DMPC's

[Draconi Redfir]

Is it possible to do them right?

I'm asking becasue i'm working on a game for me and some of my buddies to play together, and i'm hopeing to have a PC paladin be the main antagonist to the undead player party. i'm just worried i'll do something wrong and ruin the game for the players. Any advice?

[Shades of Gray]

Antagonists should have class levels (unless they're a monster)

A DMPC is more when a DM also plays a character in the party.

[SuperFerret]

Antagonists should have class levels (unless they're a monster)

A DMPC is more when a DM also plays a character in the party.

What he said.

And DMPCs can and do work. I originally put one in (also a paladin) in order to give the aimless PCs some direction (not recommended, but they were mostly new to the game) and to provide them with another meatshield. In the course of running the game, I wasn't roleplaying the DMPC all that much, so he became this sort of quiet, subdued father figure that all the players liked (even before I really liked the character).

So the DMPC can work if they're in a more subdued role when it comes to the story. Don't worry, you're the DM, so you get to do really cool things to the players.

(Also a well-loved DMPC is a good target if you feel that the PCs aren't being threatened enough.)

[Glimbur]

I agree with what Shades of Grey said.

If you don't mind a little soapboxing, what bothers me about DMPC's (that is, DM controlled characters who wander around with the PC party) is the risk of them removing player agency. One of the beautiful things about pencil and paper RPG's is the freedom. In a computer RPG, you can only do what the game designers allowed you to do. You can't unmask the Vizier's plans too early, or call on other nations for help, or other reasonable plans which were not thought of ahead of time. A pnp RPG allows the players to have agency: they can do what they want. There are, of course, consequences, but if you want to streak at the Royal Wedding you can. The problem with a DMPC is that, poorly run, they can lead the party by the nose and remove their agency. If the game stops being interactive it stops being fun.

[SuperFerret]

Double post. Sorry.

[DabblerWizard]

DMPCs don't have to be agency-removing all-powerful meany faces.

I once introduced an apprentice wizard for part of a session. He was young, exceedingly excitable, naive, and completely useless in combat. However, he sold the players on his Draconic language skills, which came in handy. If anything, the PCs had to look over him like parents looking after a child. Once they got back from the adventure, they paid his ridiculously low fee of one gold, and were done with him.

I used this DMPC to insert some lightheartedness into the story. I think good game play includes a healthy dose of fantasy stress, but not so much that the game is a burden. So, on a regular basis I would add pauses in the intrigue to slow the characters' lives down a bit, let them catch their breaths, etc.

[Yukitsu]

I tend to find that they have no point at best, and they're certainly a detriment when done wrong. I have no idea why a DM controlled PC would be required when a much more typical NPC would suffice instead.

[SuperFerret]

I have no idea why a DM controlled PC would be required when a much more typical NPC would suffice instead.


As a sort of backseat booster to help newer players get comfortable.
Necessary in the case of a game with rotating DMs.
To allow those of us who are the designated DM most of the time to have a little bit of PC-only fun.


Basically any type of character that would hover between Lead Actor and Supporting Role.

[Solaris]

I tend to find that they have no point at best, and they're certainly a detriment when done wrong. I have no idea why a DM controlled PC would be required when a much more typical NPC would suffice instead.



As a sort of backseat booster to help newer players get comfortable.
Necessary in the case of a game with rotating DMs.
To allow those of us who are the designated DM most of the time to have a little bit of PC-only fun.


Basically any type of character that would hover between Lead Actor and Supporting Role.

I've also found it useful to run a DMPC for those parties that sorely lack an important role (my current party? No spellcasters except a dread necromancer. No real tanks. Just a monk, two rangers, a rogue, and the necro. They need healing), be it even just a guide to provide an in-character way to tell players things about the setting. It works better than telling the last guy to make his character, "Sorry, but the party really needs this role so you have to play something other than what you wanted to play".
That, and it gives the DM's monsters a safe target for when encounters start going too south too fast (thank you, PCs who don't use firearms in a Victorian/WWI-era setting!) so we're not rolling up new characters every session. That gets dull fast.

EDIT: And that's just from my last session. Think my players didn't like having the DMPC? Ha! When she started getting shot at, they quit fooling around (I saw the encounter going poorly well before they did) and started hitting harder.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm asking becasue i'm working on a game for me and some of my buddies to play together, and i'm hopeing to have a PC paladin be the main antagonist to the undead player party. i'm just worried i'll do something wrong and ruin the game for the players. Any advice?
That does not sound like a DMPC. This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GMPC) is what is usually meant by a DMPC.

So don't worry :smallsmile:

[Yukitsu]

I've also found it useful to run a DMPC for those parties that sorely lack an important role (my current party? No spellcasters except a dread necromancer. No real tanks. Just a monk, two rangers, a rogue, and the necro. They need healing), be it even just a guide to provide an in-character way to tell players things about the setting. It works better than telling the last guy to make his character, "Sorry, but the party really needs this role so you have to play something other than what you wanted to play".
That, and it gives the DM's monsters a safe target for when encounters start going too south too fast (thank you, PCs who don't use firearms in a Victorian/WWI-era setting!) so we're not rolling up new characters every session. That gets dull fast.

EDIT: And that's just from my last session. Think my players didn't like having the DMPC? Ha! When she started getting shot at, they quit fooling around (I saw the encounter going poorly well before they did) and started hitting harder.

I'm still not sure. There are tons of options if I desperately feel the need to be a playa instead of the DM. This board being a nice example, even if play by post drop like damselflies. And when my party is missing something, I just let them hire followers, since honestly there comes a point where a D&D player character should have groupies.

An NPC that follows the party around and is not a commoner or anything can be OK, but I don't view them as an extra PC. Certainly I think a PC isn't really in the game unless they have plenty of spotlight time (and I consider players that avoid spotlight time as NPCs most of the time, since a player playing his PSP isn't playing the game, and his character isn't a player character) and I would never give an NPC other than the main antagonist any semblence of the spotlight.

[Shade Kerrin]

One thing that works for me:
1: Introduce the DMPC as a specialist.
2: Show his/her abilities as a specialist
3: Do not ever make it so he/she ceases to be a specialist

At one point I had fun with the PCs teaming up with a professional exorcist, in order to take down the ghost of a former party member. In the end, the party spent a long battle holding off the body of said character(which had warped into a hideous monstrosity), while the exorcist performed a ritual to deal with the spirit(which was puppeteer the body). Feedback suggests that it was a very satisfying encounter.

[dsmiles]

It can work, just like others have said.

That being said, I usually end up having to DMPC the cleric, because nobody wants to be a cleric (for some reason). So, allow me to introduce Bob, the Healbot Cleric. I have Bob statted out at levels 1-30 in 3 level increments (basically, every time he gains a feat). I never have to work him very hard. His motivations are pretty easy. He hits things with his mace, and heals the things he's not allowed to hit. His domains are Healing and (usually) Protection. He buffs the party a little, but mostly, he just heals them.

He actually plays out more like a hireling NPC than a DMPC, but I would play Bob in a campaign, given half a chance. So, I like to think of him as a DMPC. :smalltongue:

[Toofey]

I hate them, I would rather have totally bland no line characters run by the party or by whomever is best able to run a 2nd character in combat than have DM run PC, especially magic users because as DM you know too many of the variables and either are doing the most effective thing, or purposely not doing the most effective thing, neither of which is good for the game.

[JonestheSpy]

DMPC's can also be a pretty nifty plot device when the players adventure with and get to know someone for awhile who then takes on an entirely different role. Turning them into antagonists is fun, though sadly Baldur's Gate 2 has taken a lot of the oomph out of that one (though I've had some success subverting that by having said DMPC be someone the characters never liked at all but were forced to adventure with by circumstance).

Another amusing example of this is from classic Knights of the Dinner Table, when a henchman got a hold of a major artifact and went on to become ruler of a large city-state, passing all sorts of laws that made the characters' lives difficult.

[Dienekes]

I tend to be very vocal in my dislike of GMPCs in general around my group. We were all brought into gaming from a guy we know as "Crazy GM." He created a guy named Shaunakowa and was possibly the worst GMPC Marty Stu I have ever seen. Oh how we loathed that guy.

However it can be done right, my sole example is an NPC of mine I named Nolan. The party was (all low op) a rogue, a bard, and a sorcerer so they met the guard Nolan to act as the standard meatshield and flanking partner. He was supposed to be a quick character of no real importance and I pegged him to die during the next big fight scene. Upon his near demise, my players tried very hard to save him and after the mini adventure asked for him to join the group. So that started the adventure of Nolan, "the Badass" as my players referred to him as.

My only suggestions if you try the DMPC route:
Make sure your players like him
Make sure he isn't stealing spotlight
Make sure he's not useless
Make sure he has flaws and is not a voice for the GM.

[Solaris]

I'm still not sure. There are tons of options if I desperately feel the need to be a playa instead of the DM. This board being a nice example, even if play by post drop like damselflies. And when my party is missing something, I just let them hire followers, since honestly there comes a point where a D&D player character should have groupies.

An NPC that follows the party around and is not a commoner or anything can be OK, but I don't view them as an extra PC. Certainly I think a PC isn't really in the game unless they have plenty of spotlight time (and I consider players that avoid spotlight time as NPCs most of the time, since a player playing his PSP isn't playing the game, and his character isn't a player character) and I would never give an NPC other than the main antagonist any semblence of the spotlight.

I am not going to play in a PbP game. One, I only play with friends. I don't play D&D out of love of the mechanics, I play D&D because it's something I like to do with my buddies. Two, every PbP I've been part of has died within a couple of weeks (or was it a week? Time sense goes screwy on deployment) - and you have no idea how irritating it is when all the players except you are civilians with no real timesinks and you're finding time in between patrols or spending twelve to sixteen hours a day on guard duty to come in and post... only to find they couldn't be bothered to pull a few minutes out of their busy schedules. So no, PbP is not an option for me because I do not enjoy it. If I wanted just text, I'd write a story and not bother with waiting around for other people.

If a ditzy, shy Healer fresh out of the convent gets the spotlight, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. But you know what? I would give an NPC some spotlight. It helps flesh out the game world if there are more characters in it than just the BBEG. My players don't like playing with (Random Name) the (Random Profession). It's hard to interact with a cardboard cut-out. Sometimes, you gotta take the shine off the PCs for a few moments to show off some of the world they're playing in. Wild and crazy notion, my friend, but it's not just the players who're in the game.


I tend to be very vocal in my dislike of GMPCs in general around my group. We were all brought into gaming from a guy we know as "Crazy GM." He created a guy named Shaunakowa and was possibly the worst GMPC Marty Stu I have ever seen. Oh how we loathed that guy.

However it can be done right, my sole example is an NPC of mine I named Nolan. The party was (all low op) a rogue, a bard, and a sorcerer so they met the guard Nolan to act as the standard meatshield and flanking partner. He was supposed to be a quick character of no real importance and I pegged him to die during the next big fight scene. Upon his near demise, my players tried very hard to save him and after the mini adventure asked for him to join the group. So that started the adventure of Nolan, "the Badass" as my players referred to him as.

My only suggestions if you try the DMPC route:
Make sure your players like him
Make sure he isn't stealing spotlight
Make sure he's not useless
Make sure he has flaws and is not a voice for the GM.

So... you only like DMPCs that you run?

Those are good suggestions, though. I do believe they came up when we had this discussion last time around. I'm surprised Serp hasn't posted here yet.

[Draconi Redfir]

I tend to be very vocal in my dislike of GMPCs in general around my group. We were all brought into gaming from a guy we know as "Crazy GM." He created a guy named Shaunakowa and was possibly the worst GMPC Marty Stu I have ever seen. Oh how we loathed that guy.

However it can be done right, my sole example is an NPC of mine I named Nolan. The party was (all low op) a rogue, a bard, and a sorcerer so they met the guard Nolan to act as the standard meatshield and flanking partner. He was supposed to be a quick character of no real importance and I pegged him to die during the next big fight scene. Upon his near demise, my players tried very hard to save him and after the mini adventure asked for him to join the group. So that started the adventure of Nolan, "the Badass" as my players referred to him as.

My only suggestions if you try the DMPC route:
Make sure your players like him
Make sure he isn't stealing spotlight
Make sure he's not useless
Make sure he has flaws and is not a voice for the GM.


Well like i said in the origional post, he's not traveling withth the party, but is actualy a primary antagonist to the story. he just hapens to be a player character paladan.

[SuperFerret]

That's an NPC Paladin then.

[Yukitsu]

If a ditzy, shy Healer fresh out of the convent gets the spotlight, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. But you know what? I would give an NPC some spotlight. It helps flesh out the game world if there are more characters in it than just the BBEG. My players don't like playing with (Random Name) the (Random Profession). It's hard to interact with a cardboard cut-out. Sometimes, you gotta take the shine off the PCs for a few moments to show off some of the world they're playing in. Wild and crazy notion, my friend, but it's not just the players who're in the game.

A campaign world may not centre around the party, but the events the party participate in sure do.

[dsmiles]

That's an NPC Paladin then.

Exactly. If he's the main antagonist, then he's not even close to being a DMPC, he's the BBEG. He gets a whole different acronym! :smalltongue:

[Solaris]

A campaign world may not centre around the party, but most of the events the party participate in sure do.

Fixed it for you. If the world's focused entirely around the PCs, it loses verisimilitude. Too much focus on other things, then the DM's confusing his role for that of a writer.

[Yukitsu]

Fixed it for you. If the world's focused entirely around the PCs, it loses verisimilitude. Too much focus on other things, then the DM's confusing his role for that of a writer.

I didn't make an error. No matter how many crucial and earth shattering events occur in the world, no matter how many bigger fish there are in the world, unless the players are part of it, it's not in the campaign, and to the party, it's not important. Even if the group are just tossing some dice in a back alley, if that's what the players are doing, then that is the focus of the game, even if the world is ending around them.

The world is not the same thing as the game. The players are nothing in one, but everything in the other.

[dsmiles]

I didn't make an error. No matter how many crucial and earth shattering events occur in the world, no matter how many bigger fish there are in the world, unless the players are part of it, it's not in the campaign, and to the party, it's not important. Even if the group are just tossing some dice in a back alley, if that's what the players are doing, then that is the focus of the game, even if the world is ending around them.

The world is not the same thing as the game. The players are nothing in one, but everything in the other.I have to agree. As much as stuff does happen in the background (the World), the characters are the focus of the Game. I'm not saying that the World revolves around the characters. Events are always in motion in the World. But the Game does focus on the characters. Otherwise, why have characters at all?

[SuperFerret]

Yes, the game focuses on the characters, but what's the harm in it having one more smaller character?

[Yukitsu]

Yes, the game focuses on the characters, but what's the harm in it having one more smaller character?

There isn't. The problem is when he's a PC, in other words, when his role is as a PC and not a bit part. It's really hard to stand back and keep the DMPC in the same sort of league, not giving it bigger parts in the story, segregating your knowledge as the DM and as a player, and in keeping the desires of the PC in character seperated from your DM desire to advance plot. I don't think I've seen a story of a bonafide PC controlled by the DM avoid all the pitfalls without falling into the side character or antagonist category.

[Shadowknight12]

I find DMPCs to be one of those things that is best checked with your players first before using. Of course, I'm talking about DMPCs done right, following the indications everyone else outlined in this thread. Some players will either not mind them at all or actually really like them. Others will loathe them no matter how well they're done.

If your players are indecisive about that topic, whip up a very short 'campaign' for them and create a DMPC for them to tag along and have a taste of what it would be like. I would recommend getting some practise, especially in the "not overshadowing" department. It's often hard to realise the difference between "offering welcome support" and "rendering someone useless."

[dsmiles]

There isn't. The problem is when he's a PC, in other words, when his role is as a PC and not a bit part. It's really hard to stand back and keep the DMPC in the same sort of league, not giving it bigger parts in the story, segregating your knowledge as the DM and as a player, and in keeping the desires of the PC in character seperated from your DM desire to advance plot. I don't think I've seen a story of a bonafide PC controlled by the DM avoid all the pitfalls without falling into the side character or antagonist category.Thus, in my specific game, the aforementioned Bob, the Healbot Cleric. Not only is that his Name and Class, it's also all the players ever need know. He's there, he'll swing his mace, he'll buff the party, he'll the party, and he'll turn undead when needed. Otherwise he may as well not even be there. He has no backstory, he has no ongoing plotlines. He's just Bob.

[Yukitsu]

Thus, in my specific game, the aforementioned Bob, the Healbot Cleric. Not only is that his Name and Class, it's also all the players ever need know. He's there, he'll swing his mace, he'll buff the party, he'll the party, and he'll turn undead when needed. Otherwise he may as well not even be there. He has no backstory, he has no ongoing plotlines. He's just Bob.

Yes, but would you ever except that as a PC?

[SuperFerret]

There isn't. The problem is when he's a PC, in other words, when his role is as a PC and not a bit part. It's really hard to stand back and keep the DMPC in the same sort of league, not giving it bigger parts in the story, segregating your knowledge as the DM and as a player, and in keeping the desires of the PC in character seperated from your DM desire to advance plot. I don't think I've seen a story of a bonafide PC controlled by the DM avoid all the pitfalls without falling into the side character or antagonist category.

I've never seen a pangolin before, doesn't mean they don't exist.

It's not as hard as you say, and segregating knowledge is something all players should have, especially in a Scooby Doo party.

And really, what's the difference between an NPC member of the party and a DMPC anyway?


Yes, but would you ever except that as a PC?

Not that this is directed towards me, but I've accepted a "Bob" the Fighter (names changed to protect the fictional) before and he became one of my personal favorite characters.

[dsmiles]

Yes, but would you ever except that as a PC?
Hellz yeah. If I'm playing a cleric, it's usually a healbot anyways. Of course, as a PC, I'd probably make it a SUPER-healbot, instead of just a healbot.

[Zaydos]

My first character to make it to Lv 2 was Bob the Cleric.

I was 6, and not good with names.

[Yukitsu]

I've never seen a pangolin before, doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I've seen plenty of theoretical explanations of the Bohr model of the atom, but that doesn't mean it can ever exist. Just the number of conflicts of interest invested in a DMPC means there's no reason to use one rather than a player controlled cohort or hireling.


It's not as hard as you say, and segregating knowledge is something all players should have, especially in a Scooby Doo party.

It's a good skill to have, but it's still best to not give everything to the players on out of character knowledge. Even the best players are still letting OOC knowledge influence their decision, even if it isn't making them act directly on it.


And really, what's the difference between an NPC member of the party and a DMPC anyway?

The same as the difference between a PC and an NPC member of the party.


Not that this is directed towards me, but I've accepted a "Bob" the Fighter (names changed to protect the fictional) before and he became one of my personal favorite characters.

Why was it a favourite? Going out of ones way to have no personality always irritates me as a DM more than the mechanics of it.


Hellz yeah. If I'm playing a cleric, it's usually a healbot anyways. Of course, as a PC, I'd probably make it a SUPER-healbot, instead of just a healbot.

Well, noting the mechanical difference, but putting aside that you wouldn't per-se play that same build as a PC, would you play that backstory? As I mentioned above, a PC with absolutely no fleshing out is generally more a problem than it is a great addition to a DM's campaign.

[dsmiles]

Well, noting the mechanical difference, but putting aside that you wouldn't per-se play that same build as a PC, would you play that backstory? As I mentioned above, a PC with absolutely no fleshing out is generally more a problem than it is a great addition to a DM's campaign.Once I played an amnesiac fighter. His only backstory was that he changed his name every day. He came into being a Bob, and died a Phil.

[SuperFerret]

And I've seen plenty of theoretical explanations of the Bohr model of the atom, but that doesn't mean it can ever exist. Just the number of conflicts of interest invested in a DMPC means there's no reason to use one rather than a player controlled cohort or hireling.

Good analogy.


It's a good skill to have, but it's still best to not give everything to the players on out of character knowledge. Even the best players are still letting OOC knowledge influence their decision, even if it isn't making them act directly on it.

I'd chalk the keeping of information away from the PC's up to keeping their enjoyment up. Hard to surprise people who know things.


The same as the difference between a PC and an NPC member of the party.

In that they're all part of the party and played by a person sitting at the game table?


Why was it a favourite? Going out of ones way to have no personality always irritates me as a DM more than the mechanics of it.

Starting with no personality or backstory isn't the same as not and never having one.

[Soylent Dave]

And really, what's the difference between an NPC member of the party and a DMPC anyway?

For me, one of your earlier examples highlights the difference :


To allow those of us who are the designated DM most of the time to have a little bit of PC-only fun.


GMs and PCs have different wants and goals; if the GM is also a PC, then it's going to cause some conflict (this can manifest in many ways - e.g. a GM can restructure the world so that his PC succeeds; or build the ideal PC to do well in upcoming quests; or get involved in the combat at precisely the right moment).

So a GMPC is an NPC that the GM is invested in, a character he thinks of as 'his character'; as it's far too easy for the GM to make his character shine brighter than the other PCs (even inadvertently, even trying to separate player knowledge and character knowledge, you know so much about every encounter, about the campaign, that it's almost impossible for your character not to always be in the right place at the right time, with the right tools.

An NPC party member, on the other hand, is a character who is still part of the campaign world (rather than 'the GM's character') - so it's a lot easier for him to react according to character and avoid the spotlight, because he's really a background character (even if he's got a well-written personality, and the players end up liking him - he's still an extra rather than one of the main cast), so the GM doesn't have as much invested in him.

A recurring NPC isn't the same thing as a GMPC - it's the level of personal investment the GM has in the character that matters (as soon as you start thinking of him as one of the main characters, then you're in trouble (the same thing applies to your main antagonist - he gets to be cool, but he also gets to be defeated; it's the only reason he exists, after all))

-

So to answer the OP : I don't think GMPCs ever really work (the players will end up resenting him), but that doesn't mean that every recurring NPC is automatically a GMPC; a well-characterised NPC is a Good Thing.

An NPC you think of as 'my character' probably isn't.

[Seerow]

In my most recent game, the DM gave us a DMPC through our first dungeon, as we had no trapfinder at all. It was an elf Rogue1/Monk1, effectively useless in combat, and gave the party something it needed (that said, despite her joining us to give us a trapfinder, every time she found a trap, it was by virtue of tripping it... poor GM couldn't roll over a 5 with this character. Though it did turn into some great comedic relief)

[Dienekes]

So... you only like DMPCs that you run?

Nope, I ended up getting rid of him anyway later on once the party gained a barbarian, fun roleplaying came out of that scene at least. Still don't like the concept and I haven't done it since. But an example of a time when the players liked the character to show it is possible.

[Serpentine]

Is it possible to do them right?

I'm asking becasue i'm working on a game for me and some of my buddies to play together, and i'm hopeing to have a PC paladin be the main antagonist to the undead player party. i'm just worried i'll do something wrong and ruin the game for the players. Any advice?As mentioned, that's not a DMPC, just an enemy built the same way as them.
But yes, they can work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176851).

[Welknair]

I have four or five that rotate in and out as the party needs.

Let's see what I can remember off the top of my head...

10 Year Old Wizard
Goblin Cleric
Sentience Mechanical (Sentient Magic Item in a mech)
Druid girl
Wizard guy focusing in teleportation (Wayfarer's Guide). Still doesn't have a name.
Warblade
An assassin and his apprentice

And the party is reasonably fond of half of them. The other half have just been more recently introduced.

[Solaris]

@ Yukitsu: Then we must have drastically different gaming groups. Not everything they interact with has to be an adventure hook, unless it's just a casual game that doesn't have time for anything else. Sometimes it can just be setting up the scene.

@ Dienekes: Ah. You didn't like him, but your players did.

