place the success of the party above his own goals and ambitions, and so allows the DMPC to be overridden consistently.

The problem addressed by this is the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when a DM gets to influence party decisions in their own game. The PC's will always be wondering whether or not any recommendation made by the DMPC will be based on metagame knowledge. Most good DM's can avoid actually doing this in practice, but the goal is to foster the appearance of legitimacy for the players sake.

That being said, if the PCs actively encourage the DMPC to share in the roleplaying then appearances be damned, and just do what's fun :smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

This mandate requires the DMPC to place the success of the party above his own goals and ambitions, and so allows the DMPC to be overridden consistently.Doubly covered in my DMPC, which is every part a fellow character and not an inch a hireling: first in the fact that she was given the same original task as everyone else and that she has found herself in the same predicament with the same goals; and second in her personality, which is fairly submissive - well, not quite, but I can't think of a good word for "she's more of a follower who takes the lead of others than a leader" - and very much geared towards looking after the needs of others before her own.

The problem addressed by this is the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when a DM gets to influence party decisions in their own game.I just plain don't *shrug* If the party asks her opinion, I'll give them HER opinion, but she has no more influence than any other party member.

The PC's will always be wondering whether or not any recommendation made by the DMPC will be based on metagame knowledge. Most good DM's can avoid actually doing this in practice, but the goal is to foster the appearance of legitimacy for the players sake.I believe I've succeeded in this. And I think it's best if they keep wondering, so that they'll weigh the advice on its own merits rather than who it comes from (unless, I suppose, the character has gotten a reputation for giving particularly good or bad, in-characterwise, advice).

That being said, if the PCs actively encourage the DMPC to share in the roleplaying then appearances be damned, and just do what's fun :smallsmile:I fully intend to :smallwink:

[Gnaeus]

That being said, if the PCs actively encourage the DMPC to share in the roleplaying then appearances be damned, and just do what's fun :smallsmile:

My answer to this is that it is often very difficult to actively determine the PC's feeling regarding the DMPC.

If a player brings a new PC into a game, and asks me what I think of his character, I am really unlikely to say "he sucks. He makes the game worse. Kill him and start over with something totally different", unless it is truly awful.

If a DM asks me if he is a good DM, I will usually spin things in a positive light. I might offer suggestions, but I am never going to say that his game is bad unless I am about to leave, and even then I might not.

Criticizing a DMPC is like criticizing someone as a player AND as a DM. Many players will not give an honest answer. If all the players are actively encouraging it, there might not be bad feelings yet. But if a player is silent on the issue, there is a good chance that they really don't want it, but are too afraid/polite to say so.

[Gullintanni]

My answer to this is that it is often very difficult to actively determine the PC's feeling regarding the DMPC.

If all the players are actively encouraging it, there might not be bad feelings yet. But if a player is silent on the issue, there is a good chance that they really don't want it, but are too afraid/polite to say so.


This is why I personally try to limit my DMPC to not much more than a placeholder. I usually let the PC's order the DMPC around...within reason of course. I won't let the DMPC cast spells that require xp costs or use his WBL for their own gain..

But ultimately I try to err on the side of caution and do Nothing with my DMPC's that he is not explicitly instructed to do. Roleplaying should, in my mind, be left to the PCs. The DM should stick to the villains and various NPCs.

That's my approach though, and it generally suits my games pretty well. Obviously that's not everyone's experience. Like I said, if everyone pulls for the DMPC to take more of an active role (and I've never seen it in any of my games), then I'd take that into account when I played the DMPC.

[Sipex]

I have a DMPC in my 4e game right now for a few reasons.

1) I wanted to play. I'm not going to lie, I wanted to play D&D, I've never played but I could never find anyone who wanted to DM. The only time I got a group together they needed me to DM.

2) It was my first time DMing and I was following the standard 'party build' as suggested by the PHB. My PCs had filled all the roles except leader so I took it and made a cleric because I had no idea how the party would survive without one. This also put us at 5 players (which is also the recommended number).

3) My party won't let him leave. I've become more confident in my DMing abilities and realised I can have just as much fun DMing as playing but they like him too much. He's now part of the team and they don't want him to go.

That said, they seem to love the way he's run so I'll give some tips to running a good one based on how I run mine.

- Have a close, understanding group. I'm serious, this seemed to be the biggest factor for me. The fact that all the people I play with are close friends helps A LOT, they're far more understanding than a pick-up D&D group might be since they already know me.

- Play a role which doesn't overshadow the PCs. I play a Buffing/Healing cleric. None of the other players buff or heal so I fill a substantial role and they all get to do their thing.

- Offer your opinion as your character, often only when requested but interject if it's a case where everyone is weighing theirs in. For example, my guy is a Lawful Good cleric of Bahamut played as a bit of a stereotypical dwarf. This helps me figure out what his opinion should be on various situations if it's required. If the party wants to torture someone I'll usually disagree (even if it would work) because it's not good. They tend to buy me off with booze to level it out.

- Leave the more serious roleplaying and shining moments to the PCs.