@ Soylent Dave: I do believe you're falling into that "I've never seen a pangolin" trap, combined a little bit with splitting hairs to an overly-fine definition that's not universally held. We had the same problem in the last go-round with this. While I'm not trying to argue that there are DMs who are like that (I was one, back when I first started - that would be why I didn't have DMPCs/NPCs with the party when I was a newbie DM), a nontrivial amount of people in the discussion have already pointed out that there are, in fact, DMPCs that the party does not wind up resenting. As a writer, I know darn well what the final outcome of a story is. None of my characters do. Likewise, as a DM I know darn well where all the traps are, what kills the monsters best, and so forth. None of my characters do. Heck, on the rare* time that I play, I probably know the monsters inside and out. Doesn't mean my character does. The crux is whether or not you're willing to allow OOC knowledge to affect IC events. I don't.

*: I haven't been a player in... uh... Well, about ten years now.
Which brings back up the argument about longtime DMs wanting a character of their own. My DMPCs are often in the players' monkeysphere. An NPC rarely is. My new players are doing very well if they treat NPCs like people.

I find it funny that these threads always result in two groups, people who say that DMPCs can never, ever work and people who say that they can, it's just tricky. How much you wanna bet we'll get about ten pages of everyone restating their position over and over again?

Those of you saying that there's never a reason to have one, kindly look back at what we've posted. I'm nice enough to read what you write, at least read what we write. Either come up with a refutation or desist in making such comments.

I thoroughly disagree that there's any conflict of interest when you're running a character with the party and running a game at the same time. See, I can and will kill off characters. It doesn't matter to me on account of they're just pieces of paper. I tried doing it with the Healer. Players stopped it from happening. I managed to pull it off with another character at the climax of a campaign (wasn't resurrected because there's no such thing in my game). He was pretty cool, too, but somebody had to be the Worf. You know how little effort it takes me to spin up a new character with a background and everything? Almost none. I do it in my spare time. Part of why I'm the DM.

[Serpentine]

How much you wanna bet we'll get about ten pages of everyone restating their position over and over again?Which is funny, cuz it's not actually about DMPCs :smalltongue:

[Solaris]

Which is funny, cuz it's not actually about DMPCs :smalltongue:

Bah, reading the original post. Who does that these days?

[SuperFerret]

For me, one of your earlier examples highlights the difference :



GMs and PCs have different wants and goals; if the GM is also a PC, then it's going to cause some conflict (this can manifest in many ways - e.g. a GM can restructure the world so that his PC succeeds; or build the ideal PC to do well in upcoming quests; or get involved in the combat at precisely the right moment).

So a GMPC is an NPC that the GM is invested in, a character he thinks of as 'his character'; as it's far too easy for the GM to make his character shine brighter than the other PCs (even inadvertently, even trying to separate player knowledge and character knowledge, you know so much about every encounter, about the campaign, that it's almost impossible for your character not to always be in the right place at the right time, with the right tools.

An NPC party member, on the other hand, is a character who is still part of the campaign world (rather than 'the GM's character') - so it's a lot easier for him to react according to character and avoid the spotlight, because he's really a background character (even if he's got a well-written personality, and the players end up liking him - he's still an extra rather than one of the main cast), so the GM doesn't have as much invested in him.

A recurring NPC isn't the same thing as a GMPC - it's the level of personal investment the GM has in the character that matters (as soon as you start thinking of him as one of the main characters, then you're in trouble (the same thing applies to your main antagonist - he gets to be cool, but he also gets to be defeated; it's the only reason he exists, after all))

-

So to answer the OP : I don't think GMPCs ever really work (the players will end up resenting him), but that doesn't mean that every recurring NPC is automatically a GMPC; a well-characterised NPC is a Good Thing.

An NPC you think of as 'my character' probably isn't.

Just fyi, as a writer and a GM, any character I particularly like will likely be the one that gets "picked on" the most (unless the player doesn't want it, though most tend to take on the newer challenges quite well).

And any DMPC that's sufficiently liked by the PC's is basically a ready made hook for the "this is how (insert DMPC's race and culture) does funerals" and "avenge the death of a party member" adventures, just waiting for me to pull the trigger. Unliked DMPC's tend to die as well, though with less pomp and circumstance. (Alternately, a REALLY well-liked DMPC could have an encounter with a Helm of Opposite Alignment or similar item. :belkar:)

[Just_Ice]

Why are DMPCs tricky? If the players are competent and not totally insane and the DM is not out to show them up completely, it's easy to make a likable DMPC: don't make a druid or a wizard or a ranger, make a non-combat cleric, a fighter that's willing to carry stuff, or maybe a rogue. Make them races like dwarf, half-orc, or whatever, and give them semi-earthy/easy-going personalities. Human can be okay too but is somehow less liked for some reason.

Make sure they're not the party's dog, but nobody will accept them if they're not at least willing to make themselves useful. Don't make them talk too much unless they're asked stuff directly.

This basically ensures that you have a likable, if not complex, DMPC. Not hard, just make a character that doesn't constantly step on the team's toes in one way or another. That's what rivals are for.

[Solaris]

If the players are competent and not totally insane and the DM is not out to show them up completely...

Quoth the Spartan at Thermopylae: 'If'.

[SuperFerret]

Quoth the Spartan at Thermopylae: 'If'.

I would hope most players are competent, though a bit of insanity never hurt anyone.

And any player with plans of upstaging the others is just going to ruin the fun.

[Solaris]

I would hope most players are competent, though a bit of insanity never hurt anyone.

And any player with plans of upstaging the others is just going to ruin the fun.

So would I, had I not learned long ago that hope stems from a subconscious acceptance that reality is drastically different from how I'd like it to be.
Curse you, lack of robot minions! Curse you!

[Kiero]

I tend to find that they have no point at best, and they're certainly a detriment when done wrong. I have no idea why a DM controlled PC would be required when a much more typical NPC would suffice instead.

Agreed. DMPCs smack of GMs trying to play both sides of the screen, and that's a mistake. As a GM you should never be as invested in any one NPC as a player is in their PC. You should never be trying to take any part of the spotlight time that rightly belongs to the PCs, either.

[Yukitsu]

@ Yukitsu: Then we must have drastically different gaming groups. Not everything they interact with has to be an adventure hook, unless it's just a casual game that doesn't have time for anything else. Sometimes it can just be setting up the scene.


The scene has to be something in relation to the party though. If you start chattering about some random place or person that isn't near us, that we're not asking about, and that isn't relevant to us, it ends up being a rather OOC incoherent chatter about what's in the setting rather than anything that establishes the scene. When an author establishes the scene, it is generally what the cast sees, is talking about, are experiencing, or are asking about. Establishing a scene that isn't in that story is often a jarring surreal experience.

[Solaris]

The scene has to be something in relation to the party though. If you start chattering about some random place or person that isn't near us, that we're not asking about, and that isn't relevant to us, it ends up being a rather OOC incoherent chatter about what's in the setting rather than anything that establishes the scene. When an author establishes the scene, it is generally what the cast sees, is talking about, are experiencing, or are asking about. Establishing a scene that isn't in that story is often a jarring surreal experience.

Well, yes, they're in it. I'd thought you meant something that didn't have an immediate, direct impact on them or they on it.

Am I the only one who's noticed an over-use of the word 'incoherent' on the internet these days? The word you're searching for is 'irrelevant', unless you're trying to say that I'm babbling words and phrases my players can't understand.

[Yukitsu]

Well, yes, they're in it. I'd thought you meant something that didn't have an immediate, direct impact on them or they on it.

Am I the only one who's noticed an over-use of the word 'incoherent' on the internet these days? The word you're searching for is 'irrelevant', unless you're trying to say that I'm babbling words and phrases my players can't understand.

Using it more in the context that it makes the "story" incoherent. A story should generally be focused on the main characters and the setting as seen through the lense of experience of the main characters, or which is at least being experienced by the main characters. A story that has a tendancy to drift off and talk about other things tends to be incoherent, or have an incoherent plot line.

Using the free dictionary examples online, I'm using part 1: . Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent: incoherent fragments of a story.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incoherent

Good stories often have several irrelevant parts, red herrings, odd but useless factoids about the situation (Pratchet for instance uses a ton of irrelevant information pertaining to the actions of the protagonists that add character and charm IMO), but good stories have to remain coherent.

[Dienekes]

Quoth the Spartan at Thermopylae: 'If'.

That was the Spartan ephors to Philip of Macedon. Not that it really matters in the discussion.

[Serpentine]

One of my favourite moments involving my DMPC was her most dramatic death. And one of her more interesting character development moments was due to... another death, followed by Reincarnation.
So uh, yeah... I'm not exactly going out of my way to keep my DMPC alive. Nor, indeed, is she anything close to the most powerful character in the party.

[DontEatRawHagis]

In a Serenity campaign I'm in the DM has successfully made a PC for herself. She is the glue that sticks most of the party together though. But aside from that all the highlights were from other people acting instead of her.

The only thing that she did aside from get into an argument and go crazy for a few seconds(she has traumatic flashes which paralyze her for a few rounds if she hears gunfire) the only thing she did was talk to an Alliance group of soldiers into leaving her ship(They were looking for me and she told them I wasn't there).

Just saying it can be done. Aside from two or three of us, most of us are into Roleplaying more than Rollplaying. One is a die-hard optimizer though.

[Solaris]

That was the Spartan ephors to Philip of Macedon. Not that it really matters in the discussion.

I stand corrected.
It's better than that "Fight in the shade" line, anyways.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I once heard of a campaign where they party DMPC was an assassin type, who would perfectly master every challenge and could never be outwitted or defeated. He would "die" from the dice rolls from time to time but it'd always be ambiguous and he'd always come back.

So ultimately the party hired the DMPC using the hirelings rules, and sent him on a solo mission to defeat the big bad. Apparently the campaign imploded when the dm couldn't lose his dmpc but couldn't let the campaign just end.

Also to the OP: yeah in this situation that's not a player character but a villain, and it is generally considered perfectly ok to have those.

[Serpentine]

Heh. Good move on the characters' part :smallbiggrin:
I only realised long after the fact that my first-ever D&D game involved a bad variety of DMPC. But that game had all sorts of issues.

[Delwugor]

I used to run GMPCs to fill in missing pieces, but not anymore.
Mostly they distract from my main duty when GMing ... GMing. After that is ensuring the GMPC stays in the background and helps the party instead of discreetly leading the party.
What I'll do now (at the most) is put together a party NPC and let the group play it. This gives them the in game help they may need without the control mechanism of the all powerful GM.

[Kiero]

I used to run GMPCs to fill in missing pieces, but not anymore.
Mostly they distract from my main duty when GMing ... GMing. After that is ensuring the GMPC stays in the background and helps the party instead of discreetly leading the party.
What I'll do now (at the most) is put together a party NPC and let the group play it. This gives them the in game help they may need without the control mechanism of the all powerful GM.

And of course the added bonus: less effort from the GM. :smallsmile:

[John Campbell]

And really, what's the difference between an NPC member of the party and a DMPC anyway?
My rule of thumb is: When the DM stops saying, "Bob attacks the troll," and starts saying, "I attack the troll," that's a DMPC.

[Archwizard]

I completely disagree with the "play a bland, boring guy if you want to DMPC." I also disagree with "it's just trying to play both sides of the screen." Sometimes, it is called for, sometimes it's just fun.

Frankly, I now avoid it, simply because D&D is complicated enough to adjudicate, having a DMPC is just a headache I don't need.

Back when I did it however, I felt the keys were to a) avoid leadership roles (as people rightly point out, being the mouthpiece for the DM is bad), b) avoid investigative roles (scouting, knowledge checks, whatever, let the player players find out cool stuff) and c) make sure your motivations are clear. Be it as a big brute of a fighter that just wants everyone to STFU and smash things already, or a thief who wants to go get the gold (but didn't see any gems, he swears), or what ever else strikes your fancy, if you have a clear motivation set, it makes it much easier to roleplay within those bounds and not take over the influence of party direction (unless you plain old just have to, sometimes the railroad is the only way to get somewhere...).

And yes to the OP, protagonist != antagonist. The last campaign I ran featured the party invading the workshop of a mad necromancer (XL 15) only to find his legacy of undead experimentation, complete with notes and journals. He became aware of them about 1/3 of the way through and started to indirectly, and then directly, act against them to protect himself. He failed of course (stupid 85 hit point critical hit by the party's ranger), but at no time was he a DMPC, since he never acted in concert with the PCs, always against them.

[Serpentine]

My rule of thumb is: When the DM stops saying, "Bob attacks the troll," and starts saying, "I attack the troll," that's a DMPC.And if, as a player, I not infrequently slip into the former?
When running my DMPC, I do tend to go with "Kariana attacks the troll", but mostly because I need to make it clear which of the various creatures I'm controlling is doing what. She's still identical to a PC in every other way.

[Jarawara]

My rule of thumb is: When the DM stops saying, "Bob attacks the troll," and starts saying, "I attack the troll," that's a DMPC.

Meh, when I say "I attack the troll", I'm just identifying which PC the BBEG is attacking. You'd think there'd be a human amongst the PC's, but noooo..., they have to have a troll, a minotaur, an illthiliad, and a half-halfling.

The troll PC, coincidentally, is named Bob.

[stainboy]

half-halfling

Isn't that a quarterling?

*ducks*

[Just_Ice]

My rule of thumb is: When the DM stops saying, "Bob attacks the troll," and starts saying, "I attack the troll," that's a DMPC.

Sometimes I say "I attack you" when using monsters against the players. It's rare, but it happens with generic creatures, even.


Quoth the Spartan at Thermopylae: 'If'.

If your players are that bad, there's no point in even trying to make a DMPC. Unless you roll a real-life crit, there's no way your party isn't going to make the worst of him/her.

[Jarawara]

Isn't that a quarterling?

*ducks*

I had a quarterling once.

Well, technically he was a halfling, but then that lizardman took a bite, and well...

...it's wasn't pretty what was left.

[Solaris]

If your players are that bad, there's no point in even trying to make a DMPC. Unless you roll a real-life crit, there's no way your party isn't going to make the worst of him/her.

Alternatively, they're quite new at this whole tabletop RPG thing. They identify the character as 'mine' much more than I do, so they're much less likely to treat it as a race/class alignment combo.

[Pisha]

There was one character in our old game who kind of straddled the line between NPC and DMPC. She was originally an orphaned survivor of a destroyed town that we picked up; the GM played her as an NPC and worked her into a couple plots. When she was later revealed to have innate magical talent, our magic-user decided to make her his apprentice and took the Leadership feat to have her as his cohort.

It worked out pretty well. The player kept her sheet and controlled her in battle; the GM actually roleplayed her and had final say on updating her sheet when she leveled. Plus, as a cohort, while she was powerful, she was automatically 2 levels lower than us (or whatever the actual number is, I've never used Leadership). So she was useful in combat, and sometimes got to do cool stuff, but never stole the spotlight from the PC's.

[Pisha]

eek, doublepost

[DJDizzy]

It can, but only if done well. I have seen some pretty bad DMPCs, but if the DM uses it as an excuse to later screw you over because you trusted him/her/it, its an NPC, not a DMPC.

[Serpentine]

It can, but only if done well.Doesn't that apply to most things? :smalltongue:
"Cakes can be good, but only if done well."
"Sex can be good, but only if done well."
:smallwink:

[Jarawara]

"Sex can be good, but only if done well."

DMPC's: Even when they're bad, they're still good.

:smalltongue:

[kyoryu]

The problem with a DMPC is that, poorly run, they can lead the party by the nose and remove their agency. If the game stops being interactive it stops being fun.

More subtly, even if run well, they can provide the perception of lost player agency as the players will naturally gravitate towards looking towards the DMNPC for advice on what to do next, etc., and take anything the DMNPC says as word of law.

For a DMNPC to work, you have to have not only a DM capable of pulling it off, but a group capable of pulling it off.

In general, the risk outweighs the potential benefit.

[Solaris]

It can, but only if done well. I have seen some pretty bad DMPCs, but if the DM uses it as an excuse to later screw you over because you trusted him/her/it, its an NPC, not a DMPC.

I take it you've never had certain sorts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11124203&postcount=8) of players in your group before.

When done well, that sort of thing can rock. The other players certainly enjoyed trying to stop me - especially Kyne's. Betrayal, especially from someone you trusted, is a powerful motivator.

[MeeposFire]

One of my big things about the use of a DMPC is to make sure that the DMPC will not take the spotlight from any of the characters outside of the small areas that you need them for. This is easy to do for me in a 4e game. You can make a "lazy' character that uses powers that give the PCs attacks so that way the players are still doing the actual attacks thus the DMPC does not take the spot light. These characters tend to be leader characters (thus healers) so they fill the one job that tends to be more desired in low OP groups that might be missing.

In 3.5 this is harder to find. you could make a support character like a marshal which is unlikely to steal the spotlight in combat (though they are not neccessary so why make one?).

One idea is a modified truenamer. A truenamer can heal and remove status effects and can make other characters attack rather than attacking itself. Also the class lacks social skills for the most part and the lack of cosmic power is not a bad thing when you don't want the character to steal the spotlight. Just make the class work at will (as in don't make the truenaming checks fail) and you can replace the "healer" and "enabler" roles while being unlikely to steal the spotlight. Make it a halfling with dragonmark feats and he can also bring characters back from the dead.

Who knew that the truenamer is a great DMPC class?

[Serpentine]

My DMPC is a Knight. Her job is to get hit so that the others don't. I've been a bit worried about the way that tends to result in me rolling against myself, and the fact she has more attack rolls than most other characters (we're pretty caster-heavy), but the other players seem to be happy to have her taking the brunt and I'm always looking for ways to speed up my rolling. I was thinking of just assuming she always rolls a 10, but... that just doesn't really work for me. The others are usually more directly useful, though, and tend to do much more interesting things - she doesn't have the imagination to go leaping about or do anything very creative, leaving that up to the others.
Anyone else notice trends in their groups? My parties tend to have high Intelligent, low Wisdom characters, often with lots of Bluff and little Sense Motive. Makes things... interesting.

[Honest Tiefling]

A well developed antagonist can be good...Or it can really be a DMPC that you might be able to whack in the end.

For the undead campaign, perhaps have someone mention a paladin. If you have a sneaky character, let them hear about this respected and famous paladin. Maybe mention about how they finally had a kid, or adopted a few after retiring. My advice is to dangle the bait in front of them, and see if they bite.

I think NPCs with a lot of...Well, the DM behind them work only if they PCs have a choice in the matter. Then, the PCs must be able to influence the NPC (Target their family, discredit the paladin, spy on them, etc). And finally, the NPC has to not be annoying. Through if your DMPC is getting nibbled on by undead, having them be ICly annoying (But not OoCly) might make for a satisfying end.

[Shadowknight12]

My DMPC is a Knight. Her job is to get hit so that the others don't. I've been a bit worried about the way that tends to result in me rolling against myself, and the fact she has more attack rolls than most other characters (we're pretty caster-heavy), but the other players seem to be happy to have her taking the brunt and I'm always looking for ways to speed up my rolling. I was thinking of just assuming she always rolls a 10, but... that just doesn't really work for me. The others are usually more directly useful, though, and tend to do much more interesting things - she doesn't have the imagination to go leaping about or do anything very creative, leaving that up to the others.
Anyone else notice trends in their groups? My parties tend to have high Intelligent, low Wisdom characters, often with lots of Bluff and little Sense Motive. Makes things... interesting.

That's interesting, actually. It actually makes sense to have a "tank" of sorts in a caster-heavy party (assuming there's no druid wanting to take up the job). I'm always glad to hear stories of successful DMPCs.

My groups are very RP-oriented, which is a tremendous rarity. I consider myself very fortunate, since usually most players either favour hack-and-slash, or simply don't consider roleplaying to be a priority. My players usually tend to favour social intrigue and jump at the chance to discover secrets, solve mysteries or unravel puzzles. Combat-wise, they tend to do... poorly. Very poorly. :smallannoyed:

[onthetown]

It can work. Just be sure to let the players figure out plot-related things on their own and have your DMPC follow them, not them follow you. You have to become "just another party member" -- somebody that the PCs want to hire or include in the party, not somebody who's going to come up with all the brilliant ideas and lead them about on a leash.

Basically, you need a good foundation of separating character knowledge from DM knowledge.

Could be averted in the case of a DMPC who hires the PCs to follow him to an area, and then becomes an NPC villain in laying that trap for them or some such thing.

And Shadowknight: That sounds like heaven. When can I join? :smalltongue:

[Shadowknight12]

And Shadowknight: That sounds like heaven. When can I join? :smalltongue:

It's not all fun and games (hur hur). You have to maintain certain standards with this type of players and DMs. Spoiler-blocked due to possible irrelevance to the thread's original topic.

As a DM, you have to craft an exciting, gripping setting that makes them want to explore it. You have to think of convoluted plots with many layers and different subplots (because plots are to them what tasty tasty levels are to a wight), to the point where right now I can't realistically keep them interested with a single major plot, I have to weave four to six main plots together and add a couple dozen of small subplots or else it's just not challenging.

Then you have to make the NPCs interesting and unique. And not just the main villains and allies, no sir. You have to make every single NPC they interact with somewhat interesting, or at least not boring. Furthermore, they want to know absolutely everything about everything. They want to know how the setting is like, why does X happen and not Y, who is in charge of who, what does Mr. Obscure Race do in his free time, etc. And they don't want huge blocks of text either, no sir! You have to answer their queries in an entertaining way! Possibly peppered with minor plot hooks.

Also, you have to make them feel like they matter, which means showing that their actions have an impact on the world. Furthermore, you have to keep them invested in the game by acknowledging and embracing the backstory and NPCs they've spent hours on. You have to make them relevant, interesting. You have to also figure them out psychologically, as well, to give them what they want (obligatory example: Their character is in love with an NPC, but you can't have the NPC reciprocate, oh no! You have to keep the NPC aloof but friendly, perhaps with a touch of tension in their relationship, straddling the fine line that makes up the Will-They-Or-Won't-They dynamic), and you have to figure out what they want out of the game as players and give them that.

As a player, you have to find out what makes the DM tick and give them that, as well. Does he want you to explore the world he's spent hours lovingly crafting? Does he want you to interact with his favourite NPCs? Does he want you to write novellas in every post (if in PbP) or break out the improv monologue (if IRL)? Does he want you to react emotionally to what he does, so that he feels satisfied (example: "OMG what a riveting finale!" "GASP! That's such a scary villain!" "Awwwwww, poor little girl NPC, I'll take care of you!")? Does he want you to do your part to foster co-op storytelling? Not to mention, you have to figure out what his ideal game would be and how to achieve it, which is sometimes made incredibly difficult due to uncooperative players.

All in all, it's rather hard work. I can't just think of a basic plot, a villain and a string of dungeons. Or say "I full-attack" as my sole contribution for that round. If you haven't been deterred by all of this... join the club, you crazy person! :smalltongue:

On the plus side, DMPCs are actually not an issue at all. In fact, I have no clue what the difference between a regular NPC and a DMPC would be, since I have to stat and flesh out pretty much all of my NPCs equally and I keep close tabs on what the players want, so if they want to play a lovestruck knight who follows the every order and whim of a noblewoman NPC, it's not really my choice. I *have* to make my NPC tell him what to do. It's what he wants. And if the party wants to play Charlie's Angels and have a mysterious NPC who tells them what to do, guides them, leads them and all around controls their lives... I must oblige.

[Absol197]

More subtly, even if run well, they can provide the perception of lost player agency as the players will naturally gravitate towards looking towards the DMNPC for advice on what to do next, etc., and take anything the DMNPC says as word of law.

For a DMNPC to work, you have to have not only a DM capable of pulling it off, but a group capable of pulling it off.

In general, the risk outweighs the potential benefit.

Oh my, yes. I've had this problem a couple of times: the first was when I was using an actual DMPC, and the other was with a common NPC ally of the party. I'd call myself good at separating what the character knows vs. what I know, and so the character in question, when asked for advice, would give it to the best of his ability. The players would then say, "the voice of God is saying we should go do X, so let's go!" And then whent hings didn't work out, I would have to explain that, no, just because I'm playing himand he's around a lot, doesn't mean he's the DM's voice. HE can and will still make mistakes.

My players are better now, but if they're not expecting it, a group will often make this mistake, even with a well-played DMPC/party NPC.