- If you have PCs who are major loot lovers then make it clear that you, as the DM, balance out loot distributed by the number of people in the party. Therefore, losing the DMPC does not equal more loot.

- Same goes for experience.

[Serpentine]

My answer to this is that it is often very difficult to actively determine the PC's feeling regarding the DMPC.

If a player brings a new PC into a game, and asks me what I think of his character, I am really unlikely to say "he sucks. He makes the game worse. Kill him and start over with something totally different", unless it is truly awful.

If a DM asks me if he is a good DM, I will usually spin things in a positive light. I might offer suggestions, but I am never going to say that his game is bad unless I am about to leave, and even then I might not.

Criticizing a DMPC is like criticizing someone as a player AND as a DM. Many players will not give an honest answer. If all the players are actively encouraging it, there might not be bad feelings yet. But if a player is silent on the issue, there is a good chance that they really don't want it, but are too afraid/polite to say so.First of all, I dislike your use of the word "yet". My current campaign has been going on for about 3 years now - granted there's only been a handful of games in the last year. My DMPC has been in it from the beginning. The campaign before this one, from which mine led, also had a DMPC and lasted for about 2 years. If my DMPC was going to go bad, it would have done so already. If it DOES end up going bad, then that's because of changing circumstances. Doesn't make the last 5 years any less successful.
Now, regarding criticism. I point-blank asked all my players how they felt about my/DMPCs in general. I got two positive responses, a couple of "doesn't bother me either way"s and one "would prefer without, but don't really mind". I kept her. A few months later when I tried to remove her, they ALL expressed a solid desire to keep her in my game, not least the one previously negative response. If they secretly despise her and think I'm a terrible DM for keeping her, then it's their own damn faults for lying to me about it, and I don't think I can be blamed for assuming that if they didn't want her then they'd tell me.

I like Sipex's guide to playing a DMPC more than the previous views.

[Gryndle]

I honestly think theissue of DMPC's being bad is blown way out of proprotion by a vocal minority that have their own personal bias vs. the concept.

I've played every version of D&D/AD&D, and from the very first group, I have had a DMPC.

In the first true campaign, the entire group of six people rotated DM'ing duties. And each one of us had a character.
Two of us did all the world-building, but everyone ran a character, and shared DMing.

From that point on I have always had a DMPC. And literally only twice in the past 25+ years have I had any players express concerns about it.

In both cases these were new player's coming into an ongoing game with the same "DMPC's always bad, no justification whatsoever" close minded attitude that we can see in some of the above posts.

It should also be noted that both of those players had several ongoing issues with other long-term members of the group, are no longer with us, and are not missed.

[Nero24200]

In both cases these were new player's coming into an ongoing game with the same "DMPC's always bad, no justification whatsoever" close minded attitude that we can see in some of the above posts.


It's not really close minded. I've noticed that alot of the "anti-DMPC" voices come from players who say they've seen them done badly in game, whilst most of the "pro-DMPC" voices come from DM's who like using them.

I'm in the "anti-DMPC" group as someone who has spent alot of time as a player. If done well, they add little to the game. But the reason why I'nm in the "anti" group isn't because of what happens when they're done well, it's what happens when they're not.

You can say "they work fine in my group" all you want, it's when they don't work that's the problem. At the end of the day, they're not something that's needed to make a game run and cause alot of problems when used baddly, so why take the risk? I'm not speaking from someone who has had one DM, I've had quite a few DMs, all with different styles.

[Maxios]

In every campaign (be it in Dungeons & Dragons, or Toon, or DC Adventures, etc.) I DM, I have a DMPC. My DMPCs have never over-shadowed the party (Even Bat-Dog in a Toon campaign, who had over 10 Shticks). Though, I largly forget about them when I DM, only remembering them every couple rounds

[hamishspence]

The impression I get is, the less "PC-ish" the DMPC is, the less chance there is of the players having problems:

If they:

Tend to take a back seat in social interactions
Tend to support the party in a fight rather than being heavy hitter
Tend to follow the lead of the rest of the party
Tend to take a minimal share of the treasure (or, in some cases, no treasure at all)

Then- player resentment tends to be minimal.

[Sipex]

Well, this is a simple case of Good DMPCs come from good DMs and Bad DMPCs come from Bad DMs.

Many players won't see the advantage of a DMPC as, often, they have to grow an attachment to them. If you feel the DMPC is part of the group and not an evil spy for the DM or 'just another NPC' then it provides player benefit, otherwise it will not.

A DMPC's best benefits are mainly to the DM. It allows the DM to keep a player perception, balance encounters (ie: my example where I was new and everything was balanced with a leader), feel involved in player tactics and give a possible outlet for more storytelling.

[Gnaeus]

Well, this is a simple case of Good DMPCs come from good DMs and Bad DMPCs come from Bad DMs.

Nonononononono. I cannot stress this heavily enough. No.

Certainly, in the hands of a bad dm, a DMPC is a nightmare. No one likes the godlike, unkillable mary sue who leads the party around by the nose and wins all the important fights single-handed.

But.

DMPCs can cause lots of problems stemming from player outlook which are not the fault of the DM. A DM may not be biased towards the DMPC, but if the players perceive him as being biased, it is almost as bad. A DM may not be metagaming, or railroading through the DMPC, but the perception that he is doing those things is almost as bad. The DMPC may prefer one PC to another for good, logical in-game reasons, but the perception that the DM is favoring one PC over others is almost as bad as actual bias. Maybe a player has in character reasons to plot against the DMPC, but doesn't want to do it, because he knows that the arbiter of the assassination attempt is the DM.

Also, the Good DM/ Bad DM is a false dichotomy here. There are lots of people who are OK DMs, but the DMPC makes matters worse. For example, I wouldn't call a person a bad DM just because their combats lag, but adding an additional PC under the DM's command makes things run even slower, and takes away more play time from the pcs. I once found myself in a game where all the PCs had been knocked unconscious in a big fight, the DMPC happened to be the last one left standing, and we all sat there while the DM rolled dice against himself. He wasn't a bad dm, but that was not fun. I don't even remember who won, but I remember being pissed off.

Then there are issues like metagaming, because the DM has lots of knowledge that players don't have, that even good DMs can have to wrestle with. If you, the DM, know the monsters weaknesses, or where the traps are, it is very difficult, even for responsible DMs, to totally segregate that knowledge from the DMPC without nerfing him at the same time.

I cannot stress this enough. There are lots of ways these things can malfunction. Just because the DM is not a power-mad control freak does not mean that significant problems will not result.

[Angry Bob]

DMPCs can work in theory, but.

I once played in a campaign that illustrated every argument that's been made against DMPCs - he dragged the party around, had LA +5 but earned XP as though he were LA +0, in addition to being a level ahead, one-shotted new characters that he didn't trust, took the lion's share of the supposedly randomly generated treasure that was always best on him, and took damage maybe once the whole time. Then he died, ostensibly because of complaints about him, and in the same session the campaign ended with a TPK.

Lessons learned:

First: He did fill a gap the party needed, but the DM went about it in entirely the wrong way. In another campaign with the same group, we shanghaied an NPC cleric that served as a healbot and a source of RP for the new player for a few sessions until we found a wand of CLW and parted ways. Oddly enough, the player that ran the game with the other DMPC was one of the guys that insisted the cleric leave.

Second: The DM was too lazy to tone down the encounters in the modules he used, or even just use lower-level modules. If you know or have been shown that the players won't survive without the help of an overpowered DMPC, consider the possibility that you might be doing something wrong.

Conclusion: Everyone wants to play some kind of superpowerful abomination. Yes. Even you. When you DM, adding your own character to the party seems like the perfect opportunity. Thing is, the campaign should already have interesting, engaging, superpowerful abomination characters: They're called villains.

[true_shinken]

In the short term, I've found that DMPCs are best used as a Sacrificial Lion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SacrificialLion)
Thanks, there goes my night...
Why did you link?! *shakes fist*

[Erik von Nein]

Ah, DMPCs. I try to avoid them for many of the reasons people pointed out already, but occasionally they can be funny or the party will like them for some reason.

There was one in a game I played in a while back named Fayla. Poor Fayla, just some female elf ranger who the party collectively called "Failya" (no particular reason, it was just amusing) and who was assigned a drinking problem. Oh, Fayla never drank, but every time the DM insisted she didn't have a drinking problem we'd just all go on about how it was denial masking her true problem. She eventually became a vampire, but got better at the end of the campaign.

Then there was Ben. Oh, sweet Ben. The tale of Ben is a rather long one, but it's better to have a short version.

See, this was back during the first D&D game I ever really ran. The game started out in a non-magical world where all the PCs were part of an army (yes, I know, shockingly original). Two of the PCs were playing monks and they got along well enough. Eventually, while traveling, they'd do various acrobatic tricks and see if the NPCs (2nd level warriors, all of them) were impressed. I told them a couple were, including one who became an instant fan, namely Ben.

Eventually the party and their escorts came across a group of enemy calvary. Seeing as all they had were bows, longswords and a bunch of PCs they decided the best course of action was an ambush. So, they took to the hills nearby and got themselves hidden. Ben decided to hang out near one of the Monk PCs and the Monk PC gave him orders (shoot the first thing that comes by, so complex). The calvary fall into the ambush and Ben, first attack roll EVER, crits one of the calvary off his horse and into the negatives. Ben, thinking this was because of the Monk PC's brilliant planning is incredibly impressed. Oh, but gets better.

The battle goes on for a couple more rounds with not too many casualties on the PCs' side until the Monk PC who Ben loved was taken down by one of the Calvary just before the remaining three run away. Ben, seeing his new friend go down, flies into a rage heroically leaps unto a horse (20), reigns it in (20), and pursues the enemy in fit of vengeance.

That was Ben's luck for the rest of the campaign. He was constantly 2 levels lower than the party, had 12 wis and 14 dex, took all his remaining levels (after the two of warrior) in monk and critted the crap out of every creature and skill check he ever made. Not only that, but everything that attempted to attack him was struck with a bizarre jinx that caused Ben to be untouchable. I intentionally tried to get Ben killed or possessed and the party's response was to do all the could to save him.