[Serpentine]

I've made it clear that when my character is saying something, it's pretty much always the character saying it, and it may well in fact be entirely opposite to what I, as DM, would prefer, or completely wrong.
An exception might be when the party is sort of waffling about, struggling to make up their mind on something. Then the DMPC may declare something and start moving, but again it'd always be in-character, and the party is more than able to go "nah, lets go this way instead".
Sometimes they just need a prod - not in any particular direction, just forward.

[Solaris]

My latest group learned real quick that growing up in a convent has not left the healer well-equipped for providing useful advice in a dungeon/combat setting.

[Honest Tiefling]

My latest group learned real quick that growing up in a convent has not left the healer well-equipped for providing useful advice in a dungeon/combat setting.

Good sir, I give this idea my full-hearted approval and hereby ask permission to steal this idea.

[Solaris]

Good sir, I give this idea my full-hearted approval and hereby ask permission to steal this idea.

Go for it.

[Earthwalker]

I've made it clear that when my character is saying something, it's pretty much always the character saying it, and it may well in fact be entirely opposite to what I, as DM, would prefer, or completely wrong.
An exception might be when the party is sort of waffling about, struggling to make up their mind on something. Then the DMPC may declare something and start moving, but again it'd always be in-character, and the party is more than able to go "nah, lets go this way instead".
Sometimes they just need a prod - not in any particular direction, just forward.

I don't so much have DMPCs but I have NPCs that hang around with the Party or are involved in some ways. I long ago worked out I needed two different NPCs in most situations so I could give conflicting advice. If you have on NPC and he starts saying, "this is the best idea" my players begin to think I (as DM) are giving them the best advice, when I am mearly trying to give what I think the NPC would do.

With two NPCs least I can show I am giving advice from the NPCs point of view.

[Greylond]

Is it possible to do them right?

I'm asking becasue i'm working on a game for me and some of my buddies to play together, and i'm hopeing to have a PC paladin be the main antagonist to the undead player party. i'm just worried i'll do something wrong and ruin the game for the players. Any advice?


No, it never ends well. You as the DM might think it is working but the DMPC will always take away the limelight from the PCs.

[Serpentine]

No, it never ends well. You as the DM might think it is working but the DMPC will always take away the limelight from the PCs.See: the entirety of the discussion in this thread :smallsigh:

[Eldan]

My Skype-party is accompanied by a talking crow called Lord Winsome (he also has some SLAs). Originally a minor NPC in an earlier adventure, but he became the familiar of one character and often does a little DMPCing. Mostly, he helps them with contacts (he was the familiar of a locally famous wizard first, so knows a lot of people) and gets sarcastic on them when their plans are outrageously stupid. He also does some scouting, since none of the characters have any stealth. Oh, and he tells them to finally get going whenever they start standing around for ten minutes or more.

[kyoryu]

My Skype-party is accompanied by a talking crow called Lord Winsome (he also has some SLAs). Originally a minor NPC in an earlier adventure, but he became the familiar of one character and often does a little DMPCing. Mostly, he helps them with contacts (he was the familiar of a locally famous wizard first, so knows a lot of people) and gets sarcastic on them when their plans are outrageously stupid. He also does some scouting, since none of the characters have any stealth. Oh, and he tells them to finally get going whenever they start standing around for ten minutes or more.

So, the DMPC tells them what to do (via scouting, and "your plan sucks"), talks to the other NPCs for them, and tells them when the DM wants them to do something besides what they're doing?

Yeah, that's a great example of a DMPC that works.

[Solaris]

No, it never ends well. You as the DM might think it is working but the DMPC will always take away the limelight from the PCs.

I'll be less nice than Serp. Have you read anything at all that we posted in this thread? You clearly didn't understand it, or if you didn't refused to believe any of it. Your statement is an absolute declaration that I can disprove with my own experience (both as player and as DM).
Or are you trying to say the healbot takes limelight away from the PCs despite not being able to do anything besides heal and give bad advice?


So, the DMPC tells them what to do (via scouting, and "your plan sucks"), talks to the other NPCs for them, and tells them when the DM wants them to do something besides what they're doing?

Yeah, that's a great example of a DMPC that works.

I assume there are extenuating circumstances. Could be a beer-and-pretzels game with rookie players who need the help. This one sounds like a pretty blatant "Mouth of DM", though I can't say I blame him for getting impatient when they're standing around for ten minutes or more.

[kyoryu]

I assume there are extenuating circumstances. Could be a beer-and-pretzels game with rookie players who need the help. This one sounds like a pretty blatant "Mouth of DM", though I can't say I blame him for getting impatient when they're standing around for ten minutes or more.

Sure. But that's kind of the problem with DMPCs... it's waaaaay too easy to cross that line from "prodding the players when they're stuck" to "the players won't do anything without the DMPC telling them which way to go." Even worse, it's easy for the DM to cross that line without realizing they're doing it. The presence of a direction-giving DMPC subtly takes away PC agency from the game.

If it's a beer-and-pretzels game with rookies, as you said, I'd personally prefer to handle it with OOC advice from the DM. At least by doing that, it's usually more apparent when you're starting to railroad...

[Solaris]

Sure. But that's kind of the problem with DMPCs... it's waaaaay too easy to cross that line from "prodding the players when they're stuck" to "the players won't do anything without the DMPC telling them which way to go." Even worse, it's easy for the DM to cross that line without realizing they're doing it. The presence of a direction-giving DMPC subtly takes away PC agency from the game.

If it's a beer-and-pretzels game with rookies, as you said, I'd personally prefer to handle it with OOC advice from the DM. At least by doing that, it's usually more apparent when you're starting to railroad...

Yeah, I generally do it with OOC advice too if for no other reason than the character is significantly smarter than the player.

[SleepyShadow]

Nodwick is the perfect DMPC. He never takes the spotlight from the group (either because he's carrying things or dead), and even when he offers advice, it is rarely heeded by the party.
:smallbiggrin:

[dsmiles]

My Skype-party is accompanied by a talking crow called Lord Winsome (he also has some SLAs).
Is it bad that I initially read that as:
My Skype-party is accompanied by a talking cow called Lord Winsome (he also has some SLAs).

[Eldan]

So, the DMPC tells them what to do (via scouting, and "your plan sucks"), talks to the other NPCs for them, and tells them when the DM wants them to do something besides what they're doing?

Yeah, that's a great example of a DMPC that works.

Eh, no.
Point by point:
Scouting: "Winsome, what's around that corner there?" - "Three orcs." Isn't telling them what to do.
"Your plan sucks": "Master, are you sure that jumping down that cliff while on fire is smart?" It's just my way of doing the usual "Are you sure?" when players are likely to do.
Talking to NPCs for them: never. He just knows the city better than them. "Winsome, do you know a librarian around here?" Is the more usual thing. He gives them an address, they go there and talk. He's more like a mimic in that regard.
And they have the problem that they are pretty passive sometime. Part of it is probably from the medium of Skype. But I've had a few times that they'd go "what should we do now?" ingame, discuss two or three plans, not agree on any one of them and then just stare at each other silently for ten minutes. I'm just nudging them a bit.

I just think it's more immersive than doing the same thing OOC.

[Toofey]

Sure. But that's kind of the problem with DMPCs... it's waaaaay too easy to cross that line from "prodding the players when they're stuck" to "the players won't do anything without the DMPC telling them which way to go."

Actually thinking about it that's a big part of what got on my nerves when I did used to run DMPCs was that the party did become dependent on them, I enjoy it much more when the players on unclear on what exactly I "want" because they're more creative that way, even when I do want X I try not to let on because I know that if allowed their own devices a decent amount of the time the Players will come up with something better, which is a big part of the point to RPGs in the first place.

[kyoryu]

Eh, no.

Well, I don't play in your game, but I'm going to point out a few things that I see as dangers of DMPCs. These may not be occurring in your game, but they're things that I see as easy to occur, even when they aren't being done deliberately.




Point by point:
Scouting: "Winsome, what's around that corner there?" - "Three orcs." Isn't telling them what to do.

Sure. But it also gives them the easy way out of either having to hire a (potentially unreliable) hireling, or have someone learn the skills themselves. Pretty benign, though, so long as it's not an auto-success.


"Your plan sucks": "Master, are you sure that jumping down that cliff while on fire is smart?" It's just my way of doing the usual "Are you sure?" when players are likely to do.

Again, this is one area where I see potential for unintentional abuse. The danger here is that everything gets put to the "talking cow test" (yes, the incorrect reading was funnier and so I am intentionally misreading it). Bring up every plan before the talking cow first. If the talking cow is silent, it will probably work. If the talking cow speaks, do something different.

The danger is it can become a very subtle, unintentional form of railroading. Not only do you have to not deliberately railroad by doing this, but you have to watch for the clues that your group is taking it as railroading, even if that's not your intent.


Talking to NPCs for them: never. He just knows the city better than them. "Winsome, do you know a librarian around here?" Is the more usual thing. He gives them an address, they go there and talk. He's more like a mimic in that regard.

Well, that's not too bad, but the same comments as the scouting apply. Having the talking cow know everybody removes a lot of opportunities from roleplaying, information gathering, etc.


And they have the problem that they are pretty passive sometime. Part of it is probably from the medium of Skype. But I've had a few times that they'd go "what should we do now?" ingame, discuss two or three plans, not agree on any one of them and then just stare at each other silently for ten minutes. I'm just nudging them a bit.


And the danger here is that they go passive because they're waiting for you to nudge them in the "right" direction, knowing that you'll eventually do so. I've found that generally, players not being able to make a decision on what to do is a matter of them not having sufficient understanding of the choices available, and the advantages/disadvantages of those choices. There's a fine line between offering too much info, and giving enough that players can actually make semi-informed decisions. But if they're not coming up with plans, I find it's usually best to give them a bit more information on the impact of various decisions and the pros and cons, rather than nudge them in a direction.

Especially for players that have been railroaded (deliberately or not), getting them to make decisions can be hard. I find that giving them waaaaay specific information on what choices they're making, and then absolutely refusing to nudge them in a direction, is the best way to get them started. You can back off of the obviousness once they start making their own decisions.

In a recent game, the players had to make a choice of what target they wanted. I explicitly told them what the effects of each target would be - one would reduce the encounter size for the rest of the scenario, another would get rid of the mounts, a third would remove most of the controller-types, and a fourth would cause the enemies to break morale more quickly. This was enough information for them to have a rather spirited debate for about 10 minutes. This group had also been pretty used to being railroaded, and I went heavy meta-game on the description to make sure they had sufficient data to actually have a meaningful debate about the plans.

[Eldan]

We've been playing weekly for, I don't know how long. Half a year? A year? I'm not sure, really. So far, I've used the "move on, please", maybe two or three times. It's not that bad.

And he has his own agenda, of course. Can't say too much, actually, since all the players are forum regulars.

[Archwizard]

Shrug, I still say it's all about having a clear character for your DMPC, and then playing that character.

One character I played could have easily been a DMPC (he wasn't because I wasn't the DM). He was a Lawful Neutral Fighter 8 / Cleric 1 who had a clear backstory about starting life as a cleric (just like his father, who was the head of the church now) and then losing the love of his life to a senseless crime and he watched helplessly as the city guard was unable to stop it. This was a major traumatic event, and it caused an alignment shift in him from LG to LN and he switched from being a Cleric to being a Fighter. He viewed the breakdown of the law and his own lack of martial prowess as the key failings that allowed his love to be killed, so he vowed to never be weak and to always enforce and promote the law. (The fact that he had a Chaotic Good Bard 6 / Cleric 2 following him at the request of his father to keep an eye on him [played by my wife] added to the fun.)

Clear story, clear goals, clear character. I could have easily played him and run a campaign at the same time without people confusing the two.

[kyoryu]

We've been playing weekly for, I don't know how long. Half a year? A year? I'm not sure, really. So far, I've used the "move on, please", maybe two or three times. It's not that bad.

And he has his own agenda, of course. Can't say too much, actually, since all the players are forum regulars.

As I said, I don't play in your game, so my responses were more generic, using your post as an example. "move on" two or three times certainly isn't bad.

And his agenda? He's a talking crow. His agenda is "Eet mor chikin."

[Volthawk]

*snip*

Well, I'm one of his players, and I like Winsome. See, he doesn't tell us what to do, unlike what you seem to be assuming. See, yes, he does advise us, and we take on his advice, but we do have our own plans, and his ideas generally add to what we have. Also, by the 'knowing people' thing, it's just he's brought in a contact during a big fight that we used to kill one of the tougher more brutish enemies (in exchange for some 'favours', which might make things interesting in the future) while we focused on the leader and the mage demon. Also, his ideas don't always work out so well, so he's hardly a 'do this' mouthpiece, and we do the talking to NPCs in the game, any talking he does is behind the scenes. To use the earlier battle, while Winsome got his contact, we gathered forces that included three ogres, a monk, a gang and an old adventurer or two. Could hardly call him a DMPC, actually, given how he doesn't do any combat or RP with NPCs that we can see. More just an ally who has contacts.

All in all, he's a fun little addition to our team, so if the yardstick for a successful DMPC is that the players enjoy it, then yes, I'll say Winsome is a successful DMPC (if he counts).


We've been playing weekly for, I don't know how long. Half a year? A year? I'm not sure, really. So far, I've used the "move on, please", maybe two or three times. It's not that bad.

And he has his own agenda, of course. Can't say too much, actually, since all the players are forum regulars.

I'd say a year. And yes, I know he has his own agenda already. Hell, he's been trying to get us to do blood sacrifices more than once.

[Eldan]

I'd say a year. And yes, I know he has his own agenda already. Hell, he's been trying to get us to do blood sacrifices more than once.

Hehe. He can be so adorably blunt some times.

[kyoryu]

Well, I'm one of his players, and I like Winsome.

Cool. I stand corrected. Only had his initial posts to go on, but that cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had.

[Yukitsu]

Just a brief analogy to the examples, and why some people who read them are still saying it can't be done effectively:

A game is like a wine tasting, a DMPC like methanol and NPCs like ethanol (NPC) or glycerol (NPC with the party). You can spike some of your wine at your tasting with methanol, and you can claim that since no one went blind, it's perfectly safe doing so, or that you just have to be careful how much methanol you use. However, that doesn't mean you were getting a benefit from including it, and you certainly need to be told to stop.

Some other DMs say they are adding anti-freeze to their wine as well, but they are using glycerol, not entirely certain as to the key problem of adding methanol to wine. Others have ethanol in their wine and think it's the same thing because it ends in "ol".

Hence why there are plenty of people who still say it's always bad to add methanol to wine, even while others are saying anti-freeze is perfectly fine. And even in the event that you can add methanol to your wine without blinding anyone, that doesn't make it worthwhile trying when there are other perfectly valid additives to wine.

And that's why people will read through the "examples of good DMPCs" and still conclude that DMPCs are always bad.

[kyoryu]

And that's why people will read through the "examples of good DMPCs" and still conclude that DMPCs are always bad.

DMPCs are not always bad. They can work. My opinion is just that the inherent dangers of DMPCs are high enough that they should generally be avoided in favor of alternative solutions.

The 1 in 10 times that they do work out ain't worth the risk, when there's almost always other solutions to a given problem with less risk attached.

[Yukitsu]

Those would be the aforementioned one in ten times you drink the wine, it tastes OK, and no one goes blind. That doesn't mean it should have been done in the first place, and it's still a bad thing to add to your wine.

[Eldan]

Note to self: Have Winsome hack someone's eyes out.

[Solaris]

Just a brief analogy to the examples, and why some people who read them are still saying it can't be done effectively:

A game is like a wine tasting, a DMPC like methanol and NPCs like ethanol (NPC) or glycerol (NPC with the party). You can spike some of your wine at your tasting with methanol, and you can claim that since no one went blind, it's perfectly safe doing so, or that you just have to be careful how much methanol you use. However, that doesn't mean you were getting a benefit from including it, and you certainly need to be told to stop.

Some other DMs say they are adding anti-freeze to their wine as well, but they are using glycerol, not entirely certain as to the key problem of adding methanol to wine. Others have ethanol in their wine and think it's the same thing because it ends in "ol".

Hence why there are plenty of people who still say it's always bad to add methanol to wine, even while others are saying anti-freeze is perfectly fine. And even in the event that you can add methanol to your wine without blinding anyone, that doesn't make it worthwhile trying when there are other perfectly valid additives to wine.

And that's why people will read through the "examples of good DMPCs" and still conclude that DMPCs are always bad.

This, of course, assumes that your analogies are accurate. They're not.

[Yukitsu]

This, of course, assumes that your analogies are accurate. They're not.

I'm simply pointing out why so many people are reading the thread and saying "DMPCs are always bad". You may not think it an apt comparison, but it's pretty much a summary of why so many people maintain the position, and why snubbing them by saying "you obviously haven't read the thread." isn't going to change that. Well, yeah, I have read them, and honestly I wouldn't look at a single example and have the thought "well that's a PC" pop into my head, rather than thinking "so it's an NPC right?".

The main assumption of a DMPC being good seems to hinge on it not being a main part of the core cast, and certainly not a protagonist. Often to the point that it is impossible to distinguish between the supposed DMPC and an NPC that happens to remain in close proximity for more than a single scene. I find pretty much every example analogous to calling Alfred Pennyworth a protagonist through the batman series.

[a_humble_lich]

First, there are many types of character that could be called a DMPC:

The Sidekick--This is the specialist with no personality who is their only to fill skills the PCs lack. For example the healbot cleric or NPC tracker.
The important NPC--The NPC who follows the party helps them out gives in character advice and is generally an important part of the plot/game. From what I have heard this is where Winsome would be. This is also the vampire sorcerer who is infiltrating the party from the beginning.
The full DMPC--The DM has a character with emotional involvment who is a full part of the party and making decisions along with the rest of the party. This is more rare but I've definatly seen it work.
The evil DMPC--An antagonist that the DM is invested emotionally in so that they become a PC. This is very dangerous.


Of course these are extreme cases, most examples will be somewhere in between. In general, I think the last two are dangerous, but no. 3 especially can work. In a pure hack 'n slash game where encounters are randomly rolled and the job of the DM is basically just to roll the monster's dice a DMPC works fine. I've also seen it work is a very loose sandbox game where the role of the DM is much more collaborative.

I have also seen DMPCs in cases where nobody in the group wants to DM, especially when the group is small. Its not the optimal solution, but if the choices are play with a DMPC, not play at all, or (horror of horrors) DM myself, then the choice is clear.:smallsmile:

One thing I've learned playing and reading these boards is that there are many many different styles of play. Yes having a DMPC can de dangerous. Do you know what else can be disruptive--evil PCs, mixed alignment parties, players playing the opposite gender, having a plot and railroading too much, a sandbox campaign where everyone gets bored, playing 3.5e, playing 4e, playing any thing else, playing monks and fighers, playing druids and wizards, playing with "optimizers," playing with people who don't optimize.....

Really you have to decide what works with your group and with the type of game you want to run.

[tribble]

I'm simply pointing out why so many people are reading the thread and saying "DMPCs are always bad". You may not think it an apt comparison, but it's pretty much a summary of why so many people maintain the position, and why snubbing them by saying "you obviously haven't read the thread." isn't going to change that. Well, yeah, I have read them, and honestly I wouldn't look at a single example and have the thought "well that's a PC" pop into my head, rather than thinking "so it's an NPC right?".


He isn't saying you haven't read the thread, he's saying your metaphor is flawed and it is. Comparing the DMPC to methanol assumes the question of whether the DMPC is an objectively bad thing, IE the purpose of this thread. Then you compare putting a non-DMPC with the party to putting antifreeze in wine, which commits the same fallacy. The bit about ethanol is just confusing and doesn't help your point.

[Yukitsu]

He isn't saying you haven't read the thread, he's saying your metaphor is flawed and it is. Comparing the DMPC to methanol assumes the question of whether the DMPC is an objectively bad thing, IE the purpose of this thread. Then you compare putting a non-DMPC with the party to putting antifreeze in wine, which commits the same fallacy. The bit about ethanol is just confusing and doesn't help your point.

It was an analogy directed at all those people who were saying "read the thread" of which there were a few. I'm fairly certain that was made abundantly clear by the statement "And that's why people will read through the "examples of good DMPCs" and still conclude that DMPCs are always bad." at the end of the analogy. If I'm rationalizing why someone would have the opinion that it's bad, it doesn't make sense to give them a frame of reference that's neutral, it rather requires a negative frame of reference to the topic. Otherwise I'd be giving an analogy as to why those posters think it's neutral, which they aren't.

I could put up a giant disclaimer in bold red letters that says "this analogy is the point of view of all the people who have read your examples and still never want to see a DMPC in their campaign." but I don't honestly view it as necessary.

[tribble]

It was an analogy directed at all those people who were saying "read the thread" of which there were a few. I'm fairly certain that was made abundantly clear by the statement "And that's why people will read through the "examples of good DMPCs" and still conclude that DMPCs are always bad." at the end of the analogy. If I'm rationalizing why someone would have the opinion that it's bad, it doesn't make sense to give them a frame of reference that's neutral, it rather requires a negative frame of reference to the topic. Otherwise I'd be giving an analogy as to why those posters think it's neutral, which they aren't.

The message I walked away from your analogy with was that people think all DMPCs are bad is because they objectively are bad. The post quoted indicates you were making a different point, in which case your analogy confused the point you were making. Ergo, your analogy is not performing its intended function and is in fact hampering your case. It's a bad analogy, even without the fact that one has to know about wine tasting to understand it. Layman's knowledge should be used in analogies, and wine tasting isn't something your average person knows much about.

[Yukitsu]

The message I walked away from your analogy with was that people think all DMPCs are bad is because they objectively are bad. The post quoted indicates you were making a different point, in which case your analogy confused the point you were making. Ergo, your analogy is not performing its intended function and is in fact hampering your case. It's a bad analogy, even without the fact that one has to know about wine tasting to understand it. Layman's knowledge should be used in analogies, and wine tasting isn't something your average person knows much about.

Well, if you find ambiguity in "And that's why people will read through the "examples of good DMPCs" and still conclude that DMPCs are always bad."" is an inherent part of the message and the analogy, then it'll be bad. I stated fairly outright at the beginning and end of that post that I was arguing exactly that however, so the statement that the "intent" and "stated purpose" are at odds seems odd to me.

As for wine tasting being too esoteric, maybe. Frankly the post didn't contain anything more complex than "don't poison the tasters" though, so I don't go into things like tannins and aging. The chem references may be too esoteric though.

[SamBurke]

In one game I'm GMing now, the players HAVE to have a DMPC, otherwise... they... will... die. Seriously. They do all the wrong things, kill the wrong people at the wrong time. So, I introduced goody-goody elf to get them out of things. They now love him, and, eventually, he'll get an awesome death scene. It's that simple.

Sometimes, it's necessary.

In a game I'm currently prepping for, I've set up a few DMPCs who will be immensely helpful, if they choose to help the DMPC just once.

Sometimes, it's useful.

My verdict: be careful, but DMPCs are no worse than NPCs.

[Solaris]

My issue is this: You make an absolute statement about the objective worth of something. You're also using different definitions than we (the last few posters and I) are. You're saying that it's always bad to have a DMPC, when the evidence suggests otherwise. While I agree that they can - and do - turn out poorly, they don't always do so, and in many times do improve the game for their presence.
It wasn't a complaint about the ethanol/methanol thing. I've no problems with the analogy except for the fact that it describes a situation entirely inaccurately.

Here's one: It's like T&A. Sometimes it makes a game better. Sometimes it just doesn't hurt. Sometimes it makes the game worse. It all depends on the situation.

When I actually do play, my PCs tend to play a lot like my DMPCs/party NPCs. I've yet to play with a group that's enjoyed having a clear-cut leader-type, or with someone who takes a lot of the limelight (though thankfully have yet to play with someone who's been so very jealous of the limelight).

[Yukitsu]

Well yes, but I stated outright that I'm not demonstrating the fact of DMPCs as good or bad, I'm stating the account of why people are disagreeing with you that keep getting the comment "read the thread." which is both dismissive and unhelpful. It's only a statement of objective fact if I had said they are necessarily right.

In light of all this, I do still disagree that they are ever good, talking about your example. Certainly, I haven't really seen examples that are both DM and PC, and the underlying argument tends to be "DMPCs are fine so long as they are not protagonists." Mind you nothing about leadership here, but that they be the core cast of the story. To me that argument makes as much sense as saying DMPCs are fine so long as they aren't PCs.

[randomhero00]

DMPCs can be good can be bad. End of discussion.

[John Campbell]

My issue is this: You make an absolute statement about the objective worth of something. You're also using different definitions than we (the last few posters and I) are.
I think that was kind of the point of the analogy. When one side is saying, "This is always bad," and the other side is saying, "Something different but superficially similar is sometimes good," this is not a useful debate. Especially when the two sides are using the same word for those two different things. And that's what DMPC arguments always turn into.

[Serpentine]

His analogy wasn't "Some people think it's always bad even though others think it's sometimes good", it was "some people think something that is bad is always bad even though some people are stupid and think that just because the bad thing sometimes isn't terrible that means it's not bad".
Well, I don't play in your game, but I'm going to point out a few things that I see as dangers of DMPCs. These may not be occurring in your game, but they're things that I see as easy to occur, even when they aren't being done deliberately.I saw here a whole lot of "these are things that could go wrong with your DMPC", and not a whit of interest in whether or not they actually do go wrong.
When you drive your car, a lot of things could go wrong. Statistically, it's actually really dangerous. If you have a bad driver, chances are something will go wrong. Do you consider that a reason to say "people probably shouldn't go driving in cars" - or what others are saying, "cars will always kill you and anyone who drives a car is a bad person"?

I'm simply pointing out why so many people are reading the thread and saying "DMPCs are always bad". You may not think it an apt comparison, but it's pretty much a summary of why so many people maintain the position, and why snubbing them by saying "you obviously haven't read the thread." isn't going to change that. Well, yeah, I have read them, and honestly I wouldn't look at a single example and have the thought "well that's a PC" pop into my head, rather than thinking "so it's an NPC right?".Funny, because it reads to me that that's an analogy for why you keep saying "DMPCs are always bad". You keep trying to distance yourself from your own analogy, when it seems pretty clear to me that it's illustrating your own views.
And I wonder why us suggesting that he actually read what has been said here before making an absolutist statement of supposed fact is meant to be more "snubby" or rude than him coming in, ignoring everything anyone has said and simply making an absolutist statement of supposed fact...

The main assumption of a DMPC being good seems to hinge on it not being a main part of the core cast, and certainly not a protagonist. Often to the point that it is impossible to distinguish between the supposed DMPC and an NPC that happens to remain in close proximity for more than a single scene. I find pretty much every example analogous to calling Alfred Pennyworth a protagonist through the batman series.Nope. Mine's an at least significant part of the core cast (and as she's one of only 2 characters to have been there from the start, probably a main part), and she's about as much a protagonist as any other character. She's still a DMPC.
We're not going to fall into the "No True Scotsman" arguments again, are we? :smallsigh:
DMPCs can be good can be bad. End of discussion.Oh, if only it were that easy...

[MeeposFire]

I have heard bad stories of DMPCs and I know they exist but I will say in all my experience (and the many DMPCs that have been around) I have yet to see a bad DMPC so assuming they are bad would not make sense to me.

[Yukitsu]

I'm not certain I'm on the same page as you as to what a protagonist is. A protagonist and the sub derivatives are the character or characters that the story focuses on. A protagonist is not defined in terms of being the leader, the decision maker, the hero, the most interesting or most notable individual of the story. They're simply the one that the spotlight happens to be falling on. This is something you specifically deny to your DMPC, so if it's not the story about the DMPC, then it's pretty evidently not a protagonist at any rate.

You could argue that PCs don't have to be protagonists, or that some players don't actually play their characters as protagonists, but I'm not certain it makes sense to create a story where the characters whose perspectives you exclusively follow and emphasize are deutertagonists (or however you spell that). Even if a group decides to play as inactive, uninteresting unmotivated blobs who are merely being pulled along by more active agents, if the game is framed around what they are doing, then they're protagonists.

I'm not going to distance myself from what I'm saying. It's why I personally don't follow the examples as to why DMPCs can sometimes be a good idea. However, I'd at this point in time, be keeping my opinion to myself if people who have a perfectly valid opinion weren't being snubbed with "well we're obviously right and have completely and irrefutably demonstrated that already if you uneducated rubes would just read the brilliance of our previous posts." Well no. Even if you read the thread, saying "yeah, DMPCs can work, go for it" isn't any more a demonstrated proof than the statement that they never can.

That and I'm not really sure what statistic makes driving dangerous.

[kyoryu]

When you drive your car, a lot of things could go wrong. Statistically, it's actually really dangerous. If you have a bad driver, chances are something will go wrong. Do you consider that a reason to say "people probably shouldn't go driving in cars" - or what others are saying, "cars will always kill you and anyone who drives a car is a bad person"?

I'm going to modify your analogy slightly, to better represent my point. In general, DMing is more like driving cars - lots of ways that things can go wrong, but is worth it overall and you just have to be careful and know the dangers.

DMPCs are more like swimming the English Channel to get from England to France. When it works, it's epic as hell, but it will only work for the most highly trained people, and even then it's risky. When it doesn't work, there's a good chance you'll die. Even when it works, you're going to get cold and wet, and it takes a lot more prep than jumping on a plane or boat.

For most people, if you want to get from England to France, don't swim the Channel. Take a boat or a plane. Overall, those options are less risky and more efficient.

And I've never, ever gone as far as saying "people who use DMPCs are bad." Heck, I've been very consistent about saying that they *can* work in certain cases.

[Willfor]

I'm going to modify your analogy slightly, to better represent my point. In general, DMing is more like driving cars - lots of ways that things can go wrong, but is worth it overall and you just have to be careful and know the dangers.

DMPCs are more like swimming the English Channel to get from England to France. When it works, it's epic as hell, but it will only work for the most highly trained people, and even then it's risky. When it doesn't work, there's a good chance you'll die. Even when it works, you're going to get cold and wet, and it takes a lot more prep than jumping on a plane or boat.

For most people, if you want to get from England to France, don't swim the Channel. Take a boat or a plane. Overall, those options are less risky and more efficient.

And I've never, ever gone as far as saying "people who use DMPCs are bad." Heck, I've been very consistent about saying that they *can* work in certain cases.
There is a distinct disconnect between the scale of your analogy, and how you are presenting your views. Saying that DMPCs are like swimming the English Channel for the most part invalidates the last sentence as it makes the cases where they can work so unbelievably small that they would be functionally unusable.

[Honest Tiefling]

I view DMPCs like sushi. Some players just don't like it, while others are fascinated by it. People have different ideas on how to correctly eat it, others do not really care. People like different flavors of sushi and not others. Some just don't care for it entirely.

But if you are not careful or if you do not know what you are doing...You are likely to make your players sick.

[kyoryu]

There is a distinct disconnect between the scale of your analogy, and how you are presenting your views. Saying that DMPCs are like swimming the English Channel for the most part invalidates the last sentence as it makes the cases where they can work so unbelievably small that they would be functionally unusable.

Okay, maybe swimming the English Channel is an exaggeration of my views. But the general flavor remains :smallbiggrin:

[Solaris]

I'm simply pointing out why so many people are reading the thread and saying "DMPCs are always bad". You may not think it an apt comparison, but it's pretty much a summary of why so many people maintain the position, and why snubbing them by saying "you obviously haven't read the thread." isn't going to change that.

Bolded are the weasel words that made it look like you're trying to distance yourself from your analogy.


Well, yeah, I have read them, and honestly I wouldn't look at a single example and have the thought "well that's a PC" pop into my head, rather than thinking "so it's an NPC right?".

See, I disagree and here's why: I run my DMPCs the same way I do my own PCs. That's the problem with your "No true Scotsman"-type argument. Just because I hardly ever play the lead of the story (I prefer playing Gandalf or Gimli, not Frodo or Aragorn) doesn't mean it's any less of a PC or DMPC.
Take my current DMPC for an example. Thus far (it's only been a couple of sessions) she's the moral compass of the group, quite brave about getting into the middle of a fight to help her allies, but she's naive and doesn't have much experience with the more 'colorful' sides of the world. Other personalities in the group are livelier and take up more of the show, but in truth there's really not a whole lot there for a DM to draw adventure hooks from just yet. If I were running her as a player, I honestly wouldn't have changed anything about how I played her (except maybe to build her as a cleric rather than as a healer).
So tell me: How is that different from a PC, besides which side of the screen I roll the dice on?


However, I'd at this point in time, be keeping my opinion to myself if people who have a perfectly valid opinion weren't being snubbed with "well we're obviously right and have completely and irrefutably demonstrated that already if you uneducated rubes would just read the brilliance of our previous posts." Well no. Even if you read the thread, saying "yeah, DMPCs can work, go for it" isn't any more a demonstrated proof than the statement that they never can.

That wasn't what I said at all. He made an absolute statement about the quality of DMPCs and didn't come up with any evidence for it. I pointed out to him that there's evidence in this thread - in the form of players coming forward and saying "Yeah, this one was fun".


No, it never ends well. You as the DM might think it is working but the DMPC will always take away the limelight from the PCs.

Or are you trying to say that this guy actually contributed something to the thread, Yukitsu? 'Cause if Eldan posts that little anecdote about Lord Winsome and one of Eldan's players agrees that the skeevy little bird is fun to play with, then that's demonstrated proof right there.
Unless you're looking for, y'know, a rigorous scientific study. That's a bit beyond the expectations of a forum discussion and, quite frankly, excessive for disproving absolutist statements to the effect of "DMPCs are always bad."


That and I'm not really sure what statistic makes driving dangerous.
Driving has more fatalities per mile than air travel.


I view DMPCs like sushi. Some players just don't like it, while others are fascinated by it. People have different ideas on how to correctly eat it, others do not really care. People like different flavors of sushi and not others. Some just don't care for it entirely.

But if you are not careful or if you do not know what you are doing...You are likely to make your players sick.

Great analogy. I'll have to crib it next time this thread pops up.

[Yukitsu]

Bolded are the weasel words that made it look like you're trying to distance yourself from your analogy.

I'm wondering why something can't be in both camps at this point in time. I'm fairly obvious in the anti-DMPC camp, and I'm fairly obviously opposed to the "Oh yeah, well it's a support character, but it's also just as important as the primary cast that it supports." I can hold the position itself, and I can state outright this is why people are reading your stuff, and still won't agree with it.


See, I disagree and here's why: I run my DMPCs the same way I do my own PCs. That's the problem with your "No true Scotsman"-type argument. Just because I hardly ever play the lead of the story (I prefer playing Gandalf or Gimli, not Frodo or Aragorn) doesn't mean it's any less of a PC or DMPC.
Take my current DMPC for an example. Thus far (it's only been a couple of sessions) she's the moral compass of the group, quite brave about getting into the middle of a fight to help her allies, but she's naive and doesn't have much experience with the more 'colorful' sides of the world. Other personalities in the group are livelier and take up more of the show, but in truth there's really not a whole lot there for a DM to draw adventure hooks from just yet. If I were running her as a player, I honestly wouldn't have changed anything about how I played her (except maybe to build her as a cleric rather than as a healer).
So tell me: How is that different from a PC, besides which side of the screen I roll the dice on?

I want you to ask yourself here, why would I change from a healbot to a cleric?

Think about this for a second. Why would I change something from an entity that is by definition singular in use, to something that can do functionally anything? You can certainly argue that the cleric can be played identically, but that's not true. There are suddenly a myriad of solutions, tricks, powers and new RP situations that are opened up when you switch to a cleric from a healbot. This isn't to say you won't play it exactly the same. You might. But given that you believe the change is necessary, or desirable immediately changes the inherent dynamic of the character. It becomes immediately evident that at the very least, you can step into a greater role. Is that not immediate evidence that the supposed DMPC was not identical to a PC, in that it held a less significant role in the party, acting as a lesser agent than a fully fleshed PC that you would create evidently would?

A character as much as RP purists I'm sure like to believe aren't just RP any more than they are just a bunch of numbers. They're both, and they're the interaction between them. That you would have to change the numbers, but you wouldn't change the RP? That you now have tools to step to the fore and accomplish something in the spotlight, but you wouldn't? I don't buy that.

As for no true Scotsman, no I'm very level about saying "It's a DM's PC." Unfortunately, I can only argue about the inherent nature of the PC itself in Socratic terms, and if I did that I'd probably end up having to drink hemlock.

Ultimately, you'd have to start with the question of what a player is. Then, whether or not the DM is a player. In the scope of this discussion, the DM must be a player in the game by default, otherwise a DMPC is a logical impossibility. Since the DM is a player, and the DM controls all NPCs this essentially means that a very loose assumption as to what a PC is, yields the result that any non-PC is by definition a DMPC, which equivalently is useless as a definition. Therefore, there must be some inherent trait beyond being a character with a player that defines a PC (otherwise everything is a PC). What differentiates a PC from any other character then? It can't be activity. A certain player character can do more or less than another, and this doesn't make him more "PCish" than the other characters. It can't be agency. You aren't an NPC when under compulsion. It can't be heroics, you can be any class of villain, mundane bystander or other such thing and be a PC.

I hold that the only constant of a PC of any sort is that they are the frame of reference around which the story is constructed. There is no singular character "type" that will embody a DMPC, a PC or an NPC. Change the frame of reference and all of them can become the stars of the microcosm that is their life. There's no reason a story could not be written where Gandalf or Gimli were the protagonists. They only weren't because LoTR wasn't their story, it wasn't about them. And it's this sort of referential agency that essentially every DMPC example completely lacks.

Ahh damnit, I'll go get the hemlock. :smallfrown:


That wasn't what I said at all. He made an absolute statement about the quality of DMPCs and didn't come up with any evidence for it. I pointed out to him that there's evidence in this thread - in the form of players coming forward and saying "Yeah, this one was fun".

Just take it that people assume evidence that they viewed as flawed is to be refered to as "no evidence."


Or are you trying to say that this guy actually contributed something to the thread, Yukitsu? 'Cause if Eldan posts that little anecdote about Lord Winsome and one of Eldan's players agrees that the skeevy little bird is fun to play with, then that's demonstrated proof right there.

It's excellent proof that a skeevy little bird is fun to play with, but I'm contending that it's not a PC. Again, the scrutiny of, as is, would you make that your PC in that game?

That aside, I don't particularly care the degree to which they are contributing. The comment made at them was incredibly rude.


Unless you're looking for, y'know, a rigorous scientific study. That's a bit beyond the expectations of a forum discussion and, quite frankly, excessive for disproving absolutist statements to the effect of "DMPCs are always bad."

Yeah, social scientists with minors in philosophy get like this, but to be honest, I wouldn't have been in those fields without an obsessive passion over it.


Driving has more fatalities per mile than air travel.

Which has more fatalities than lightning strikes, which has more fatalities than ozone poisoning, which has more fatalities than spontaneous combustion. That doesn't make lightning, ozone or airplanes dangerous. I don't particularly see the logic in putting the cutoff at cars. Especially given how many people think it's safe enough to do 2+ times per day.

[Serpentine]

I'm not certain I'm on the same page as you as to what a protagonist is. A protagonist and the sub derivatives are the character or characters that the story focuses on. A protagonist is not defined in terms of being the leader, the decision maker, the hero, the most interesting or most notable individual of the story. They're simply the one that the spotlight happens to be falling on. This is something you specifically deny to your DMPC, so if it's not the story about the DMPC, then it's pretty evidently not a protagonist at any rate.My game's story is about the party. My DM's character is a member of the party. Therefore, by your definition, my character is one of the protaganists.

However, I'd at this point in time, be keeping my opinion to myself if people who have a perfectly valid opinion weren't being snubbed with "well we're obviously right and have completely and irrefutably demonstrated that already if you uneducated rubes would just read the brilliance of our previous posts."That person came in, ignored every single thing anyone in the entire thread has said, made a statement of apparently irrefutable fact, includes a potentially snide jab at all DMs who use DMPCs and their supposed self-delusion, and you're accusing us of snubbing him?! Are you serious? Your interpretation of what we're saying applies at least as well to him: "Well I'm obviously right and merely saying so completely and irrefutably demonstrates that and anyone who disagrees is just deluding themselves".
He was rude. He snubbed everything anyone has said. He made a blanket and potentially insulting statement. And all we asked was that he at least acknowledge that others disagree.

[SleepyShadow]

That person came in, ignored every single thing anyone in the entire thread has said, made a statement of apparently irrefutable fact, includes a potentially snide jab at all DMs who use DMPCs and their supposed self-delusion, and you're accusing us of snubbing him?! Are you serious? Your interpretation of what we're saying applies at least as well to him: "Well I'm obviously right and merely saying so completely and irrefutably demonstrates that and anyone who disagrees is just deluding themselves".
He was rude. He snubbed everything anyone has said. He made a blanket and potentially insulting statement. And all we asked was that he at least acknowledge that others disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly. Grab yourself an internet cookie. Cheers, mate.

[Archwizard]

I view DMPCs like sushi. Some players just don't like it, while others are fascinated by it. People have different ideas on how to correctly eat it, others do not really care. People like different flavors of sushi and not others. Some just don't care for it entirely.

But if you are not careful or if you do not know what you are doing...You are likely to make your players sick.

I like this one. And I like sushi. Damn, now I'm hungry for sushi.

[Serpentine]

Sushi is the best P:
But DMPCs are not the best! They're just good sometimes! The analogy has broken down! D:

[SleepyShadow]

Sushi is the best P:
But DMPCs are not the best! They're just good sometimes! The analogy has broken down! D:

So ... DMPCs are like various flavors of sushi? Some flavors people like, and other flavors they do not like?

Or, going deeper into the analogy, one could say that the PCs are the fish inside the sushi. They are the meaty part, the part that is both the most flavorful and the most desired. They are what give the sushi/game its meat.

The BBEG/Plot/MacGuffin is the rice on the outside. Almost as important as the PCs, and (like in all games save for the most loose of sandbox campaigns) they hold the game together, just as the rice holds the sushi together. After all, it is hard to have a game when the PCs have nothing to do/kill/find, and it is hard to have sushi without the rice holding it together.

Lastly, we have the DMPC, which in this analogy is represented by the strip of seaweed present between the fish and the rice. Done well, it can help hold the sushi/game together, while adding a small bit of crisp flavor. Done poorly, the DMPC can cause the game to fall apart, just as a bad bit of seaweed will cause the fish to slip out and the rice to crumble away.

Has the analogy been successfully broken down?

[Serpentine]

I... That'll do, pig. That'll do.

But more seriously, DMPCs are like [something that need to be used with care with the necessary skills, that when used badly can be terrible but when used well can be good]: they need to be used with care by someone aware of the potential problems and the ability to distinguish between in-character and out-of-character knowledge and to treat the character fairly, and when used badly can be game-destroying but when used well can add something positive to the game.
Insert Something There.

[PersonMan]

So ... DMPCs are like various flavors of sushi? Some flavors people like, and other flavors they do not like?

Or, going deeper into the analogy, one could say that the PCs are the fish inside the sushi. They are the meaty part, the part that is both the most flavorful and the most desired. They are what give the sushi/game its meat.

The BBEG/Plot/MacGuffin is the rice on the outside. Almost as important as the PCs, and (like in all games save for the most loose of sandbox campaigns) they hold the game together, just as the rice holds the sushi together. After all, it is hard to have a game when the PCs have nothing to do/kill/find, and it is hard to have sushi without the rice holding it together.

Lastly, we have the DMPC, which in this analogy is represented by the strip of seaweed present between the fish and the rice. Done well, it can help hold the sushi/game together, while adding a small bit of crisp flavor. Done poorly, the DMPC can cause the game to fall apart, just as a bad bit of seaweed will cause the fish to slip out and the rice to crumble away.

Has the analogy been successfully broken down?

No, it works. Seriously, it does. I mean, I never expected sushi to be a good DnD analogy, but...it describes it rather well.

[Serpentine]

Also: some people just plain don't like seaweed, and sushi can be made without it without any issues. Some people barely even notice its presence, while still others prefer it.

[Yukitsu]

My game's story is about the party. My DM's character is a member of the party. Therefore, by your definition, my character is one of the protaganists.

A protagonist is definitionally a character. A group is not a character. Nor is that my definition, it's the dictionary's.


That person came in, ignored every single thing anyone in the entire thread has said, made a statement of apparently irrefutable fact, includes a potentially snide jab at all DMs who use DMPCs and their supposed self-delusion, and you're accusing us of snubbing him?! Are you serious? Your interpretation of what we're saying applies at least as well to him: "Well I'm obviously right and merely saying so completely and irrefutably demonstrates that and anyone who disagrees is just deluding themselves".
He was rude. He snubbed everything anyone has said. He made a blanket and potentially insulting statement. And all we asked was that he at least acknowledge that others disagree.

This rather presupposes that they have to agree with what was read. What precisely about those arguments is compelling enough that they have to be regarded as proof of the good DMPC?

I like the new analogies by the way. Now DMPCs are virtually never actively harmful, always good for you, exceptionally easy to pull off correctly and merely a matter of taste. An interesting stance to take.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I've been told that they CAN work, so long as you're careful. Generally, according to my friends, DMPC's work best if they're more along the lines of a support character rather than a character that shares spotlight-time with the others. That it should fill in a blank or shore up a deficiency within the party. If the party's finding itself barely surviving battles, the DMPC should be a healer. If the party's full of squishy casters, the DMPC should be a meatshield. And so on and so forth. This allows you to contribute to the party's success without being too much of an intrusive presence in combat.

In out of combat situations, the DMPC should again avoid the spotlight. If they're there to keep the party on track, do it subtly or make suggestions. Browbeat the party at your peril, for you WILL draw accusations of railroading. Above all, NEVER make your DMPC essential to the plot of the campaign. Feel free to develop a subplot in connection with the other characters if you don't want your character to just be an autopiloted cardboard figure, but a DMPC should never be essential to the completeion of the story. You're not the star of the show, you're the guy who carries the bags.

[Just_Ice]

Just because the DM is the DM doesn't mean that other players don't take on aspects of storytellers in some games. In that sort of game, you could hardly call everyone's character an NPC.

In addition, statting out the character as a character attaches the DM to it as if they were actually playing the character. If it's just "Healbot: 5 hp to other teammates every round" rather than rolls to survive and whatnot, it's very obviously an NPC.

It's mostly dependent on the group, but a bad DMPC and a good DMPC may not necessarily be many qualities apart.

[Serpentine]

A protagonist is definitionally a character. A group is not a character. Nor is that my definition, it's the dictionary's.So, what, your games are only about one PC? My games are about the party as a whole, and as individuals, and what they as a group do. If a character leaves the party, the story is no longer about them. My DMPC is as much a protaganist as any other character.

This rather presupposes that they have to agree with what was read. What precisely about those arguments is compelling enough that they have to be regarded as proof of the good DMPC?No, it doesn't, not at all. It requires that they acknowledge that people have other opinions and that theirs is not necessarily the only one that could possibly be right. That is all.
Why is it okay for him to come in and ignore everything anyone else has said while making a subtly insulting statement of "fact", but not for us to request that he at least acknowledge that there's a debate going on?

I like the new analogies by the way. Now DMPCs are virtually never actively harmful, always good for you, exceptionally easy to pull off correctly and merely a matter of taste. An interesting stance to take.Really? That's funny, I thought mine said something along the lines of how DMPCs can be bad when not handled carefully, that they can be tricky to do right, and that... well, yes, also a matter of taste. The others have have come up have involved a lot of "you have to be careful with them, they can go badly wrong, and some people don't like them". Not really seeing any "never harmful, always good, and heaps easy". Like, at all.
As opposed to your "DMPCs are absolutely always terrible no matter what, anyone who thinks theirs isn't terrible is just plain deluded, and any DMPC that is demonstrably not terrible isn't really a DMPC", which is so much more even-handed and reasonable, right? All the absolutism I'm seeing is coming from your side.