The campaign went world hopping almost immediately after the calvary ambush, but once they returned home Ben was put up to negotiate peace between the countries (as the party had discovered stable portals between the worlds) and, predictably, did so without breaking a sweat. Eventually, the magical world was invaded by Formians with the party having to kill the Formian Queen. "What happened?" you may ask? Obviously Ben, barely damaged by the few AoE spells the Queen launched, LEAPED OFF THE CEILING and bashed the Queen's stupid face in.

Talk about unintended consequences.

Ben's luck was so legendary in our gaming circle that one of the PC's from that game made a cleric devoted to Ben. This after writing a song with another of the PCs entitled "The Ballad of Ben."

If I were playing I might have considered the character a Mary Sue protected by DM fiat, but I was running it! I tried to kill him off! He was a warrior 2/monk 9 by the end of the game with terrible stats!

[AslanCross]

This is why I personally try to limit my DMPC to not much more than a placeholder.

I think this is pretty much what a DMPC should be. A stopgap measure, not a fixture of the campaign.

[Fiery Diamond]

Let's see...my experiences...

Okay. I've played in 4 games, two of which were 1 on 1, all by the same DM. He never used a DMPC, so I can't say I've ever experienced it from the perspective of a player.

I have run 6 games, half of which didn't last long because of scheduling. Of the other half, 2 had DMPCs.

The first one with a DMPC was one of the earliest games I ran, and I did it to round out the party, to make there be 4 characters, and because I wanted to play. I treated him like a PC, though he was the first to die. While he didn't really cause any problems, I think I handled him poorly. I count him a failure.

The second one with a DMPC was my longest-running game (it lasted over 3 semesters). She's the one I posted about above. As I said, the players loved her. She was a success.

The next campaign I ran had no DMPC. I discovered that the game ran no more smoothly or less smoothly than the previous game. I learned that I had gotten a little too dependent on my DMPC for guiding the players so that they weren't just sitting there waiting for something to happen, so I was glad not to have a DMPC as it helped me relearn certain DMing skills. I loved both games, as did my players.

I agree with one poster above who said: a bad DM with a DMPC is horrible, a good DM with a DMPC who has players that don't like DMPCs is a disaster. You have to have a good (or at least perceived that way by the players) DM AND players who are not biased against DMPCs from the get-go, and then you have a chance of things working out. It's a risk with lots of unknown factors, but it isn't guaranteed to be bad.

[CakeTown]

We have a well done DMPC in our 4e game. He's a wizard named Biggles, and he originally started off as a client for our mercenary guild. The DM knew that every one of us was new to D&D, and in order to help us out at first, he created Biggles. Biggles accompanied us for the first bit of our adventures, and originally annoyed some of us while entertaining others. He eventually ditched us after we had explored the dungeon he wanted us to, but he neglected to pay us first. Naturally, everyone was pissed off, and we raced to track him down. Eventually we found him in the town we started in, where he claims that he completely forgot about paying us. He then rewarded us with various things. The most important was a pigeon that the party cleric adopted as a pet.

That was the last we saw of him during our heroic tier, but when we started our paragon tier, one of our main objectives was tracking him down(apparently he had gone missing during the two years(in game) that had passed). At some point, my character acquired the use of guild spies, and I sent 2 of them to attempt to track down Biggles. They had not yet returned when we headed to a dungeon where the BBEG was supposedly at, and I had kinda forgotten about the spies. When we reached the BBEG, he managed to escape through a portal, and we were overwhelmed by an army of devils that were constantly pouring in through the portal. Before any of us ended up too badly hurt, the ceiling caved in, and Biggles and the 2 spies appeared in a burst of pigeons. Biggles closed the portal, and then they joined the fight. I noticed that he seemed to like pigeons a lot, so I asked the DM out-of-game if all his spells were pigeon based. The DM thought that was a great idea, and Biggles ended up casting spells like "Pigeon Missile" and "Spectral Pigeon".

Biggles currently travels with us, but he's accompanied by 2 other DMPCS. These ones aren't so good, and they're only with us because 2 of our players wanted them with us(our guild leader wanted one because he's powerful, and our cleric player wanted the other one because he's based off Captain kirk, and the player is a huge Star Trek fangirl). I have a feeling they won't be with us too long, as the DM was complaining that he hated rolling against himself.

Biggles is still good though.

[Gnoman]

I never *plan* to have a DMPC, but I invariably end up with at least one, because the group loses a player with a vital PC (only spellcaster, for example), so I take it over, then they won't let me retire it once we fill (or overfill) that slot.

[elpollo]

Can't... not... comment...

Out of interest, all those DMs whose players "refuse to let the DMPC leave": are they trying to keep the character or the role? If you showed them that role was not needed, would the DMPC still be?



In both cases these were new player's coming into an ongoing game with the same "DMPC's always bad, no justification whatsoever" close minded attitude that we can see in some of the above posts.