[Eldan]

I... That'll do, pig. That'll do.

But more seriously, DMPCs are like [something that need to be used with care with the necessary skills, that when used badly can be terrible but when used well can be good]: they need to be used with care by someone aware of the potential problems and the ability to distinguish between in-character and out-of-character knowledge and to treat the character fairly, and when used badly can be game-destroying but when used well can add something positive to the game.
Insert Something There.

I got it. DMPCs are Fugu. If used badly, they kill the game, but in the hands of a good DM, they make the game more fun.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I got it. DMPCs are Fugu. If used badly, they killed the game, but in the hands of a good DM, they make the game more fun.

Can I sig this, please? It's probably one of the most brilliant statements I've ever seen.

[Eldan]

Sure. :smallbiggrin:

Man, I'm hungry.

[Solaris]

I'm wondering why something can't be in both camps at this point in time. I'm fairly obvious in the anti-DMPC camp, and I'm fairly obviously opposed to the "Oh yeah, well it's a support character, but it's also just as important as the primary cast that it supports." I can hold the position itself, and I can state outright this is why people are reading your stuff, and still won't agree with it.

Apologies, I didn't explain myself. I wasn't saying you were trying to distance yourself from your words, I was just pointing out how you made it look like you were.


I want you to ask yourself here, why would I change from a healbot to a cleric?

Armor. I would change it from a Healer to a Cleric for the armor. And even then, that unicorn companion is really cool.


Just take it that people assume evidence that they viewed as flawed is to be refered to as "no evidence."

So basically, no evidence we can present is acceptable. You're not going to convince us because you haven't presented anything to refute our examples. We're not going to convince you because you refuse to accept any of our examples.
Why even bother posting?


It's excellent proof that a skeevy little bird is fun to play with, but I'm contending that it's not a PC. Again, the scrutiny of, as is, would you make that your PC in that game?

Yeah, I would. I've played characters like that and had people play similar characters before.


That aside, I don't particularly care the degree to which they are contributing. The comment made at them was incredibly rude.

I'm not a nice guy. I feel no compulsion to be pleasant towards someone who wanders into a thread and posts "All DMPCs are bad all the time" without providing a shred of proof. Even by my standards of "I'll take anecdotal evidence", he didn't provide anything to counter my position that DMPCs are risky, dangerous, but can be and have been fun.


Which has more fatalities than lightning strikes, which has more fatalities than ozone poisoning, which has more fatalities than spontaneous combustion. That doesn't make lightning, ozone or airplanes dangerous. I don't particularly see the logic in putting the cutoff at cars. Especially given how many people think it's safe enough to do 2+ times per day.

Because it's what she picked for her example. You picked wood alcohol and grain alcohol for your analogy. Why stop there? Why not go with arsenic? You're reaching too hard to find things to argue about. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were trying to deflect from the main point (which we thoroughly derailed the topic's actual point onto).

[Yukitsu]

So, what, your games are only about one PC? My games are about the party as a whole, and as individuals, and what they as a group do. If a character leaves the party, the story is no longer about them. My DMPC is as much a protaganist as any other character.

I'll admit I'm not enough of an English lit enthusiast to argue this as much as I am willing to argue truth values and other philosophical concepts, but I can say there are experts who don't view that a work need have a single protagonist. This makes more sense to me with modern works that don't follow the Greek 3 part play. I'd recommend you look up "multiple protagonists" yourself and see what you think about the concept.


No, it doesn't, not at all. It requires that they acknowledge that people have other opinions and that theirs is not necessarily the only one that could possibly be right. That is all.

I don't have to actually acknowledge that other people have another opinion. It's a given that other people have other opinions. What you're trying to fish from them is "oh yeah, I saw all these, they might be right." Well no, their position is explicitly that you're not right.


Why is it okay for him to come in and ignore everything anyone else has said while making a subtly insulting statement of "fact", but not for us to request that he at least acknowledge that there's a debate going on?

There's nothing wrong with asking that they go into the issue in greater detail, or question their statement, but requiring them to adress previous statements really is asking for them to acknowledge the validity of the statements.

And maybe they're like a lot of people, and aren't capable of formulating or articularing a particular criticism against DMPCs. That's fine, it's not as though advice to the OP should be devoid of people just pitching opinions, I dno't recall the OP asking us all to argue with a point by point exclusive to opinions and advice.


Really? That's funny, I thought mine said something along the lines of how DMPCs can be bad when not handled carefully, that they can be tricky to do right, and that... well, yes, also a matter of taste. The others have have come up have involved a lot of "you have to be careful with them, they can go badly wrong, and some people don't like them". Not really seeing any "never harmful, always good, and heaps easy". Like, at all.

I'm Japanese, I may be biased. Making sushi is about as tough as making a sandwich to me, so I can't really see eye to eye with that, though if other people find making it tough and potentially harmful, I guess that's fair enough.


As opposed to your "DMPCs are absolutely always terrible no matter what, anyone who thinks theirs isn't terrible is just plain deluded, and any DMPC that is demonstrably not terrible isn't really a DMPC", which is so much more even-handed and reasonable, right? All the absolutism I'm seeing is coming from your side.

I don't really want to come off as reasonable or even handed. I want people to stop telling DMs that come to the forums for advice that DMPCs are totally OK, and that the players will be all sunshine and roses. I am also generally irked by people who don't accept tautological definitions as true.

The fugu analogy I like. If you've had it before, you'll know it's novel but actually very dull, and you definitely shouldn't try making it unless you're an expert.

[SleepyShadow]

All food analogies aside, I think we have fairly established that some people like DMPCs, some people do not, and some people view them on a case-by-case basis.

For every campaign, there are valid reasons both for and against DMPCs. Sometimes, they can be a good thing:

"Well, Bob can't make it to this game session, so Mercenary Rogue Shiroko will fill in until he gets back. He'll leave when Bob shows up again."
"Sounds good. I'd hate to be in the Tomb of Horrors without a rogue."

Sometimes, they can be a bad thing:

"So Darma the Druid just soloed a battle three CR higher than the party level."
"Why are we still playing?"

Sometimes, they are little more than living scenery:

"Okay, so Betty the Bard sits on a rock and begins to write down what happens during the battle."
"Wait, she's not doing anything to help?"
"Nope. She's here to make you guys famous, not help you guys win."

It really comes down to a matter of personal choice.

[Solaris]

I don't have to actually acknowledge that other people have another opinion. It's a given that other people have other opinions. What you're trying to fish from them is "oh yeah, I saw all these, they might be right." Well no, their position is explicitly that you're not right.

You're absolutely correct, you don't have to acknowledge the value of other people's opinions. What we're doing is looking for you and your side to come up with something better than a "DMPCs are always bad. Always." as an argument. I'm not asking you to change your minds. I'm asking for you to explain to me how they're an absolutely bad thing even with the examples we've shown where they've made the game better.


There's nothing wrong with asking that they go into the issue in greater detail, or question their statement, but requiring them to address previous statements really is asking for them to acknowledge the validity of the statements.

So we must repeat ourselves over and over again for the sake of someone who didn't care to read the thread? I'm sorry, I'm really not getting what you're going for here beyond a defense of someone who supports your ideas without coming up with a single reason why. Yeah, I was being rude to him. What of it? He started off being rude.


And maybe they're like a lot of people, and aren't capable of formulating or articularing a particular criticism against DMPCs. That's fine, it's not as though advice to the OP should be devoid of people just pitching opinions, I dno't recall the OP asking us all to argue with a point by point exclusive to opinions and advice.

Actually, the OP was about building a BBEG using the same rules as PCs. He even asked us to not talk about actual DMPCs at one point, but we all pretty much ignored him anyways.


I'm Japanese, I may be biased. Making sushi is about as tough as making a sandwich to me, so I can't really see eye to eye with that, though if other people find making it tough and potentially harmful, I guess that's fair enough.

There are some truly awful sandwiches out there. Ever have a reuben with low-grade sauerkraut and poor corned beef? It's a crime against nature.


I don't really want to come off as reasonable or even handed. I want people to stop telling DMs that come to the forums for advice that DMPCs are totally OK, and that the players will be all sunshine and roses. I am also generally irked by people who don't accept tautological definitions as true.

And we want to continue telling DMs that come to the forums for advice on DMPCs our estimations on how to make them work. You don't like it? Deal with it. You've established yourself as being opposed to the idea. Now you're turning it into a crusade.
I don't accept untrue definitions as being true, no matter how much you think they should be. Here's a good rule for ya: If it's an absolute rule, it's wrong. For every ten, even hundred piss-poor excuse for a DMPC, there's a stellar one who the players love (and make no mistake, that's probably the ratio). We play a game. D&D is just a game, something we play to have fun. If it's more fun with the DMPC on board, then it's a good thing for that gaming group no matter how many times you say it isn't. Reality will not alter itself to suit your whim. Conversely, of course, (and the difference between your position and mine is that mine acknowledges there are alternatives to the ideal) if it's not fun for that group, then it's a bad thing.

[dsmiles]

Food analogies.Really, guys? You really gotta stop with the food analogies. I just ate dinner, and you're making me hungry again. Especially the one about the Reuben. You're killing me, here. :smalltongue:

[Yukitsu]

Actually, it basically is a crusade at this point. There's enough corpses of dead PbPs and IRL games where some dude was told to try it out, and because the only advice given was "it's OK if you do it right" and some trite little thing about not letting it hog the spotlight that they utterly fail to make a likeable or workable DMPC which among other things kills the game or makes it far less enjoyable than it would otherwise be. They come here to complain that their "evil and chaotic PCs killed their character, what should they do?", or players come here looking for advice about dealing with DMPCs because they don't honestly want it. In my view, any advice that leads to these problems was the wrong answer.

[Solaris]

I've seen more PbPs die from general lack of interest or motivation than from a DMPC's presence. Example: Every time I've tried a PbP game, I haven't used a DMPC, nor did the DM if I was just a player. They've all died off within a month or two (the fact that I was on deployment at the time may have had something to do with it). Every time I've run a campaign in person, I've used a DMPC and they've done very well. D&D really doesn't translate well to the play-by-post format; it's very much a social game.
Now, if you're looking to crusade against slow posting...

The problem with your crusade is this: You're saying "You can't". I don't accept that. "Can't" is another way of saying "Quit" with pretty much everything that doesn't involve FTL (and even then...). We're saying "You can, but...", which is far better. It's far better to try, it's far better to push through and make something work than to settle back into the comfortable security of the known and the easy.
Pfeh. "Can't".

[Shadowknight12]

Actually, it basically is a crusade at this point. There's enough corpses of dead PbPs and IRL games where some dude was told to try it out, and because the only advice given was "it's OK if you do it right" and some trite little thing about not letting it hog the spotlight that they utterly fail to make a likeable or workable DMPC which among other things kills the game or makes it far less enjoyable than it would otherwise be. They come here to complain that their "evil and chaotic PCs killed their character, what should they do?", or players come here looking for advice about dealing with DMPCs because they don't honestly want it. In my view, any advice that leads to these problems was the wrong answer.

I assume you are also against driving in general, since it can lead to terrible tragedies if it's not done right (see: the number of people who die in car accidents every year); against food in general, since it can go horribly wrong if it's not done right (see: every anecdote about food poisoning ever); against marriage, another thing that can go wrong if not done right (see: the increasing divorce rates all over the world); against owning valuable things, since they're likely to be stolen if they're not adequately protected (see: statistics on burglaries and muggings); against having a job, since you can get fired unless you're doing it right (see: every anecdote about people being laid off ever); against... well, need I go on?

[PersonMan]

The problem with your crusade is this: You're saying "You can't". I don't accept that. "Can't" is another way of saying "Quit" with pretty much everything that doesn't involve FTL (and even then...). We're saying "You can, but...", which is far better. It's far better to try, it's far better to push through and make something work than to settle back into the comfortable security of the known and the easy.
Pfeh. "Can't".

I agree with this, but I'll add that the problem with saying "Don't use a DMPC, you'll break your game" can result in a response of "bah, what does HE know? He's just some random internet guy, I know I'll do this well!", whereas "alright, but be careful, as [problems] can happen" at least makes the person aware of possible pitfalls of the practice.

It's the difference between abstinence-only sexual education and one where they say "well, you should probably wait, but..." and talk about the risks and ways to combat them. One isn't likely to deter people who were already going to have/are having sex, while the second has a better chance of reaching people who are borderline-or even making a few people think about what they're already doing. Basically, the problem with saying "no, don't, it'll go wrong" is that it can fairly easily incite an "I'll get it right!" response, but if someone is told to be careful for X, Y and Z they'll (hopefully) be on the lookout for those problems.

[Just_Ice]

The detractors of the "DMPCs are possible but very tricky" argument sound to me like a whole lot of "Only the players are allowed to have any fun and the person that DMs is supposed to forgo that because the only people who could possibly set up one of the older RPGs were Obsessive-compulsive tyrants".

Most DMs are DMs because the players honestly don't want to put in the effort, or hate DMing for horrible players. Some people don't have a lot of friends, or have done so much DMing that they can afford the brainpower to run a seperate character. I don't recommend using DMPCs at all, because the average party will be incompatible with the idea, generally for good reason. I also don't recommend them because it's really weird to talk with yourself and the average player usually doesn't want to pretend to be the shopkeep except to abuse it.

A more appropriate analogy than food is perhaps another difficult venture in Tabletop gaming: giving your players detective work. It takes a lot of work. Done poorly or with an incompatible group, or even sometimes one little mistake is all it takes to ruin it. It generally has the needle in the haystack problem, where DMs are flabberghasted that their players cannot do one "very obvious thing". Alternatively, a logical approach to the problem could be entirely wrong, and the DM has no way to reward the player for their cleverness due to the amount of information they've given them.

Done right, it is absolute brilliance. Standing ovations have occured.

In other words, using "NO DMMMMSSS... EVERRRRR" is just as wearing-your-pants-on-your-head-and-flipping-down-the-stairs retarded as making one unprepared, as the payoff can be very much worth it for the very lucky and/or skilled.

[Yukitsu]

I assume you are also against driving in general, since it can lead to terrible tragedies if it's not done right (see: the number of people who die in car accidents every year); against food in general, since it can go horribly wrong if it's not done right (see: every anecdote about food poisoning ever); against marriage, another thing that can go wrong if not done right (see: the increasing divorce rates all over the world); against owning valuable things, since they're likely to be stolen if they're not adequately protected (see: statistics on burglaries and muggings); against having a job, since you can get fired unless you're doing it right (see: every anecdote about people being laid off ever); against... well, need I go on?

I can't think of anything that cannot go horribly wrong, though when one generally gives another individual advice, it's with the tacit admission that you expect it will probably go right. I don't think DMPCs going well is a majority case, nor do I think their going terribly wrong is a fringe case. When in serious doubt, just case study it and go through the PbPs, DM stories and other resources.

I mean, recommending another individual make their own fireworks and then saying they should also drive doesn't make them equally bad pieces of advice. There is a great deal of utility for very little risk in driving a car, but despite the awesome that is fireworks, the risk isn't really worth the reward. Again, this is hedging into the "DMPCs are almost always useful, beneficial and rarely harmful" assumption. Are you willing to defend that position?

[Solaris]

I can't think of anything that cannot go horribly wrong, though when one generally gives another individual advice, it's with the tacit admission that you expect it will probably go right. I don't think DMPCs going well is a majority case, nor do I think their going terribly wrong is a fringe case. When in serious doubt, just case study it and go through the PbPs, DM stories and other resources.

Yeah, and? Strangely enough, I do expect competence out of people. It might be a natural side-affect of working with some highly competent individuals for most of my adult life, but I have difficulty comprehending someone having difficulty doing something that they've had explained to them how to pull off. If you follow the 'conventional wisdom' guidelines people put out here, you pretty much have to make a DMPC that, while probably more NPC than DMPC, at least doesn't detract from the fun and probably fills a party role nobody else wanted to do. That's at bare-stinking-minimum. I've been pulling it off since I was fourteen, but only after one session where I pretty much hit the checklist for "Things to do wrong". If I'd had such a crowd as I'm part of now around back then, I might have skipped over that session entirely and scurried on my merry looking for new and interesting mistakes to make.
I mean, what if someone had done a case study on powered flight and told them Wright boys "Hey, man, it's never worked before so you shouldn't even try it" - that's pretty much how you're coming across. We're telling them how it can be done, which is a positive and constructive thing, something to help them out and giving them examples of how it's worked as well as some common pitfalls to avoid. You're simply telling them it can't possibly work, ever, and barely even giving examples of how it hasn't - just saying there are examples. Ya got no credibility, kid.


I mean, recommending another individual make their own fireworks and then saying they should also drive doesn't make them equally bad pieces of advice. There is a great deal of utility for very little risk in driving a car, but despite the awesome that is fireworks, the risk isn't really worth the reward.

Sez you. Some of us work with explosives for a living. Home-made fireworks are practically a prerequisite of 4th of July celebrations while deployed (unless, y'know, the insurgency is willing to provide - but they always make 'em go off on the ground and pack way too much explosive into it).

Hey, you were allowed to get all snooty about the sushi thing. I can get all snooty about my boomshines. :smalltongue:


Again, this is hedging into the "DMPCs are almost always useful, beneficial and rarely harmful" assumption. Are you willing to defend that position?

Nobody here holds that position. You're assaulting empty ground. We're over here, in the "If you do it right" trench around the "They can be useful and beneficial" hill. It's much smaller, that's probably why you missed it.

[Shadowknight12]

I was going to tackle that one, but Solaris said it better than I could.

I would just like to add that I have personally had cases where DMPCs have contributed to the party's fun. And there have been others before in this very thread, and probably many more that we haven't even heard of. Your view hinges heavily on the statistics, which are skewed for many of us. I have not personally experienced a single bad DMPC in my years of gaming. Conversely, I have not experienced many of the typical pitfalls I read on the forums. A lot of the things from the "Habits that kill the fun in a game" thread are alien to me. But that's because we've had different life experiences.

You have to take that into consideration before you make vast, sweeping generalisations, and then say that statistics are on your side. The fact is that statistics are not, in fact, on your side. They're not on anyone's side, because they do not exist. We haven't compiled a serious study about this phenomenon, using statistical analysis or any of the myriad tools that professionals have at their disposal. What you have is a collection of life experiences that support your point of view, just like the rest of us, and you might want to keep that in mind before you imply that your viewpoint is the right one simply because, to you, it's got more 'statistical' support.

That's unsound reasoning.

[Yukitsu]

Yeah, and? Strangely enough, I do expect competence out of people. It might be a natural side-affect of working with some highly competent individuals for most of my adult life, but I have difficulty comprehending someone having difficulty doing something that they've had explained to them how to pull off. If you follow the 'conventional wisdom' guidelines people put out here, you pretty much have to make a DMPC that, while probably more NPC than DMPC, at least doesn't detract from the fun and probably fills a party role nobody else wanted to do. That's at bare-stinking-minimum. I've been pulling it off since I was fourteen, but only after one session where I pretty much hit the checklist for "Things to do wrong". If I'd had such a crowd as I'm part of now around back then, I might have skipped over that session entirely and scurried on my merry looking for new and interesting mistakes to make.
I mean, what if someone had done a case study on powered flight and told them Wright boys "Hey, man, it's never worked before so you shouldn't even try it" - that's pretty much how you're coming across. We're telling them how it can be done, which is a positive and constructive thing, something to help them out and giving them examples of how it's worked as well as some common pitfalls to avoid. You're simply telling them it can't possibly work, ever, and barely even giving examples of how it hasn't - just saying there are examples. Ya got no credibility, kid.

Neither have you. :smallconfused:


Sez you. Some of us work with explosives for a living. Home-made fireworks are practically a prerequisite of 4th of July celebrations while deployed (unless, y'know, the insurgency is willing to provide - but they always make 'em go off on the ground and pack way too much explosive into it).

And if you are telling other people to go home and make themselves some explosives, you're probably not a very good person, unless you're hand holding them through the entire process, or they are equivalently professional enough to do so without your permission. Though I'm kind of wondering about why you would tell anyone to make home made explosives, as last I checked doing so was illegal. :smallconfused: And no matter what, telling some guy to go make home made explosives when he could go and buy stable ones? Again, it's simply bad advice.


Hey, you were allowed to get all snooty about the sushi thing. I can get all snooty about my boomshines. :smalltongue:

I'll tell a random dude I see on the street to make sushi. You wouldn't tell a random dude you see on the street to make explosives. Because one can go wrong, and the other can't go anywhere near as wrong, won't go wrong as often, and as much as it looks ugly when it does, still tastes like a quality product when it does (because ugly sushi still tastes the same as pretty sushi.)


Nobody here holds that position. You're assaulting empty ground. We're over here, in the "If you do it right" trench around the "They can be useful and beneficial" hill. It's much smaller, that's probably why you missed it.

I'm refering more to the car thing. Riding a car is almost always safe (to a scientifically significant definition of "safe" that being there is a less than 5% chance that you get injured every time you enter a car), useful and beneficial.

That aside, the advice never does come with the caveat that "there is a chance that you can use a DMPC and not ruin the game, but you will likely make it annoying 10 out of 11 times." nor does anyone mention that anything you could achieve with a DMPC that could tangibly be beneficial, you could achieve with less risk with a well developed NPC.

[RPGuru1331]

And if you are telling other people to go home and make themselves some explosives, you're probably not a very good person, unless you're hand holding them through the entire process, or they are equivalently professional enough to do so without your permission.
They are. That's exactly what he said.

Apply that to DMPCs now; inherent danger (and it is real, and acknowledged by everyone in this thread saying it's fine) is not equivalent to a problematic final result. If you go through the undertaking with caution, and heeding advice from people who've done it without major problems, nothing bad happens.


That aside, the advice never does come with the caveat that "there is a chance that you can use a DMPC and not ruin the game, but you will likely make it annoying 10 out of 11 times." nor does anyone mention that anything you could achieve with a DMPC that could tangibly be beneficial, you could achieve with less risk with a well developed NPC.
The rate isn't 10 out of 11 times when it's done by skilled DMs. I've had players award me Deeds in Weapons of the Gods. I've seen other people consistently do so and be celebrated by their players, who were fully cognizant of the possible problems.

I've seen people who couldn't run a DMPC properly to save their souls, who consistently tormented 10s of players with their omnipotent Mary Sue. Learn what you're doing, you'll fall into the former, where you can od it well on a consistent basis. Otherwise, you'll fall into the latter if you try.

I mean, from my perspective, your warnings on DMPCs are no more evidence that they are inherently bad than my experience of absolutely awful DnD games is direct evidence that DnD is awful. You are welcome to be gunshy of them, of course, but it doesn't actually constitute evidence to the contrary.

[Serpentine]

Allllright, here we go, I can be bothered to do my monster post...
I don't have to actually acknowledge that other people have another opinion. It's a given that other people have other opinions. What you're trying to fish from them is "oh yeah, I saw all these, they might be right." Well no, their position is explicitly that you're not right.No, I wasn't. I was trying to "fish from them" an acknowledgement that other people have contrary opinions and that their "statement of fact" is no more than their own opinion. No matter how much you try to insist that I was saying something else, I was not. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you do have to acknowledge the views of others.

I want people to stop telling DMs that come to the forums for advice that DMPCs are totally OK, and that the players will be all sunshine and roses.

Again, this is hedging into the "DMPCs are almost always useful, beneficial and rarely harmful" assumption. Are you willing to defend that position?Pure strawmanning. I certainly have said nothing even close to this, and I am willing to bet that noone else here has either. Stop trying to insist that our position is something it's not. Just because all your arguments are pure absolutism doesn't mean ours is - the sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you start looking like you're actually wanting to have a reasonable argument.*


Here is your argument, as you keep saying it: "DMPCs are always bad. Full stop, no exceptions."
In order to be true, your view must be right every single time. It doesn't matter whether it's one in ten or one in ten million, one single DMPC that is not bad disproves your argument. Purely statistically speaking, with every new DMPC that is brought into play, the probability that your argument is correct approaches zero.


Here is the entirety of my argument, definitions and all:



DMPCs are not always bad.

Definitions:
- DMPC, lit "Dungeon Master Player Character". A character in a roleplaying game that:
1. is controlled by the DM or GM, as their personal character.
2. is built as though it was a Player Character
3. is considered a party member
Note: a DMPC does not necessarily remain so through its entire career. Depending on in- and out-of-game circumstances, a DMPC may become a PC or an NPC, and vice-versa.

- Bad. With overall negative impact on the game and gameplay. More detrimental than beneficial.

Qualifiers: DMPCs are risky. They require, among other things: a certain mindset that allows the easy distinction between DM knowledge and character knowledge; an ability to be brutally fair under all circumstances; remembering that the DMPC is of a lower priority to the other characters; good organisational skills; and a good understanding of the desires and preferences of one's players.
When done right, they can have a positive impact on a game. However, getting it right depends on a lot of different circumstances, within and without the DM's contro, and it's hard. In most cases, the DM and the party is probably better off without. But if a DMPC is wanted, it is possible for it to work, so long as the DM is careful and self-aware.

In order to be true, my stance requires only one single DMPC that is not more detrimental than it is beneficial. Statistically speaking, with every new DMPC that comes into play, the probability that I am correct approaches 1.

Case studies:
1. The first DMPC I ever played with was of the bad variety. It was much more powerful than any other party member, it had a strange template, it was obscenely beautiful, and it was allowed things that, as far as I know, the rest of us were not. The DM at the time was inexperienced, overeager, and obsessed with sex and sex jokes. The players at the time were also inexperienced, and knew no better. The game was poor for a variety of reasons and, if I recall correctly, died soon after the introduction of that DMPC.

2. My own currentish DMPC. Mechanically, she is slightly less optimised than the rest of my low-optimisation party. She is an axe-and-shield dwarf Knight, with a Legacy Item meant to assist mounted combat as much as shield-bashing, and no horse - it drowned when we arrived in a land with few mount options. If I were to play her as a player, not as a DM - which I would be willing and able to do - I might be slightly more restrained and strict in the use of her Craft check (which is used as much for the benefit of the rest of the party as for herself), and slightly more discerning in the selection of her items. I would also go out of my way to find her a horse - as DM, it's easier just to do without.
Fluff-wise, she has a fairly simple and bland but well-fleshed-out personality. She is the sort of character who prefers to stick in the background a bit, helping those around her to succeed rather than doing anything spectacular herself. She believes strongly in her duty to protect and serve others, and may have a slight martyr complex. She has several potential plot-hooks in her background, but none that have high priority.
In terms of party role, it is her job to get hit so that others don't. We're a fairly caster-heavy party, and some of my players have expressed an appreciation of this position. If it comes up, she will advise the party and give her opinion, but it is clear that any opinions given through her are purely her own, and generally do not reflect mine as DM. In at least one case, she gave advice directly contrary to my desires as DM, because it's what she would have said. She does occasionally act as a poking-stick when the group starts to flounder, but almost never in any specific direction except maybe as a reminder.
She has died twice, once by my stupidity as DM (failed to compare the size of a drowned's aura with the boat) and as a player of a character (failed to give her a ranged weapon), once heroically playing her designated party role, not including the following. Only one other character has died more times, at thrice.
A while ago, I decided to remove my DMPC from my game at the next available opportunity. My reasons for this were as follows:
- The understanding that the main reason I included her in the first place was because I was just used to having a DMPC as standard practice.
- The entry of new players into the group, making it significantly larger.
- The similarity of her role with one of the new characters - a LG religious shield-basher - and concerns over competition with him.
- Concerns over the greater number of attacks she gets each round compared with other characters, rolling against myself and similar issues.
- Concern over other issues brought up in these sorts of discussions, that even if I don't think they're relevant to my games they are and I just didn't realise it.
- My players, when asked about their opinion of DMPCs in general, being mostly neutral, with one player being somewhat negative, preferring to not have them than to have them. This was soon after the latter player joined my group.

I gave her an in-character reason to not get resurrected if she died - she told the other long-running character that if she died she wants them to save their money, and just see that her shield and armour reach her family - and had her killed in a way that made sense in-world - killed in her sleep by a well-resourced burglar. The party immediately resurrected her with an item in their possession. I openly told them that this was my way of removing her from the game, but I gave them a choice: I could say that her soul was "unwilling", so she can't be brought back and she'd be removed from play; or they could be successful, and she would continue with the group. They unanimously decided that they wanted her in the game. The player that previously expressed a negative opinion of DMPCs was the one whose character did the resurrecting, and was one of the more vocal in his desire to see her stay in play. The reasons given were these:
- They liked her, as a character.
- They liked having her as a shield from enemies.
- She was one of only two characters that had been there from the start, and so was an important link for that other character.
- They liked what conflict she brings into the game (which has only one other Lawful character, and several Chaotic and/or non-Good).
- They looked forward to the banter and competition between her and the mechanically similar PC.

These, by my players' own judgement, outweighed all the negative aspects I listed before. Thus, according to my players - the ones whose opinions matter - my DMPC is not bad.
I also, thereby, believe that I am somewhat qualified - or at least justified - to give people advice on how to run DMPCs well, or how to not make them bad, should they seek such advice.




New food analogy: roleplaying games are like sandwiches. Game systems are the bread, it defines what sort of sandwhich it is. All the other bits and pieces, style and genre and variants and stuff, are the sandwich fillings. They form the substance of the sandwich, and some go better with one another than others.
DMPCs are Vegemite. A lot of people just plain don't like it, and they never will. Other people can like it, or at least not mind it, if it's used in a very specific way by someone who knows exactly how they like it. Others still might like it, except the first time they tried it it was plastered on like peanut butter and now they think it's disgusting and will never try it again. And some others, like myself, think it can be pretty good, but you have to prepare it in just the right way, at least the first time - spread on buttered toast, very thinly, more thinly than people expect. Once you've tried it like that and you have an understanding of how tricky it can be to get right because of how powerful its flavour is, then you can experiment with it a bit to find out the amount and type you like. We people who like Vegemite don't think that it should be on every single sandwich ever - maybe even only like it on rare occasions - but we do wish that the people who don't like it would stop telling us that we're just plain wrong when we say that we enjoy it, and demand that we stop explaining to people that you shouldn't spread it on like peanut butter.


*"No you didn't, you came here for an argument!"

[Yukitsu]

They are. That's exactly what he said.

Apply that to DMPCs now; inherent danger (and it is real, and acknowledged by everyone in this thread saying it's fine) is not equivalent to a problematic final result. If you go through the undertaking with caution, and heeding advice from people who've done it without major problems, nothing bad happens.

Well, no, that's why there are 7,000 people who make home made explosives per annum or thereabouts who get severely injured when they follow perfectly valid instructions and advice from so called "professionals" on the internet. Even for those professionals, you shouldn't recommend it, simply on virtue of it being illegal.


The rate isn't 10 out of 11 times when it's done by skilled DMs. I've had players award me Deeds in Weapons of the Gods. I've seen other people consistently do so and be celebrated by their players, who were fully cognizant of the possible problems.

I've seen people who couldn't run a DMPC properly to save their souls, who consistently tormented 10s of players with their omnipotent Mary Sue. Learn what you're doing, you'll fall into the former, where you can od it well on a consistent basis. Otherwise, you'll fall into the latter if you try.

I mean, from my perspective, your warnings on DMPCs are no more evidence that they are inherently bad than my experience of absolutely awful DnD games is direct evidence that DnD is awful. You are welcome to be gunshy of them, of course, but it doesn't actually constitute evidence to the contrary.

I'm totally just going to start a compilation of all the DMPCs in reference-able campaigns (them being the PbPs here) with DMPCs, and figure out the actual number. Though I'm again kind of going to ask, are your DMPCs those sort of hangers on that the story isn't about? In my experience, DMs that run NPCs with personality and relevance are great, but they don't run them like they would a PC, they run them as an NPC that happens to be relevant and in the party.

[Serpentine]

Though I'm again kind of going to ask, are your DMPCs those sort of hangers on that the story isn't about? In my experience, DMs that run NPCs with personality and relevance are great, but they don't run them like they would a PC, they run them as an NPC that happens to be relevant and in the party.As much as you keep flailing at your No True Scotsman argument, it continues to fail to hold water.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm totally just going to start a compilation of all the DMPCs in reference-able campaigns (them being the PbPs here) with DMPCs, and figure out the actual number. Though I'm again kind of going to ask, are your DMPCs those sort of hangers on that the story isn't about? In my experience, DMs that run NPCs with personality and relevance are great, but they don't run them like they would a PC, they run them as an NPC that happens to be relevant and in the party.

Word of advice: What you are about to do carries a tremendous risk. You are not authorised (nor, I suppose, impeded) by law or any higher authority to perform those compilations and there is a great deal many people who do not appreciate others going through their games, making judgement calls on whether an NPC of theirs is actually a DMPC or not, and then using those 'statistics' to pursue their own agenda.

Furthermore, since you will not have internal quality controls (verified by unbiased third parties) to ensure that you are following proper procedures when making these compilations, your results WILL be challenged, and they will be challenged often. I dare say that they will be challenged every single time you wish to quote them for relevance. There are people on the internet with a very high knowledge of statistics and procedures, and they will go over your project to point out every possible mistake.

Also, the main problem you will come across will be to elucidate whether the presence of the DMPC had an actual negative effect on the players' enjoyment of the game AND make a positive, causative correlation between the existence of the DMPC and any negative effects in the game. As you know, saying 'people in this game didn't have fun, and this game had a DMPC, therefore DMPCs have a negative effect on fun' is a fallacy, since the lack of fun can have a myriad causes, and it will be your job to prove the correlation between the existence of the DMPC and the lack of fun, on top of compiling said statistics.

And finally, it's possible that these 'statistics' will instead become a rallying point for DMPCs, achieving the exact opposite result you are aimng for.

(See? Isn't that just like advising someone about the dangers of running a DMPC?)

[Yukitsu]

Allllright, here we go, I can be bothered to do my monster post...No, I wasn't. I was trying to "fish from them" an acknowledgement that other people have contrary opinions and that their "statement of fact" is no more than their own opinion. No matter how much you try to insist that I was saying something else, I was not. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you do have to acknowledge the views of others.

OK, I acknowledge that your view exists, but completely deny that it holds validity.


Pure strawmanning. I certainly have said nothing even close to this, and I am willing to bet that noone else here has either. Stop trying to insist that our position is something it's not. Just because all your arguments are pure absolutism doesn't mean ours is - the sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner you start looking like you're actually wanting to have a reasonable argument.*

I'm pointing out that the things you consistently compare it to, cars which are almost always safe, beneficial and easy, and to sushi, which is almost never actively harmful, even done incorrectly. And you are consistently comparing it to these things directly.


Here is your argument, as you keep saying it: "DMPCs are always bad. Full stop, no exceptions."

Yup.


In order to be true, your view must be right every single time. It doesn't matter whether it's one in ten or one in ten million, one single DMPC that is not bad disproves your argument. Purely statistically speaking, with every new DMPC that is brought into play, the probability that your argument is correct approaches zero.

That's not actually true. Russian roullette can be argued to be beneficial by demanding the same standards from the negation. When you take an action that happens to turn out well, even though you know that it was likely to have turned out poorly, that the costs outweighed the benefits, or that had virtually no pay-off, the action itself is negative, even if the result is good, the action itself is bad, or more accurately inadvisable (since bad is pretty much impossible to define). We don't praise a guy who murders someone on the street, if by chance he killed a terrorist who was about to blow up the airport. A teacher won't give you a gold star on your test if you give the correct answer, but the wrong equation.


Here is the entirety of my argument, definitions and all:

DMPCs are not always bad.

Definitions:
- DMPC, lit "Dungeon Master Player Character". A character in a roleplaying game that:
1. is controlled by the DM or GM, as their personal character.
2. is built as though it was a Player Character
3. is considered a party member

I take issue with using "considered" in the definition, since by this definition, anything, including inanimate objects that have not appeared in the story. I think to withstand any sense of rigor, 3 must be "Is a party member" with a definition following of what a party member is.


Note: a DMPC does not necessarily remain so through its entire career. Depending on in- and out-of-game circumstances, a DMPC may become a PC or an NPC, and vice-versa.

Yes, this is important and I agree.


risks

I agree with the risks.


In order to be true, my stance requires only one single DMPC that is not more detrimental than it is beneficial. Statistically speaking, with every new DMPC that comes into play, the probability that I am correct approaches 1.

This isn't true. If this were true, then logically any action can be justified as beneficial due to the same justification that a single event having positive results.

If for example, I can provide a singular case where murder was used in a beneficial and constructive manner, this does not negate that murder (and that murder conceptually included) is bad. What you have to demonstrate is that the risks are outweighed by the benefits to make the inclusion of a DMPC the responsible choice, knowing that odds are it will enhance the game more than it risks damaging.

A secondary condition to consider is that there are other options. You can include very important, relevant and meaningful NPCs. This reduces the benefit of including a DMPC, since they are not necessary to create a group dynamic including additional cast members.


2. My own currentish DMPC. Mechanically, she is slightly less optimised than the rest of my low-optimisation party. She is an axe-and-shield dwarf Knight, with a Legacy Item meant to assist mounted combat as much as shield-bashing, and no horse - it drowned when we arrived in a land with few mount options. If I were to play her as a player, not as a DM - which I would be willing and able to do - I might be slightly more restrained and strict in the use of her Craft check (which is used as much for the benefit of the rest of the party as for herself), and slightly more discerning in the selection of her items. I would also go out of my way to find her a horse - as DM, it's easier just to do without.
Fluff-wise, she has a fairly simple and bland but well-fleshed-out personality. She is the sort of character who prefers to stick in the background a bit, helping those around her to succeed rather than doing anything spectacular herself. She believes strongly in her duty to protect and serve others, and may have a slight martyr complex. She has several potential plot-hooks in her background, but none that have high priority.
In terms of party role, it is her job to get hit so that others don't. We're a fairly caster-heavy party, and some of my players have expressed an appreciation of this position. If it comes up, she will advise the party and give her opinion, but it is clear that any opinions given through her are purely her own, and generally do not reflect mine as DM. In at least one case, she gave advice directly contrary to my desires as DM, because it's what she would have said. She does occasionally act as a poking-stick when the group starts to flounder, but almost never in any specific direction except maybe as a reminder.
She has died twice, once by my stupidity as DM (failed to compare the size of a drowned's aura with the boat) and as a player of a character (failed to give her a ranged weapon), once heroically playing her designated party role, not including the following. Only one other character has died more times, at thrice.
A while ago, I decided to remove my DMPC from my game at the next available opportunity. My reasons for this were as follows:
- The understanding that the main reason I included her in the first place was because I was just used to having a DMPC as standard practice.
- The entry of new players into the group, making it significantly larger.
- The similarity of her role with one of the new characters - a LG religious shield-basher - and concerns over competition with him.
- Concerns over the greater number of attacks she gets each round compared with other characters, rolling against myself and similar issues.
- Concern over other issues brought up in these sorts of discussions, that even if I don't think they're relevant to my games they are and I just didn't realise it.
- My players, when asked about their opinion of DMPCs in general, being mostly neutral, with one player being somewhat negative, preferring to not have them than to have them. This was soon after the latter player joined my group.

I gave her an in-character reason to not get resurrected if she died - she told the other long-running character that if she died she wants them to save their money, and just see that her shield and armour reach her family - and had her killed in a way that made sense in-world - killed in her sleep by a well-resourced burglar. The party immediately resurrected her with an item in their possession. I openly told them that this was my way of removing her from the game, but I gave them a choice: I could say that her soul was "unwilling", so she can't be brought back and she'd be removed from play; or they could be successful, and she would continue with the group. They unanimously decided that they wanted her in the game. The player that previously expressed a negative opinion of DMPCs was the one whose character did the resurrecting, and was one of the more vocal in his desire to see her stay in play. The reasons given were these:
- They liked her, as a character.
- They liked having her as a shield from enemies.
- She was one of only two characters that had been there from the start, and so was an important link for that other character.
- They liked what conflict she brings into the game (which has only one other Lawful character, and several Chaotic and/or non-Good).
- They looked forward to the banter and competition between her and the mechanically similar PC.

The three highlighted points are those that I believe negate this character's capacity as a PC. It's not a story about this character. A PC can be as shy, in the back and bland in combat as this character is, but they are still the framing device, the focal point and the one who's adventures we watch. You're explicitly avoiding this individual's personal quests and goals, and I'm assuming are instead letting the players resolve their individual desired quests, as well as fulfilling their main goal of which they are the more relevant cast. In fact, that the story was intended to continue without her as a character indicates that this is most definitely not her story or her quest to finish, even if she is supporting the rest of the cast as they do so. I suspect as well, that it never was her quest, by contrast to the core players who at least at the time, had the primary goals of the campaign as theirs, and the game was being framed in terms of it being their story.


These, by my players' own judgement, outweighed all the negative aspects I listed before. Thus, according to my players - the ones whose opinions matter - my DMPC is not bad.
I also, thereby, believe that I am somewhat qualified - or at least justified - to give people advice on how to run DMPCs well, or how to not make them bad, should they seek such advice.

The criticism in this case, is again that it is not so much a DMPC, and that giving them the advice that well run NPCs make a game more fulfilling would be more beneficial, and more productive, as would giving them the same example, but framed as an NPC.


New food analogy: roleplaying games are like sandwiches. Game systems are the bread, it defines what sort of sandwhich it is. All the other bits and pieces, style and genre and variants and stuff, are the sandwich fillings. They form the substance of the sandwich, and some go better with one another than others.
DMPCs are Vegemite. A lot of people just plain don't like it, and they never will. Other people can like it, or at least not mind it, if it's used in a very specific way by someone who knows exactly how they like it. Others still might like it, except the first time they tried it it was plastered on like peanut butter and now they think it's disgusting and will never try it again. And some others, like myself, think it can be pretty good, but you have to prepare it in just the right way, at least the first time - spread on buttered toast, very thinly, more thinly than people expect. Once you've tried it like that and you have an understanding of how tricky it can be to get right because of how powerful its flavour is, then you can experiment with it a bit to find out the amount and type you like. We people who like Vegemite don't think that it should be on every single sandwich ever - maybe even only like it on rare occasions - but we do wish that the people who don't like it would stop telling us that we're just plain wrong when we say that we enjoy it, and demand that we stop explaining to people that you shouldn't spread it on like peanut butter.


*"No you didn't, you came here for an argument!"

Can't deny that. I loved debate and logic in uni.

[MeeposFire]

I don't see why you are trying to make a distinction between a NPC and a DMPC. In reality a DMPC is a NPC that sticks around with the party and is considered to be part of the party full time and thus receives full benefits from that (XP, items, whatever). DMPC is just a way to say "NPC that stays with the party on a regular basis as a permanent party member". Thus all your ideas on "bad DMPCs" are just as valid on other NPCs. For instance it can be very disruptive to have a NPC that completely overshadows the whole party and makes them feel less than heroic (think Elminster taking over the party's fight). The pitfalls are all still there you are making a false distinction between NPCs and DMPCs. All problems with DMPCs are potential problems for other NPCs and in many cases are also potential problems with PCs as well.

[Serpentine]

OK, I acknowledge that your view exists, but completely deny that it holds validity.Congratulations, you're doing better than that guy.

I'm pointing out that the things you consistently compare it to, cars which are almost always safe, beneficial and easy, and to sushi, which is almost never actively harmful, even done incorrectly. And you are consistently comparing it to these things directly.Which is so much less accurate than your alchohol analogy. Yeah, right.

That's not actually true. Russian roullette can be argued to be beneficial by demanding the same standards from the negation.I haven't used "beneficial", I've said "not bad". But, if you seriously want to go there, first of all it's my understanding that Russian roullette goes on until the shot is fired. By definition, it ends in a death. If I'm mistaken in that, then technically, yes, Russian roulette can be considered to occasionally not have a bad outcome. If you want this analogy to be taken seriously, though, then... well, that's pretty laughable.

I take issue with using "considered" in the definition, since by this definition, anything, including inanimate objects that have not appeared in the story. I think to withstand any sense of rigor, 3 must be "Is a party member" with a definition following of what a party member is.Considered by DM and players. Having a definition would be meaningless, as each group may have a different definition.

This isn't true. If this were true, then logically any action can be justified as beneficial due to the same justification that a single event having positive results.Again: I'm saying "not bad". The opposing argument to your "DMPCs are always bad" argument is not "DMPCs are good", it's "DMPCs are not always bad". That's it.

If for example, I can provide a singular case where murder was used in a beneficial and constructive manner, this does not negate that murder (and that murder conceptually included) is bad. What you have to demonstrate is that the risks are outweighed by the benefits to make the inclusion of a DMPC the responsible choice, knowing that odds are it will enhance the game more than it risks damaging.Again, your analogies are just getting ridiculous. I'm not even going to touch this one.

A secondary condition to consider is that there are other options. You can include very important, relevant and meaningful NPCs. This reduces the benefit of including a DMPC, since they are not necessary to create a group dynamic including additional cast members.The fact that drinking a glass of water can reduce your headache doesn't mean that taking a painkiller is bad. The fact that there's other options to DMPCs doesn't make using one bad. If a group finds having a DMPC enjoyable, then it's enjoyable for them. That's it.

The three highlighted points are those that I believe negate this character's capacity as a PC. It's not a story about this character.Other characters have left the group. Other characters have made suboptimal decisions for roleplaying or convenience reasons. Other characters have low-priority plot-hooks. Is my story never about them, either? By your definition, these are not PCs, either. Better tell my players...

You're explicitly avoiding this individual's personal quests and goals, and I'm assuming are instead letting the players resolve their individual desired quests, as well as fulfilling their main goal of which they are the more relevant cast.Low priority is NOT "explicitly avoiding". Considering we're on an entirely different continent to any of these plot hooks, I would have to "explicitly" go out of my way to seek out any of them. That doesn't fit in my game. I have, however, contributed to it, through Reincarnation shenanigans.
Moreover, the plot hooks and goals of other characters have differing priorities. That doesn't mean I'm "explicitly avoiding" any of the lower-priority ones, nor that they don't matter. There's just other things to deal with.

In fact, that the story was intended to continue without her as a character indicates that this is most definitely not her story or her quest to finish, even if she is supporting the rest of the cast as they do so. I suspect as well, that it never was her quest, by contrast to the core players who at least at the time, had the primary goals of the campaign as theirs, and the game was being framed in terms of it being their story.Again: the story has continued without many characters. I presume you believe that none of them were PCs, and that all players in your games play one character through from the very start to the very end.
And in actual fact, the removal of this DMPC would increase the likelihood that the original "story" would change dramatically: she was one of only two remaining original quest-getters, and the other one is Chaotic. Her death had the potential to dramatically change the story.

The criticism in this case, is again that it is not so much a DMPC, and that giving them the advice that well run NPCs make a game more fulfilling would be more beneficial, and more productive, as would giving them the same example, but framed as an NPC.More No True Scotsmanship. By any reasonable definition, my character is a DMPC. Your determination to be right at all costs has no impact on that reality. Deal with it, or just accept that your definition is far more narrow than that of most others.


You have shown a persistent habit of putting words in our mouths, even ones we've quite explicitly opposed. From now on, I'm not going to bother addressing them. I'm just going to point it out, so that any readers don't get confused about what is actually being said.
There's also not much point trying to argue with your "that's not really a DMPC because it doesn't support my argument" anymore, so I'm just gonna point it out with "NTS". Saves time.

[Talakeal]

I'm just going to give my two cents here on why DMPCs are a terrible idea.

I have never seen a DMPC done well. I have used them, always to terrible effect, and I have seen other DMs use them, also always to terrible effect.

I can see no reason to put one in a game that is not purely selfish, i.e. playing is fun and I always have to DM so I am going to both at the same time.
It is wanting to have your cake and eat it to, and it is selfish fun at the player's expense. Eventually they will realize this and then resent you for it, and then it isn't fun for anyone.