And "people who don't like DMPCs have a close minded attitude" is not a close minded attitude towards DMPCs?


There seem to be several arguements towards DMPCs. Balancing the group is one, and if you're running a published adventure it is certainly easier to make a character than change every encounter. Wanting to play is another. "My players won't let me not have a DMPC" is a favourite. I don't think any of these reasons are valid.

As I suggested at the start, the first and third reason are really the same. If the party doesn't have a thief, or a healer, and they think they need one, is it better to have a DMPC or to fail when that role becomes necessary? I suspect that a lot of DMPCs are put up with because players think that if they don't then they'll lose out (i.e. they will face the same challenges minus one of their resources).

For the record (if it's not immediately clear), I'm totally against DMPCs. I wouldn't avoid playing under a DM who used one, but I've been fortunate enough to have avoided such circumstances, and would certainly suggest that it's not necessary. No role is necessary. No class is needed. DMPCs, regardless of how you play them, take some of the players' time and resources, which I consider to be a bad thing. They can offer plot hooks, but so can NPCs, and DMPCs are more likely to make players feel forced down a specific path, which I consider to be a bad thing. They can offer help, but magic items, weakened encounters, or even player controlled cohorts offer the same thing without players feeling as if the DM is taking the limelight. DMPCs interacting with a DM's stuff is never fun for the players, regardless of whether that's talking to NPCs, fighting badguys or sneaking around places.

At the end of the day, if you want to play a character find someone else to DM, even if that means using the internet. You control the entire world bar the four or five characters in the party - why have you gotta start intruding on that too?


edit - also, having players share the DMing role and not having your character disappear the week you DM is not the same as having a DMPC join a party that you regularly DM for.

[Erik von Nein]

It was a party of six-to-seven in my case and the DMPC was really horribly built. It was his luck and naivete that saved him more than anything I was intentionally doing. Hell, his role ended up being "Well, can Ben roll high enough?" As well, he was a DMPC on accident. He was just another generic warrior meant to escort them in the beginning. The party wouldn't let him go, literally. I tried killing him, fer crying out loud.

A DMPC isn't always a bad thing if the players like 'em well enough. Especially if they're idiotically lucky and a complete accident.

[Serpentine]

Conclusion: Everyone wants to play some kind of superpowerful abomination. Yes. Even you. When you DM, adding your own character to the party seems like the perfect opportunity.No, I don't, and know, it isn't. As a player and a DM I prefer the PCs to hover around the Tier 3 level. It would be fun to have a super-duper-extra-extremely powerful game, but not as a long-running "serious" campaign. I like characters to be flawed, and to have to rely on each other. And when I made my DMPC, I went out of my way to make sure she's even less optimised than I usually would - her horse drowned, for crying out loud!
No, I have absolutely no interest in playing "some kind of superpowerful abomination". Not as a player, not as a DM, not for my DMPC. Maybe as my villains, but I wouldn't expect the party to come into close contact with them very often.
Out of interest, all those DMs whose players "refuse to let the DMPC leave": are they trying to keep the character or the role? If you showed them that role was not needed, would the DMPC still be?My DMPC is a Lawful Good dwarven Knight who hacks people up with her axe, bashes people with her shield, and tries to get hit so that the other characters don't.
One of the new characters is a Lawful Good human Favoured Soul of Inti (a Pelor-like god who emphasises strength and authority) who bashes people into walls and things with his oversized shield and is so big, tough and dumb that he's more than willing to take blows for other characters.
These characters are very similar in role.
Soon after the new character was introduced I contrived to have my DMPC exit the game. They unanimously decided that she should stay.
So, to answer your questions in order: No, apparently yes.


The point that many of the nonanti-DMPC people are or have been DMs with a DMPC has been brought up before. I don't think it's really all that meaningful a point. Most of us are or have been DMing and Player before, right? A person who is against DMPCs is probably going to be against them whether they're a player or a DM, and won't use them as a DM. Many of us who are not against DMPCs are probably not going to be against them whether we're a player or a DM - or, rather, will judge them on a case-by-case basis - and are more likely to use them as a DM. All the "people who like DMPCs are DMs who use DMPCs!" statement indicates is that people who are okay with DMPCs are more likely to use them than people who are not okay with DMPCs, which is pretty much self-evident.

[Gamgee]

I often have to have a DMPC to round out the group, but I try to have him in a spot that won't overshadow the groups activities. Off and on in various years and games I've occasionally had to. Even one long term, and I have never gotten any complaints.

Plus its handy to "suggest" something to the players and get them to go in a direction if they are otherwise lost. Although only if they are completely stuck and clueless as to what to do. Other than that treat him like a normal NPC try and give him a personality.

Edit
What I want to know is why the hell do you people care? Just go and have fun doing whatever. Hell the rules are more guidelines than anything if the DM so dictates. Whatever maximizes fun.

[Gnoman]

Can't... not... comment...

Out of interest, all those DMs whose players "refuse to let the DMPC leave": are they trying to keep the character or the role? If you showed them that role was not needed, would the DMPC still be?


In my case, it's the characters. In my current campaign, for example, I kept a PC on as a DMPC because we had no arcane casters except one bard, and she was a sorcerer. The party now has two other primary casters, both of which are vastly more powerful in every concievable way (the DMPC has mostly utility spells, with a few summons. Her only real offensive weapons are Magic Missile and Fireball. Did I mention we're level 11(ish) now?). But they've grown attached to the character, and don't want me to remove her.

[Sipex]

Can't... not... comment...

Out of interest, all those DMs whose players "refuse to let the DMPC leave": are they trying to keep the character or the role? If you showed them that role was not needed, would the DMPC still be?

Definitely. If we got a new (PC) healer tomorrow they'd insist on letting my character stay because "We like pissing him off, having drinking contests with him and we like playing with you as a player."




And "people who don't like DMPCs have a close minded attitude" is not a close minded attitude towards DMPCs?


There seem to be several arguements towards DMPCs. Balancing the group is one, and if you're running a published adventure it is certainly easier to make a character than change every encounter. Wanting to play is another. "My players won't let me not have a DMPC" is a favourite. I don't think any of these reasons are valid.

As I suggested at the start, the first and third reason are really the same. If the party doesn't have a thief, or a healer, and they think they need one, is it better to have a DMPC or to fail when that role becomes necessary? I suspect that a lot of DMPCs are put up with because players think that if they don't then they'll lose out (i.e. they will face the same challenges minus one of their resources).

The first reason is usually the excuse that gets the DMPC in the group in the first place.

The last reason is what makes DMs like us (who hear that our way of DMing is bad bad evil and we're horrid people for this feature) keep the DMPC when we inevitably try to remove them because we seem to care what people on the internet think for some reason.


For the record (if it's not immediately clear), I'm totally against DMPCs. I wouldn't avoid playing under a DM who used one, but I've been fortunate enough to have avoided such circumstances, and would certainly suggest that it's not necessary. No role is necessary. No class is needed. DMPCs, regardless of how you play them, take some of the players' time and resources, which I consider to be a bad thing. They can offer plot hooks, but so can NPCs, and DMPCs are more likely to make players feel forced down a specific path, which I consider to be a bad thing. They can offer help, but magic items, weakened encounters, or even player controlled cohorts offer the same thing without players feeling as if the DM is taking the limelight. DMPCs interacting with a DM's stuff is never fun for the players, regardless of whether that's talking to NPCs, fighting badguys or sneaking around places.

This is fine, a DMPC simply wouldn't work for any group containing you (unless you're willing to settle if the rest of the group disagrees). Again, this is greatly dependant on group. My group is made up of close friends who don't have the prejudice carried on these boards.

I will point out we play 4th edition though which requires very well co-ordinated players to play without a leader (and a lot of tweak work by the DM too). While this can be argued as "You should be up to the challenge if you're willing to DM." nobody can honestly put that on someone who volunteers their free time without pay or written contract to run and create a game. Gaming should be about all parties agreeing on a way to have fun.


At the end of the day, if you want to play a character find someone else to DM, even if that means using the internet. You control the entire world bar the four or five characters in the party - why have you gotta start intruding on that too?

edit - also, having players share the DMing role and not having your character disappear the week you DM is not the same as having a DMPC join a party that you regularly DM for.

This is your opinion and it will vary from group to group. Some people don't have the option of a reliable internet game (I didn't, all I could get were PbP games which died after a few weeks).

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean your way is right but similarily doesn't make our way right either.

[Jayabalard]

Out of interest, all those DMs whose players "refuse to let the DMPC leave": are they trying to keep the character or the role? If you showed them that role was not needed, would the DMPC still be?Usually the character, but sometimes the role (in the case of a healer that noone wanted to play).


I honestly believe, based on my own experience, that there are no safe DMPCs. There are only DMPCs who haven't blown up the game YET. There are also no safe PCs, DM, or salsa dip either, just PCs/DMs/Salsa that hasn't blown up the game yet. Everything about an RPG involves some measure of risk; if you want to avoid risk, then the only winning move is not to play.

Personally I don't find DMPCs to be any more risky than the players. YMMV

[Gnaeus]

The last reason is what makes DMs like us (who hear that our way of DMing is bad bad evil and we're horrid people for this feature) keep the DMPC when we inevitably try to remove them because we seem to care what people on the internet think for some reason.

Who said that? No one in this thread that I can see. I would compare use of a DMPC to excessive speeding. The risks (having an accident, getting a ticket) outweigh the rewards (getting where you are going 5 minutes faster), and the goal can be met by other, safer methods (leaving 5 minutes earlier, avoiding rush-hour traffic). I wouldn't say that someone who speeds is "bad bad evil" or even that they are a bad driver. But it isn't really a good idea and I may not want to ride in a car with them.

To expand the analogy, the DMPC who is godlike, 4 levels over the party and leading them around by the nose is like the driver driving 120 per hour in a 65. Sure trouble. The back of the party support DMPC run by a responsible DM is like driving 80 in a 65. Its probably safe enough today. You probably won't get a ticket today. But just because you didn't get in trouble today doesn't mean you won't be pulled over tomorrow.