Most DMPCs are actively disruptive. They hog the spotlight, and they create awkward situations where the DM has to role-play with himself or make rulings about his own actions.

The players resent DMPCs, and no matter how fairly you try and play them they will always think the DM is playing easy on their own character. Its introduces all of the "DM's girlfriend" problems without the upside of bringing a new player to the game.

The players job is to win the fight and to make their character look cool doing it. The point of the DM is to challenge the players and be a fair and impartial referee. If the DM has a horse in the race is a tremendous conflict of interest. The DM is playing both sides, and the human brain can't really do that and keep up the challenge.

Even if you are the most impartial and excellent solitaire player in the world, and you have the world's most likeable and blends into the crowd DMPC imaginable, I still ask you why?

Every time the DMPC acts is time the player's aren't acting. Every time the DMPC achieves something, it is something the players aren't achieving. Every time the DMPC is in the spotlight it is time that the other players are in the shadows. The DM already gets to control the monsters, he doesn't need more attention.

Further, all the time and effort his is putting into the DMPC, both at the table and away from it is time that he isn't putting into the adventure. Most DMs claim they don't have time to do everything they should to make the adventure complete, why would they want to take on the additional burden of a DMPC?

I have never seen an argument that had a solid reason for why a DMPC was needed. I have also never heard a player talk about how awesome their DM's character is, the best I have heard is "its not so bad," or "I don't really notice".

If you absolutely needed another party member for a mechanical reason, why not just create a henchmen for one of the players, or hell, even let players run a second PC. It would have all of the up sides, and although it would have some of the downsides it wouldn't have the tremendous conflict of interest and splitting of attention that kill most games.

[Serpentine]

Most of your points have qualifiers, so I have no issue with them.
The players resent DMPCs, and no matter how fairly you try and play them they will always think the DM is playing easy on their own character. Its introduces all of the "DM's girlfriend" problems without the upside of bringing a new player to the game.Mine don't. They went out of their way to keep her, in fact.

The players job is to win the fight and to make their character look cool doing it. The point of the DM is to challenge the players and be a fair and impartial referee. If the DM has a horse in the race is a tremendous conflict of interest. The DM is playing both sides, and the human brain can't really do that and keep up the challenge.I can. It's one of the few things I think I'm genuinely good at.
And moreover, I disagree with your evaluation of the "jobs" of players and DMs. The DM's job, before "challenging" and "refereeing" (which I don't actually disagree with), is to craft a world and events with which the players can engage. The players' job is to engage with the world and, with the DM, create a story. The job of both is to make a fun game.

Even if you are the most impartial and excellent solitaire player in the world, and you have the world's most likeable and blends into the crowd DMPC imaginable, I still ask you why?Because I want to, and because my players want to. So long as the game is fun, and the DMPC contributes to that fun, I need no other justification.

Further, all the time and effort his is putting into the DMPC, both at the table and away from it is time that he isn't putting into the adventure. Most DMs claim they don't have time to do everything they should to make the adventure complete, why would they want to take on the additional burden of a DMPC?Outside of levelling up - a rare occurence - the DMPC doesn't take much time nor effort.

[Eldan]

I have never seen an argument that had a solid reason for why a DMPC was needed. I have also never heard a player talk about how awesome their DM's character is, the best I have heard is "its not so bad," or "I don't really notice".

As I've said, go a few pages back and read what my player thinks of Winsome. If you want, I can convince a few more players to say the same.


The players job is to win the fight and to make their character look cool doing it. The point of the DM is to challenge the players and be a fair and impartial referee. If the DM has a horse in the race is a tremendous conflict of interest. The DM is playing both sides, and the human brain can't really do that and keep up the challenge.

Not all games are about killing monsters. Or, really, killing anything. My players have probably killed less than five things over the year we played so far. And if I can send NPCs to fight along for a fight with the players, why not have one that follows them around all the time?

[Shadowknight12]

If you absolutely needed another party member for a mechanical reason, why not just create a henchmen for one of the players, or hell, even let players run a second PC. It would have all of the up sides, and although it would have some of the downsides it wouldn't have the tremendous conflict of interest and splitting of attention that kill most games.

You do realise that the "henchmen" solution is basically a well played DMPC, right? Because, if I understand correctly, a henchmen is an NPC, who travels with the party, has some capability the party needs (which is why he's being hired), and contributes in combat but still doesn't overshadow the rest of the PCs.

A player running a second PC: only works in three instances. 1) Solo game. 2) Everyone gets to run a second PC. 3) The rest of the group is absolutely fine with letting one or more, but not all, players running two PCs while they handle just one. Outside those scenarios, this is even worse than the worst DMPC you can imagine or hear of.

EDIT: Hear hear to what Eldan said. All of it.

[Serpentine]

Outside those scenarios, this is even worse than the worst DMPC you can imagine or hear of.Weeeell... That could be a bit of exaggeration there. Cuz I can imagine some pretty terrible DMPCs, and some perfectly fine second PCs (although I'd need very good reasons to allow that option).

[Shadowknight12]

Weeeell... That could be a bit of exaggeration there. Cuz I can imagine some pretty terrible DMPCs, and some perfectly fine second PCs (although I'd need very good reasons to allow that option).

I assure you, a game where a DM makes it boring because his DMPC steals the action and spotlight is far more tolerable than a game where one PC steals the spotlight and action because he's playing two PCs at once. This combines all the problems with the DMPC, plus DM favouritism, plus the fact that unlike familiars and animal companions, there's no rule to sustain this and the other players don't actually have to put up with it. It's a situation thrust upon them purely out of DM fiat.

And really, your reasoning doesn't hold, because I can imagine some perfectly fine DMPCs and some utterly hideous second PCs (what if the player was playing a wizard and a cleric? Or an erudite and an archivist? Or, even better, two of those builds that allows for up to 9th level spells on two different spell lists?).

[Serpentine]

And really, your reasoning doesn't hold, because I can imagine some perfectly fine DMPCs and some utterly hideous second PCs (what if the player was playing a wizard and a cleric? Or an erudite and an archivist? Or, even better, two of those builds that allows for up to 9th level spells on two different spell lists?).Yes it does :smallconfused: I can imagine both DMPCs and second PCs ranging from "totally amazing" through "okay" and "mediocre" through to "absolutely horrendous" and "game- and friendship-killing".
You said "this is even worse than the worst DMPC you can imagine or hear of". I presume you were considering an average-case second PC - or, worse, any second PC that doesn't come under one of your exceptions - in which case I find it much more likely that the worst DMPC I can imagine is a lot worse. If you're talking about worst-case second PCs, well, that's possible; I've never come across nor heard about any, so I have nowhere to start my evaluation. But you didn't say so.

[Shadowknight12]

Yes it does :smallconfused: I can imagine both DMPCs and second PCs ranging from "totally amazing" through "okay" and "mediocre" through to "absolutely horrendous" and "game- and friendship-killing".
You said "this is even worse than the worst DMPC you can imagine or hear of". I presume you were considering an average-case second PC - or, worse, any second PC that doesn't come under one of your exceptions - in which case I find it much more likely that the worst DMPC I can imagine is a lot worse. If you're talking about worst-case second PCs, well, that's possible; I've never come across nor heard about any, so I have nowhere to start my evaluation. But you didn't say so.

No, because the second PC can have the very worst qualities of any DMPC plus the fact that this shows DM favouritism. Like I said before, if everyone gets a second PC or everyone else is fine with the player having a second PC, then it can work. But if there's someone who's not content with that decision? It's much worse than a DMPC by the implications that this raises on the DM's neutrality, the party dynamics and possible OOC issues that might arise.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that the problems of a DMPC are compounded in this new scenario by variables that do not enter play on the typical DMPC scenario.

[Talakeal]

By RAW the leadership feat gives player's a cohort which acts as a second PC, are you saying that this feat horribly wrecks any campaign in which it is taken?

I am not saying having two PCs is a good thing. It isn't.

The thing is, it doesn't have the biggest problem with DMPCs, which is, in my mind, the conflict of interests involved in playing both sides. Both of the player characters are, in theory, on the same team and working together against the same opponent.

And I am not just talking about combat here, it is even more distracting when the DM is RPing both sides of a conversation and making the PCs watch him talk to himself, especially if the conversation involves bluffing and deception. It would get even worse in a mystery style game where knowledge and investigation are crucial to the game, in this case the DM has to deliberately play dumb or ruin everything for everyone.

As I said, even if played perfectly the DMPC takes time in the spotlight away from the PCs and takes attention on the DMs part, and wouldn't be altogether much different

*To clarify what I mean about henchmen, cohorts, and second PCs; the player controls the cohort 100%, except maybe in face to face dialogue between the PC and the cohort, so no it is not just a DMPC under a different name.
Also, I would not force it on a group that didn't want one, or say that only one person could do it, both of those are horrible ideas. Hell, if you absolutely need a cleric in the party and the players are all so jealous that they can't decide who to let control the cleric, why not let them take turns?


A question for the DMs who do use DMPCs if I may. What would you do if the party simply refused to let the DMPC accompany them in character, and if the DMPC insisted killed and looted him or her? Because I can almost garuntee that is how my group would react to a forced DMPC, violent hobos that they are, and I am wondering how you would respond to that.

[Eldan]

A question for the DMs who do use DMPCs if I may. What would you do if the party simply refused to let the DMPC accompany them in character, and if the DMPC insisted killed and looted him or her? Because I can almost garuntee that is how my group would react to a forced DMPC, violent hobos that they are, and I am wondering how you would respond to that.

Their loss. Fights aren't going to get any easier, it would probably send law enforcement, angry relatives or faction members after them, and they probably could have used the information, but I'm not going to rig a combat, if that's whta you mean.

[Volthawk]

By RAW the leadership feat gives player's a cohort which acts as a second PC, are you saying that this feat horribly wrecks any campaign in which it is taken?

You realise Leadership is one of the most overpowered feats in the game, right? That really doesn't help your position.

[Serpentine]

A question for the DMs who do use DMPCs if I may. What would you do if the party simply refused to let the DMPC accompany them in character, and if the DMPC insisted killed and looted him or her? Because I can almost garuntee that is how my group would react to a forced DMPC, violent hobos that they are, and I am wondering how you would respond to that.Variety of "ifs" here.
I wouldn't insist on having the DMPC accompany the party unless there was a good in-game reason, in which case they'd almost certainly have a point where they could choose to remove them. Even then, if it would be in character for their characters to respond in that way, I would work it in.
If they did it for out-of-character reasons, I would be extremely annoyed. If they, as players, so desperately didn't want the character with the party, they should tell me, as DM. I would hope that they would trust that I know what I'm doing, and tell me if they don't.
If they did it for in-character reasons... well, it depends on a lot. I mean, in my game, we have a Chaotic Neutral-bordering-on-Evil character in our party. I've warned him to be careful with it. If he's decided that his character is the sort of character who would kill a party member - any party member - for not doing what he wanted, I would reexamine whether this character can work with the group, and I would check with the players whether this fits in with the sort of game they want to play.

Basically: it almost certainly wouldn't happen in any of my games; if it was out of spite for OOC reasons I would be cross; if it was consistent IC I would assess the situation if necessary but pretty much let the group figure it out and have normal IG consequences.

[Shadowknight12]

By RAW the leadership feat gives player's a cohort which acts as a second PC, are you saying that this feat horribly wrecks any campaign in which it is taken?

If you look at my original post when addressing this question, I cited the examples of familiars and animal companions, many of which can outclass an actual PC. I specifically named them as exceptions to what you were suggesting because they are explicitly allowed and codified in the rules. They are valid options, regardless of whether that's right or wrong, for whoever wants to take them. Furthermore, if the DM allows those options, anyone can take them, provided they meet the feat or classes' requirements. If a player has a problem with these aspects of the game, they have a problem with the game system, not with the DM or another player. You don't blame a player for playing a batman wizard or a CoDzilla, you blame the system that enables them to do so. Granted, if you want to blame the persons for making those choices, or the DM for allowing them, you're welcome to do so, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.


I am not saying having two PCs is a good thing. It isn't.

The thing is, it doesn't have the biggest problem with DMPCs, which is, in my mind, the conflict of interests involved in playing both sides. Both of the player characters are, in theory, on the same team and working together against the same opponent.

That is completely different to the point you make below. I will tackle them separately.

In case you haven't noticed, the DM is always involved in a conflict of interest. Why? Because D&D is not chess. It's not DM vs. Players. The interests of the DM and the interests of the players are the same, and those interests are "having fun," not, as you might think, "win the game." Since those interests are rather vague, let us give each of them more concrete interests to see if there's truly a moment where the DM isn't in conflict with him or herself.

The PCs want to overcome challenges and achieve goals. Those are their interests. However, the DM must present challenges to them and put surmountable obstacles in their path. Therein lies the conflict. If a DM truly had the interest of opposing the PCs, the PCs would NOT win. Ever. Because the DM has the tools at his disposal (and all perfectly legal and within the game rules, mind you) to make sure that the PCs don't succeed at anything he does not allow. That means that part of his interests MUST be that the PCs succeed, eventually. Which he has to balance with the interest of making the game challenging and fun. That is a conflict of interest that every DM must deal with.

This particular argument is invalid because it does not create any more conflict in a DM's mind than it already exists.


And I am not just talking about combat here, it is even more distracting when the DM is RPing both sides of a conversation and making the PCs watch him talk to himself, especially if the conversation involves bluffing and deception. It would get even worse in a mystery style game where knowledge and investigation are crucial to the game, in this case the DM has to deliberately play dumb or ruin everything for everyone.

Again, you're mixing up two different arguments, which I will answer separately.

Firstly, you forget that the DM theoretically is always talking to himself. Save bizarre exceptions, the players are less than .00001% of the setting's population, which means that the vast majority of the conversations that exist objectively in the game are between NPCs. These conversations, of course, do not take the spotlight in a game because they're understandably devoid of player agency. What you want to say is that you resent it when the conversations that do take the spotlight are also devoid of player input and agency. Which we've all said is a typical sign of a poorly played DMPC, just like being drunk is a typical sign of a poorly driven vehicle or certain toxins and bacteria are a typical sign of poorly prepared food.

Secondly, you forget that DM is always risking playing dumb or ruining the game. Running a mystery in a game is not easy. The DM has to choose what clues to show, has to trust that the players will figure out what they mean, that they will follow the trails he sets for them, that they won't draw inappropriate conclusions, etc. Running a good mystery game is hard, and the genre in question is laden with the pitfalls you've described. It's just as likely for a DM to ruin the game by having his DMPC solve the whole thing by himself than by spelling out the clues so simply that there's no challenge in solving them. Just like a DMPC can cakewalk a combat encounter, so can a DM send a couple of CR 1/4 creatures against a 10th level party without a DMPC. The effect will be exactly the same in both cases.


As I said, even if played perfectly the DMPC takes time in the spotlight away from the PCs and takes attention on the DMs part, and wouldn't be altogether much different

So bad guys are not allowed to make evil monologues, because that's spot light that isn't being put on the PCs and requires attention on the DM's part. And NPCs aren't allowed to give quests or speeches either, because that's taking spot light away from the PCs and requires attention on the DM's part. And the player who plays the party face can't interact with NPCs either, because he's hogging all the spotlight and making the DM generate a personality and set of mannerisms for some NPCs. And the rogue can't stealth either, because that steals the spotlight from those without stealth. And so on and so forth.


*To clarify what I mean about henchmen, cohorts, and second PCs; the player controls the cohort 100%, except maybe in face to face dialogue between the PC and the cohort, so no it is not just a DMPC under a different name.
Also, I would not force it on a group that didn't want one, or say that only one person could do it, both of those are horrible ideas. Hell, if you absolutely need a cleric in the party and the players are all so jealous that they can't decide who to let control the cleric, why not let them take turns?

It's not a universal rule that a player gets to control his cohort, henchmen, animal companion, familiar or even his Dominated or Charmed enemy. I would be perfectly within my rights as a DM to say "The only character you control is your PC. You can give commands to others as per whatever abilities you have to do so, but I am the one in actual control of absolutely every other character in the game, save those of your fellow players." And by RAW, I could not be contradicted. So you can see why I say that if a DM is already controlling all of these, there would be little difference between them and a well-played DMPC.

And forcing them on a group who doesn't want one is also a trait of a bad DMPC, as it has been discussed ad nauseaum in this thread. In fact, forcing anything on a group that doesn't want it is bad DMing, period, and not exclusive at all of DMPCs.

Because that will generate even more petty in-fighting? Because it can lead to a player saying "Okay, in my turn, the cleric heals me." And then the other player says "No! That was the last Cure Wounds spell and I need it more than you!" or, similarly "Okay, I think the cleric should save his turn attempts to turn any undead we might encounter." "No! He should DMM persist me a buff!" "No, he should spend those turn attempts to DMM persist a buff on ME!" etc.


A question for the DMs who do use DMPCs if I may. What would you do if the party simply refused to let the DMPC accompany them in character, and if the DMPC insisted killed and looted him or her? Because I can almost garuntee that is how my group would react to a forced DMPC, violent hobos that they are, and I am wondering how you would respond to that.

I never force DMPCs on the party, the players ask me to include them. The sole exception is when I need the DMPC to be in a certain place at a certain time for plot reasons. I offer the party a chance to escort them there, usually as a part of a mission they already have. If they say no, that's fine, the DMPC finds a way to be there anyway.

Hell, one time, I had a kalashtar seer (an extremely fragile character to boot) who had to be at a certain place so that she could be the sacrifice needed to further the plot. The players didn't know the sacrifice bit, so they said that it was too dangerous for her and that she should stay behind. Of course, that didn't faze me at all, since I had a contingent plan to get the DMPC there all the same. One of the party members actually sneaked the kalashtar in along with them. I said to the player "No, really, it's fine, she won't be mad, she's a bit sad but understands the decision" but the player wouldn't listen. They actually went out of their way to protect her despite the fact that she was rather useless both in and out of combat.

[Solaris]

I have never seen a DMPC done well. I have used them, always to terrible effect, and I have seen other DMs use them, also always to terrible effect.

And I respect you much more than Yukitsu and whatsisface for putting in what I bolded. However, there's a key point here that I vehemently disagree with:

The players job is to win the fight and to make their character look cool doing it. The point of the DM is to challenge the players and be a fair and impartial referee. If the DM has a horse in the race is a tremendous conflict of interest. The DM is playing both sides, and the human brain can't really do that and keep up the challenge.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A thousand times a thousand, wrong. All other arguments pale in comparison to how wrong this is. The only games where it approaches not-wrong are hack-and-slash, kick-in-the-door, roleplaying-is-for-pansies types. The DM is always playing both sides; the trick is to not let your players figure that out. If the human brain can't really keep up the challenge while simultaneously running a character with a party, then I must be some kind of super-human.
...
I knew it. I am like unto a god! Nay, grander yet, a titan am I! Bow down and worship, puny flesh-creatures!


I can see no reason to put one in a game that is not purely selfish, i.e. playing is fun and I always have to DM so I am going to both at the same time.

I'm particularly fond of them for the Stranger in a Strange Land types of scenarios. I once ran a campaign that was a bunch of occidental characters from a more standard D&D setting stuck in a vaguely oriental locale for a chunk of time. Small party, so it had two DMPCs: One was a samurai-caste scholar, the other was a mute ronin the party found hanging around (literally) and saved. They called the mute ronin 'Art'. Thing is, the players were actively seeking out a local guide.
Other than that, though... yeah, most of my reasons for playing a DMPC are pretty selfish, if you want to put it that way. I've been DMing for about ten years now and have been able to play approximately twice in that time, all for short-lived campaigns. While yes, I do have all of the rest of the world to create, it's still not the same thing as running a character who actually gets to hang around with the rest of the party for more than a few minutes before they forget their name. When the DMPC is less harmful to the group's fun than certain players in a group, though, your argument holds a lot less water.


It is wanting to have your cake and eat it to, and it is selfish fun at the player's expense. Eventually they will realize this and then resent you for it, and then it isn't fun for anyone.

This assumes a certain level of jealousy that I've yet to encounter in my groups. Granted, I'm also the sort of DM who'll allow someone to play a half-dragon 5-headed hydra (and it was awesome) and a half-nymph drow paladin using the rules from the Chainmail Bikini splatbook (awesome for the player's play-style), and I've just now started running a game wherein players only have one character, so...


Most DMPCs are actively disruptive. They hog the spotlight, and they create awkward situations where the DM has to role-play with himself or make rulings about his own actions.

Yes. This is the trickiest part about it, and why I have most of my DMPC-centric interactions happen off-screen unless they advance the plot.


The players resent DMPCs, and no matter how fairly you try and play them they will always think the DM is playing easy on their own character. Its introduces all of the "DM's girlfriend" problems without the upside of bringing a new player to the game.

I've had requests to stop shooting the healer. Apparently, the players don't like that the enemies tend to go after the one tossing around healing mojo (I already whacked the other spellcaster, so he's no longer a valid target).


Even if you are the most impartial and excellent solitaire player in the world, and you have the world's most likeable and blends into the crowd DMPC imaginable, I still ask you why?

Why not?


Every time the DMPC acts is time the player's aren't acting. Every time the DMPC achieves something, it is something the players aren't achieving. Every time the DMPC is in the spotlight it is time that the other players are in the shadows. The DM already gets to control the monsters, he doesn't need more attention.

The DM doesn't get the attention. The monsters get the attention.
Aw, hell, it's not about attention. It's about a fun game. If you have players who are just so unreasonably jealous about everything that they can't stomach the DM being another player alongside them... well...
Yes, I know it flies in the face of long-standing assumptions about the game, but they don't need to be there for the game to operate. I've even played in games wherein there really wasn't a DM/GM/ST, and all the players ran the show as a cooperative effort.


Further, all the time and effort his is putting into the DMPC, both at the table and away from it is time that he isn't putting into the adventure. Most DMs claim they don't have time to do everything they should to make the adventure complete, why would they want to take on the additional burden of a DMPC?

I'm not one of those DMs. You do put in the qualifier of 'most', though, so I suppose that can be true. Yeah. If the upkeep on your DMPC actually takes away from your primary role as a DM, then you shouldn't have that critter hanging around.


I have never seen an argument that had a solid reason for why a DMPC was needed. I have also never heard a player talk about how awesome their DM's character is, the best I have heard is "its not so bad," or "I don't really notice".

If you absolutely needed another party member for a mechanical reason, why not just create a henchmen for one of the players, or hell, even let players run a second PC. It would have all of the up sides, and although it would have some of the downsides it wouldn't have the tremendous conflict of interest and splitting of attention that kill most games.

What's the difference between a DMPC and a henchman? I mean, besides the henchman being weaker and requiring pay, which is a bad idea 'cause that means he detracts from the party resources more than another full character would.

I would let them run second PCs, except they don't want to. It boggles my mind, too. I'm only now getting them used to the idea of running and adventurer's guild type thing.

[Deadmeat.GW]

In the games I run and play in DMPC's are common due to the fact that without the GM infusing some NPC's with a bit more personality several lynchpin moments end up flat on their faces.
They also provide some essential back-up in some cases (party in D&D 3.5 with no casters and no healers of any kind...) EDIT: And players not willing to spend extra time playing a chort or hireling or anything of the sort....

The difference however is that none of the GM's I play with nor me attach more then a basic emotional attachment to the DMPC's in question.

We WILL target them FIRST even to hammer the point home when something is dangerous so as to inform the party about dangers they are facing.

These characters have emotional content however they are also have the flaw 'Target Practice' ;).
Sofar I have killed off three of my DMPC's (two of them the players were in absolute uproar, shouting and saying that was unfair and they would have died just as easily if they got that specific effect, attack or spell hit them...
Incidently, just what I use my DMPC's for.

In the end players actually show more of an attachment to my DMPC's then I do :).

But I do acknowledge that I do have to stop the game on very rare occasions and point out that they are making a mistake, my character is not the GM and does not know what the GM knows.
I do think it is important to stop the trainwreck before it starts by putting a reminder out that this is a dmPC, not a DMpc.