I will point out we play 4th edition though which requires very well co-ordinated players to play without a leader (and a lot of tweak work by the DM too). While this can be argued as "You should be up to the challenge if you're willing to DM." nobody can honestly put that on someone who volunteers their free time without pay or written contract to run and create a game.

You could always make the leader and put it under control of the players. Or let one or more players play 2 PCs. Yes, it is a bit more burdensome on them, but you are running all the monsters, after all.

[Jayabalard]

Who said that? No one in this thread that I can see. I would compare use of a DMPC to excessive speeding. The risks (having an accident, getting a ticket) outweigh the rewards (getting where you are going 5 minutes faster), and the goal can be met by other, safer methods (leaving 5 minutes earlier, avoiding rush-hour traffic). I wouldn't say that someone who speeds is "bad bad evil" or even that they are a bad driver. But it isn't really a good idea and I may not want to ride in a car with them.
Depends on what you mean by excessive speeding; for example, driving around Atlanta on I285 going the speed limit (55 mph) seems more dangerous to me than speeding by far: most of the traffic is moving bewteen 70 and 80 or faster; I usually drive 75 or so when I'm on and people are still blasting past me.

Besides, the increased risk from excessive speeding negligible compared to the risk involved with getting on the road in the first place.

[Sipex]

Who said that? No one in this thread that I can see. I would compare use of a DMPC to excessive speeding. The risks (having an accident, getting a ticket) outweigh the rewards (getting where you are going 5 minutes faster), and the goal can be met by other, safer methods (leaving 5 minutes earlier, avoiding rush-hour traffic). I wouldn't say that someone who speeds is "bad bad evil" or even that they are a bad driver. But it isn't really a good idea and I may not want to ride in a car with them.

To expand the analogy, the DMPC who is godlike, 4 levels over the party and leading them around by the nose is like the driver driving 120 per hour in a 65. Sure trouble. The back of the party support DMPC run by a responsible DM is like driving 80 in a 65. Its probably safe enough today. You probably won't get a ticket today. But just because you didn't get in trouble today doesn't mean you won't be pulled over tomorrow.

Analogies always work out badly because they never exactly fit the situation. That said, nobody directly said it was 'bad bad evil', but I can tell you that anyone here who's run a DMPC has regretted it simply because the opinionated on this board (or in person) have told them that they should and that's wrong in my books.


You could always make the leader and put it under control of the players. Or let one or more players play 2 PCs. Yes, it is a bit more burdensome on them, but you are running all the monsters, after all.

These are possible, but would require a set of players who want to do it and a DM who doesn't want an excuse not to play (we've already brought that up, everything is an excuse to get the DMPC when you really want to play too). Wanting to play isn't a bad thing, that's why you have players, because people want to play.

These options are tricky though and require the right party (like DMPCing) because you have to trust that the person (or persons if rotating) who gets control of the extra PC won't misuse them and abuse the extra power and exposure. In fact, even if you're 100% certain that those in charge of the extra character will handle them properly (and they confirm it) you still need to hope that the rest of the group doesn't get bored/upset/resentful that another player gets...essentially, double the exposure/dicerolling/playtime as the rest of them, even if it's cycled through in an attempt to be fair people may still get jealous because there's always that risk when dealing with people.

That got kind of long but my point is you need the right people to have it work and so it has it's own sets of risks. You've made it abundantly clear that in your group this would be the situation you prefer but that's because it's what works for you and not necessarily the 'right' or 'better' way.

[Gryndle]

It's not really close minded. I've noticed that alot of the "anti-DMPC" voices come from players who say they've seen them done badly in game, whilst most of the "pro-DMPC" voices come from DM's who like using them.

I'm in the "anti-DMPC" group as someone who has spent alot of time as a player. If done well, they add little to the game. But the reason why I'nm in the "anti" group isn't because of what happens when they're done well, it's what happens when they're not.

You can say "they work fine in my group" all you want, it's when they don't work that's the problem. At the end of the day, they're not something that's needed to make a game run and cause alot of problems when used baddly, so why take the risk? I'm not speaking from someone who has had one DM, I've had quite a few DMs, all with different styles.

Why take the risk, you ask? because it DOES add enjoyment to our group. Keeping our DMPC's involved in the world (but in the background) prvides consistency to the party when we rotate DM's.

And having a character I run when I am primarily the DM adds to MY enjoyment and fleshes out the party. ANd when the DM is having fun, the group will also have fun (unless said DM is a jerk).

When a DM is NOT having fun, no matter how good a DM he may or may not be, the group WILL suffer for it eventually. Even if only due to loss of creativity from lack of enjoyment on the DM's part.

And I would argue that any stance on pretty much any topic that uses ALWAYS and NEVER, without factual support, is by defintiion close-minded.

[Angry Bob]

No, I don't, and know, it isn't. As a player and a DM I prefer the PCs to hover around the Tier 3 level. It would be fun to have a super-duper-extra-extremely powerful game, but not as a long-running "serious" campaign. I like characters to be flawed, and to have to rely on each other. And when I made my DMPC, I went out of my way to make sure she's even less optimised than I usually would - her horse drowned, for crying out loud!
No, I have absolutely no interest in playing "some kind of superpowerful abomination". Not as a player, not as a DM, not for my DMPC. Maybe as my villains, but I wouldn't expect the party to come into close contact with them very often.My DMPC is a Lawful Good dwarven Knight who hacks people up with her axe, bashes people with her shield, and tries to get hit so that the other characters don't.


Point conceded. I won't accuse of Stormwind Fallacy, because you seem reasonable. When I said "everyone", I meant everyone I've ever played D&D with, plus myself. Sorry I didn't word it that way in the first place. On the other hand, If the players tend to scry the villains a lot, even if the villains do catch on eventually, they can becomes interesting characters in their own right.

Ever scry two "best friends" arguing over who has to summon Dalmosh to cover the other's escape? That'll take some work on the part of the DM. It might even be pretty cool to watch.

[pwykersotz]

It's not really close minded. I've noticed that alot of the "anti-DMPC" voices come from players who say they've seen them done badly in game, whilst most of the "pro-DMPC" voices come from DM's who like using them.

This is actually pretty insightful. I've seen both in my brief foray into D&D. Both of my GM's use DMPC's currently. The first (and my first GM ever) is the actual primary deity of the plane. He uses it to keep the adventures largely consequence free for the party. It can be annoying at times, but fortunately when we informed him we'd like him to be a lot less heavy-handed, he acknowledged the point.

My second GM has his DMPC much more in the background. He's one of the 'adventurers who came before' and whose path we're following. The guy is pretty ridiculous in terms of power, but it creates a lot of adventure hooks for us. No problems with that guy at all.

Then of course, I've already posted about Trevor.

From my own perspective and from a number of these posts, including the numerous ones by Gnaeus, I'd say it looks like player trust is the big thing here. It seems to be a very special group that likes these, but when they do it's usually done well enough that they REALLY like them.

I do disagree when someone says the DMPC's are inherently bad though. It seems to me that, like any game element, it depends on who you're talking to. I currently GM for a Rules Lawyer, a hardcore roleplayer, a player who honestly doesn't care much, and a newbie with a serious teamwork problem. It is freaking hard to make a game that they all like. I have to throw out a lot of elements that I personally love because one or more of them wouldn't abide by it.

Since my DMPC is one of the things they all seem to agree on being a good thing, I'm going to call him a win for the time being.

[Gnaeus]

Depends on what you mean by excessive speeding; for example, driving around Atlanta on I285 going the speed limit (55 mph) seems more dangerous to me than speeding by far: most of the traffic is moving bewteen 70 and 80 or faster; I usually drive 75 or so when I'm on and people are still blasting past me.

Funny, I find that when I get on I285 my speed is usually closer to the single digits. Still, I'm pretty sure you understood what I meant.

[Kaldrin]

To make a good DMPC I follow two simple rules:

1. The PCs are the heroes. Spotlight. On. Them.
2. Use them to role-play or be soundboards for the PCs.

I've used plenty of them and never had a single complaint, even when I misjudged an adventure and had to use one as a deus ex machina to turn it back a bit.

An example:

A fanatical priest of the trickster god. He was great at being the clueless good guy in a group of shady adventurers and often put an unwitting wrench in the more dark intentions of the crew.

The group loved him. Hell, they even stopped to pick him up and run with him, since he was so slow, when the party was being chased by titans. I never upstaged the heroes with him. I never used his powers to do anything but help the plot along and to aid the party when they needed it. He also provided a great counter to the devious mage of the party who always wanted to do morally grey things.

[Doug Lampert]

Out of interest, all those DMs whose players "refuse to let the DMPC leave": are they trying to keep the character or the role? If you showed them that role was not needed, would the DMPC still be?

Both NPCs currently with the party are there specifically because the PCs recruited them and formally asked them to join. And this happened over two years into the campaign, I think I can safely say that they know that they can function without them and that they want the NPCs with the party.

Since I see no possible way to distinguish an NPC of power comparable to the PCs who travels with the PCs and gets a full share of the treasure like a PC and gets an equal voice in party decissions to a PC from a DMPC this means I know my players wanted DMPCs, because they went out of their way to create some.

It also means that my group KNOWS they can live without the DMPCs and want them anyway.

As for roles. Niether DMPC fills any role not filled better by a preexisting PC.

[Serpentine]

When I said "everyone", I meant everyone I've ever played D&D with, plus myself. Sorry I didn't word it that way in the first place.You said "everyone... Even you." So yeah, you did word it badly.

[tahu88810]

In our upcoming interlude to our regular campaign, I will likely feature a DMPC. He will be a dwarven blacksmith (the entire party will be composed of dwarves), and, if separated by the party (because we split the party often), absolutely no time will be spent focusing on him. At least not during the actual session. I might run a simulation of what happened in private, though, if he gets separated and eventually rejoins.
When the dwarves take their little mental trip to the very very past, his elf counterpart will be a bowyer.