Hogging the limelight is easy anyway as a GM, I don't need any NPC's, let alone DMPC's, to do that.
Heck I have done it accidently without any characters whatsoever in a scene.
The description and effects of a thunderstorm in the mountains with a recorded thunderstorm on remote controll, set to play when it started did fine with that and the players complained they felt insignificant in the scene.... :(

I was aiming for the effect that the players would feel overwhelmed by the massive storm and therefore sprint for cover somewhere (where I could then introduce the rest of the adventure plothook) but getting moaned at that they felt powerless and absolutely useless sicne they had no input in the whole scene was a new thing for me.

[RPGuru1331]

I have never seen a DMPC done well. I have used them, always to terrible effect, and I have seen other DMs use them, also always to terrible effect.
And that has not one iota of bearing to the discussion of how you make one good, on its own. Or why you should bother.


A question for the DMs who do use DMPCs if I may. What would you do if the party simply refused to let the DMPC accompany them in character, and if the DMPC insisted killed and looted him or her?
I don't understand the question. Why would you include one if they hated it?

I don't really play DnD, but assumign I did, and was not running some sort of player vs. player free for all, I would explicitly handwave away the possibility of loot. That's assuming I'd make one knowing the players would hate it, which is the kind of thing I have, when I did it, asked about in advance. Still, for the sake of argument let's assume the other players changed their mind; "Okay, I don't mind much that you murdered him/her, but if you touch another PC for some random and stupid reason, you're out/I'm out (depending on how many did it). I'm not running PvP, this is srs story time here. Get your jollies on a pre-tram UO server or EVE Online if that's what you want."


The thing is, it doesn't have the biggest problem with DMPCs, which is, in my mind, the conflict of interests involved in playing both sides. Both of the player characters are, in theory, on the same team and working together against the same opponent.
...conflict of interest? What is this, I don't even. That's when you actually stand to gain something. This can only possibly apply if you're playing a Players Vs. DM type game. Otherwise it's just a player character who's guaranteed to be around (IE the DM can't miss a session), played for whatever reason the GM feels like (But if it's going to be done right, has to work, like everything else, to thrust the other players into the limelight of the plot)


Even if you are the most impartial and excellent solitaire player in the world, and you have the world's most likeable and blends into the crowd DMPC imaginable, I still ask you why?
Because nobody else I knew was ever going to run Weapons of the Gods. I stand in slight correction to the prediction I made at the time, because after 4 years it finally happened (I'm only off by infinity!)


The players job is to win the fight and to make their character look cool doing it. The point of the DM is to challenge the players and be a fair and impartial referee. If the DM has a horse in the race is a tremendous conflict of interest. The DM is playing both sides, and the human brain can't really do that and keep up the challenge.
The player and the DM both have the same job. "Make an interesting story". Both use every tool at their disposal to carry out this task. At least, that's how I see it. Other people have different goals, which is Fine Too. But the DM is still a player even if he or she is challenging the players and being an impartial referee. If it's really about hte players and the GM having a difficult, wits tot he max battle, then maybe I can see htat; if the GM is just trying to challenge the players, well, they can do that while they're challenging their PC too. Some people like challenging themselves.


The players resent DMPCs, and no matter how fairly you try and play them they will always think the DM is playing easy on their own character. Its introduces all of the "DM's girlfriend" problems without the upside of bringing a new player to the game.
Well I'm convinced, you hedged your unsubstantiated stereotype with another unsubstantiated stereotype. Doubling down on this? Not a convincing argument.

Running for your SO is somewhat more difficult, if only because you don't need an ego to be biased for him or her. Still, with a good group who will prod you if you go too far, and a good SO who doesn't /want/ to abuse it, it's not really that difficult to stay in check. My SO's DM'd for me with no problems, f'rex.


It is wanting to have your cake and eat it to, and it is selfish fun at the player's expense. Eventually they will realize this and then resent you for it, and then it isn't fun for anyone.
What, you're going to go with so many stereotypes and you won't even throw the DM's side a gimme to their favor, like the poor GM who always has to run games and can never play in one because nobody else will run?

It's giving yourself a character that plays by PC rules while DMing. Any reason that isn't actually one that would mess with the players is totally valid, it's just a matter of execution. If you do it right, they're going to like him or her as much as the other PCs, because they don't feel like they've been trod upon (Which will require actually not trodding upon them, for one).


Most DMPCs are actively disruptive. They hog the spotlight, and they create awkward situations where the DM has to role-play with himself or make rulings about his own actions.
You always have to make rulings about your own actions. You are going to do something in your plot that is not 100% laid out in the book. It's more or less a complete, and utter, certainty, if you have an interesting game. If someone can't do that, they're straight up not cut out to be a GM. At all.

Now, roleplaying with yourself is tricky in person. I resolved this by making my PC more concerned with the other PCs. She had no grand goals. those are for people who are trying to go against Wu Wei, and that's too much trouble! But the other PCs were her path of least resistance, so she still cared about them, as fixtures in her life, rather than more transient people.

And to be fair, I also resolved another aspect of Weapons of the Gods in a fashion that restricted this; Weapons of the Gods requires you to attain Deeds to advance; Deeds are given out by the GM. Without them, you're locked into your rank forever (But if you're having a game of epic kung fu you're going to earn Deeds! In practice, this isn't a problem for normal PCs). My solution was to not give out Deeds to myself. I was less confident in myself on the matter at the time, and was on the heels of, in fact, multiple DMPC failures, so while I was going to have one, I still wanted to limit myself. Imagine my surprise when the players took it upon themselves to give /me/ deeds. Without my even mentioning I was not handing her deeds. They just said "Yeah that's an X Deed" or however they felt like saying it, with whoever agreed with the assertion shouting assent.

But you know, your'e going to have to make rulings about yourself. If I ran it now with what I learned then, I probably would have been willing to give myself at least a few, or at least ask after the first few were handed out and this was established as a thing that really was going to happen.


Further, all the time and effort his is putting into the DMPC, both at the table and away from it is time that he isn't putting into the adventure. Most DMs claim they don't have time to do everything they should to make the adventure complete, why would they want to take on the additional burden of a DMPC?
Maybe I just manage my time better, maybe I'm better at winging it, but that's not a problem for me unless my game demands me to read external sources. But if a DM doesn't want to, don't. Nobody is arguing the DM having a PC is mandatory. It's not a thing I usually would even WANT to do. We're just trying to discuss how to do it right if you feel the need.

If it's messing with the Players' plots though, don't do it. That's a pretty major cardinal rule.


I can see no reason to put one in a game that is not purely selfish, i.e. playing is fun and I always have to DM so I am going to both at the same time.
Seems like justified selfishness to me.


Heck I have done it accidently without any characters whatsoever in a scene.
The description and effects of a thunderstorm in the mountains with a recorded thunderstorm on remote controll, set to play when it started did fine with that and the players complained they felt insignificant in the scene.... :(
Huh. Guess it is possible to steal the limelight without a character. Would not have guessed, unless there was some sort of Cool Ship or Nice Hat or something involved.

[Yukitsu]

I don't see why you are trying to make a distinction between a NPC and a DMPC. In reality a DMPC is a NPC that sticks around with the party and is considered to be part of the party full time and thus receives full benefits from that (XP, items, whatever). DMPC is just a way to say "NPC that stays with the party on a regular basis as a permanent party member". Thus all your ideas on "bad DMPCs" are just as valid on other NPCs. For instance it can be very disruptive to have a NPC that completely overshadows the whole party and makes them feel less than heroic (think Elminster taking over the party's fight). The pitfalls are all still there you are making a false distinction between NPCs and DMPCs. All problems with DMPCs are potential problems for other NPCs and in many cases are also potential problems with PCs as well.

There's a strong difference in the application in practice, when I have a DM trying to include a DMPC as compared to one trying for a well designed NPC. Especially as granted advice to new DMs who are uncertain in any practical sense as to where the boundary is between a spotlight hog and something that is never at all emphasized in the story. It's useful in a practical sense, to avoid telling all of these new DMs to use DMPC assuming they'll think a DMPC is simply an NPC that happens to be near the party, and may instead run an additional PC.

[Talakeal]

And that has not one iota of bearing to the discussion of how you make one good, on its own. Or why you should bother.



I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was a formal debate where people had specific roles to play and we were arguing a specific point. I thought the OP asked a question that wasn't really about DMPCs and so people were just discussing their opinions and experiences on the subject.

I can't argue except from personal experience and anecdotes, there has never been a formal study on DMPCs, or a textbook written about them, or a class authored, so that's all I have to go on.

In my experience a good RPG should be like chess. The players should need to plan and to use tactics to overcome challenges, and they should be carefully balanced. Imagine trying to run a game like Tomb of Horrors with a DMPC, where almost all of the challenges are traps which have to be outsmarted rather than beaten by combat. How on earth can the DMPC be useful here unless he is played as either the idiot who walks point to set off the traps or the super genius who solves every problem? There is no way to solve a puzzle if you already know the answer.

Likewise in a combat situation I enjoy the challenge, and the DM playing both sides makes it really hard to believe that he isn't pulling punches one way or another. I would feel like a cheater in such a situation.
Likewise I would feel cheated every time the DM took his action and I sat there watching him play with himself for 10% or so of every game session. Cheated out of time in the spotlight, cheated out of impact on the story, and cheated out of the challenge of overcoming a problem myself. The DM already has plenty of time in the spotlight and attention, why does he need to take more from the players?
Honestly if a DM tried thrusting a DMPC into the game it really would be a game breaker. I would tell him to choose one or the other, and if they chose PC then I would take over DMing. Of course I understand it's not up to me, but I have yet to see a group where the other PCs wouldn't support such a change.


My players have a psychotic hatred of all NPCs. If an NPC tells them what to do they will attack the NPC, even if it results in their death. If I tried to put a DMPC in their party that character wouldn't last a minute.


Another example if I may of the last time I used a DMPC. I started out as a player, then the DM got bored of running the game, as they so often do, and I took over DMing. I kept my old PC with the party however.
At one point they destroyed a powerful artifact with control over air and gravity, and from its shards they each made a minor artifact that gave them a portion of its power. One of them got spider climb at will, one got flight at will, one got feather fall at will, and so on. My DMPC got +10 to Jump and Climb checks, and my players started howling in rage that my guy got TWO powers, despite that fact that several of their abilities (for example flight) made my "two" powers completely worthless.
Later they accomplished a quest where they aided a priest and as a favor the priest gave the party a permanent bless effect. A couple months down the line and every other PC had been swapped out because my players had short attention spans and didn't play the same character for long periods of time (I should start a new thread about that). It got to the point where only my DMPC remained of the original party, and every time the bless effect came up everyone bitched about how I had given my DMPC a unique power and he was the only one with it.
This continued with them making comments or rolling their eyes every time my DMPC did anything, and eventually I realized something. The players hate this, and I am only able to do a small fraction of the things a full PC could do anyway, so everyone would be happier if I just stopped doing it. And I was right.

I have also had a run in where I was playing with an excellent DM who thought the party of 8 people with only 1 druid needed an extra healer, so he put in a cleric DMPC. Said DMPC used all of these custom spells which I felt were far better than the core spells, and so I asked him to teach me them. He said no, he would only exchange them for other spells, and when I offered to share the druid spells of my order I was told that he already knew all the secret druid spells. (This was back in 2E when priests could make custom spells and spells were divided by spheres instead of classes). Little stuff like that really sours players against DMPCs.

I had a fried tell me a story of a DMPC who called dibs on a magic item. The party said no, that he couldn't best use said magic item, and gave it to one of the PCs, and so the DMPC attacked the party and tried to take it. The DMPC, who it turned out wasn't quite so awesome as the DM thought, was killed by the party, and the DM got pissed off and ended the campaign right there.




Really, I don't see the joy in having a DMPC. So many things can go wrong, and even if played right most players will still resent them for hogging the spotlight or imagined favoritism.

What is the fun of it? In combat and dialogue, which are the two main activities, controlling both sides isn't really fun and looks awkward. You can't actually solve puzzles, you are restricted to pointing out things the others missed as a sort of "no fail mode". You can't make meaningful decisions for the party without stealing their autonomy. What can you do accept describe how awesome your DMPC is, which is the hallmark of a bad one.

Basically, I see a very tiny and amount of pleasure on the DMs part weighed against a mountain of potential pitfalls, and I just can't see why anyone would do it unless they are doing it poorly, in which case they are actually selfishly siphoning joy of the game away from their PCs.

Edit: Also, I have never even dreamed about not letting player's control their own cohorts, animal companions, familiars, followers, or mercenaries, although I will temporarily take that control away if they are abusing them or want to have a face to face dialogue with one.

[profitofrage]

a whole lot of stuff

Ok...yea reading over your group...one who activly kills NPC's who talk to them...yea Im fairly sure that your groups the exception rather then the rule. Id take any anecdote coming from you with a grain of salt as I know most reasonable RPG'ers dont act in such a fashoin.

Obviously any group with such a ......uh....Interesting hatred of NPC's isnt going to like a dmPC. Its no wonder why you dont like dmPC's.
But considering all of what you just said? looks like your pretty biased on the idea.

[RPGuru1331]

I can't argue except from personal experience and anecdotes, there has never been a formal study on DMPCs, or a textbook written about them, or a class authored, so that's all I have to go on.
Your argument was an absolute; a single counterexample banishes it. Your experience lead you to an incorrect conclusion. It happens, but it doesn't make all the bad experiences equal to a fact about how to run things on its own. But if you remember how DMPCs made things fall apart, you have a list of Don'ts that is meaningful and accurate.


In my experience a good RPG should be like chess. The players should need to plan and to use tactics to overcome challenges, and they should be carefully balanced. Imagine trying to run a game like Tomb of Horrors with a DMPC, where almost all of the challenges are traps which have to be outsmarted rather than beaten by combat. How on earth can the DMPC be useful here unless he is played as either the idiot who walks point to set off the traps or the super genius who solves every problem?
I wouldn't. Assuming I radically changed to the point where I could possibly want to run a module, and then having decided that, *That* module, unless there was a real, actual plot in mind I wouldn't see the benefit to having a PC in the first place.

But christ, you don't have to be useful. Nobody does. You just have to be entertaining and help make the story interesting. Being useful helps, generally, but isn't a requisite. It's only 'like chess' if you want it to be, people have their own motives to play RPGs.


Likewise in a combat situation I enjoy the challenge, and the DM playing both sides makes it really hard to believe that he isn't pulling punches one way or another.
Uh, okay, believe that then. It's not going to make it true, but whatever.

Do you even understand that people can have different motivations from yours?


I would feel like a cheater in such a situation.
Then don't do it. Nobody's arguing you have to.


Likewise I would feel cheated every time the DM took his action and I sat there watching him play with himself for 10% or so of every game session. Cheated out of time in the spotlight, cheated out of impact on the story, and cheated out of the challenge of overcoming a problem myself.
If the DM took center stage, especially with consistency (Serpentine apparently managed after it was thrust on her, so I should be careful with my wording, I suppose), then they messed up, yes. Nobody here will argue otherwise.


The DM already has plenty of time in the spotlight and attention, why does he need to take more from the players?
I don't know, and I don't care. Any reason that isn't diametrically opposed to the other players is valid. Just like every other players' motivations.


Honestly if a DM tried thrusting a DMPC into the game it really would be a game breaker. I would tell him to choose one or the other, and if they chose PC then I would take over DMing.
That's just fantastic for you.


Of course I understand it's not up to me, but I have yet to see a group where the other PCs wouldn't support such a change.
I believe you. That just doesn't mean they don't exist.


My players have a psychotic hatred of all NPCs. If an NPC tells them what to do they will attack the NPC, even if it results in their death. If I tried to put a DMPC in their party that character wouldn't last a minute.
Dude, your players are messed up beyond repair. You really need to stop using them as an example of a healthy player/GM relationship, seriously


Another example if I may of the last time I used a DMPC. I started out as a player, then the DM got bored of running the game, as they so often do, and I took over DMing. I kept my old PC with the party however.
At one point they destroyed a powerful artifact with control over air and gravity, and from its shards they each made a minor artifact that gave them a portion of its power. One of them got spider climb at will, one got flight at will, one got feather fall at will, and so on. My DMPC got +10 to Jump and Climb checks, and my players started howling in rage that my guy got TWO powers, despite that fact that several of their abilities (for example flight) made my "two" powers completely worthless.
Your players are petulant children. You've demonstrated this in at least two threads, possibly more given your apparent rep. I really, really, REALLY don't care about their opinions and reactions in considering what to do with normal, well-adjusted players that can actually behave like reasonable people.


Later they accomplished a quest where they aided a priest and as a favor the priest gave the party a permanent bless effect. A couple months down the line and every other PC had been swapped out because my players had short attention spans and didn't play the same character for long periods of time (I should start a new thread about that). It got to the point where only my DMPC remained of the original party, and every time the bless effect came up everyone bitched about how I had given my DMPC a unique power and he was the only one with it.
You really need a new group. I don't even care if they do or do not accept DMPCs, I would just hope they're not jerks.


I have also had a run in where I was playing with an excellent DM who thought the party of 8 people with only 1 druid needed an extra healer, so he put in a cleric DMPC. Said DMPC used all of these custom spells which I felt were far better than the core spells, and so I asked him to teach me them. He said no, he would only exchange them for other spells, and when I offered to share the druid spells of my order I was told that he already knew all the secret druid spells. (This was back in 2E when priests could make custom spells and spells were divided by spheres instead of classes). Little stuff like that really sours players against DMPCs.
Protip: Don't do that if running a DMPC. Pretty sure it's been said.


I had a fried tell me a story of a DMPC who called dibs on a magic item. The party said no, that he couldn't best use said magic item, and gave it to one of the PCs, and so the DMPC attacked the party and tried to take it. The DMPC, who it turned out wasn't quite so awesome as the DM thought, was killed by the party, and the DM got pissed off and ended the campaign right there.
Or that either. Of course I wouldn't recommend a player do it either, it's no less stupid just for not being a DM.


Really, I don't see the joy in having a DMPC. So many things can go wrong, and even if played right most players will still resent them for hogging the spotlight or imagined favoritism.
Oh no, I find it unlikely that most players are such spoiled rotten brats. And this is as someone with a low opinion of people. No, the main problem is most people are either not cut out to run one at all, or they are and get such horrid advice on the matter that it turns out poorly.


What is the fun of it?


In combat and dialogue, which are the two main activities, controlling both sides isn't really fun and looks awkward. You can't actually solve puzzles, you are restricted to pointing out things the others missed as a sort of "no fail mode". You can't make meaningful decisions for the party without stealing their autonomy. What can you do accept describe how awesome your DMPC is, which is the hallmark of a bad one.


Basically, I see a very tiny and amount of pleasure on the DMs part weighed against a mountain of potential pitfalls,
It's pleasure on everyone's part at another interesting PC. I wouldn't recommend it with people who are sociopaths and can only take joy in what they, personally, do. Of course, I wouldn't recommend playing with such people in the first place.


and I just can't see why anyone would do it unless they are doing it poorly, in which case they are actually selfishly siphoning joy of the game away from their PCs.
It's been explained at least twice, just to you. What do you still not get? They might just have had an idea for a character that really goes with their story that they ultimately fall a bit in love with. They may want to try out something mechanical. Maybe they want to fill a niche players aren't (I don't get this, but whatever, it's been offered, so it's a reason). It doesn't make a difference. Heck, you just said you ran one, and you presumably didn't have a reason that was based on dominating the players, why don't you answer your own question?


Edit: Also, I have never even dreamed about not letting player's control their own cohorts, animal companions, familiars, followers, or mercenaries, although I will temporarily take that control away if they are abusing them or want to have a face to face dialogue with one.
I wouldn't either, for the most part. Mercenaries I would; they're just hirelings, not part of the character (Now if you justify your already-had minions in-story as mercs, then yes, control them, but if you literally just hired a guy with gold, mechanically, then no).

[Talakeal]

I was just posting my oppinions on why it is bad and sharing some anecdotes to back them up, apparently that isn't wanted around here so I will just be wishing you all a good night.

[Shadowknight12]

I was just posting my oppinions on why it is bad and sharing some anecdotes to back them up, apparently that isn't wanted around here so I will just be wishing you all a good night.

Yeah, sorry, it doesn't really work like that. When you ignore other people's equally valid anecdotes and opinions and insist adamantly that your view is right and there is no possible compromise... well, that's what happens.

[Serpentine]

It's called a dialogue.
I can't argue except from personal experience and anecdotes, there has never been a formal study on DMPCs, or a textbook written about them, or a class authored, so that's all I have to go on.Fine, but we have our own experiences and anecdotes as well. None of us are denying that what you say about your experiences with a DMPC are true. Why do you (plural) insist on doing it to ours?

Imagine trying to run a game like Tomb of Horrors with a DMPC, where almost all of the challenges are traps which have to be outsmarted rather than beaten by combat. How on earth can the DMPC be useful here unless he is played as either the idiot who walks point to set off the traps or the super genius who solves every problem? There is no way to solve a puzzle if you already know the answer.I'm not sure whether I would use one if I ran that, specifically, but I have run a puzzle and problem-solving stuffed temple just recently. Basically, it was the temple of an extremely Chaotic god, and she is a Lawful dwarf. Her thinking was too rigid and unimaginative to deal with most of the puzzles, so she just stepped back and let everyone else deal with them, reacted to the strange place, and did her best to defend them from the beasties they summoned up.

Likewise in a combat situation I enjoy the challenge, and the DM playing both sides makes it really hard to believe that he isn't pulling punches one way or another. I would feel like a cheater in such a situation.It makes it hard for you to believe that. The degree to which I "pull punches" has nothing to do with the presence of my DMPC. My players know that.

Likewise I would feel cheated every time the DM took his action and I sat there watching him play with himself for 10% or so of every game session. Cheated out of time in the spotlight, cheated out of impact on the story, and cheated out of the challenge of overcoming a problem myself. The DM already has plenty of time in the spotlight and attention, why does he need to take more from the players?Because not all DMs are desperate for that attention? Not all DMs are doing it - DMing or DMPCing - just for the spotlight and attention? I tend to gloss over slightly anything that purely involves the DMPC and an NPC, and I'm looking for ways to speed up my combat. My players, at least, have voted that this isn't something they're concerned about. Just because you would feel "cheated", doesn't mean everyone's like that.

Honestly if a DM tried thrusting a DMPC into the game it really would be a game breaker.That's your perogative. I, personally, would hope that you'd at least give me a chance - I would hope that you would trust me, at least until I proved that you can't.

My players have a psychotic hatred of all NPCs. If an NPC tells them what to do they will attack the NPC, even if it results in their death. If I tried to put a DMPC in their party that character wouldn't last a minute.Then you don't introduce a DMPC to them. Simple. But, uh, yeah... That seems pretty over the top. I don't think I could DM for - nor be a player with - them, not without deliberately creating a game outside of my normal game type.

At one point they destroyed a powerful artifact with control over air and gravity, and from its shards they each made a minor artifact that gave them a portion of its power. One of them got spider climb at will, one got flight at will, one got feather fall at will, and so on. My DMPC got +10 to Jump and Climb checks, and my players started howling in rage that my guy got TWO powers, despite that fact that several of their abilities (for example flight) made my "two" powers completely worthless.That's pretty silly. I find the fault there with your players, not your DMPC.
Incidentally, I have trouble getting my players to pick up the neato magic items I try to give them, even often when they're almost custom-picked for them. Apparently it's just not something they're especially worried about...

This continued with them making comments or rolling their eyes every time my DMPC did anything, and eventually I realized something. The players hate this, and I am only able to do a small fraction of the things a full PC could do anyway, so everyone would be happier if I just stopped doing it. And I was right.Your players behaved pretty immaturely. Now, if your players just plain don't like DMPCs and will be hostile to it no matter what, you certainly shouldn't shove one in against their wishes. I don't think anyone here is saying that. But as far as I can see here, the only reason your DMPC wasn't fine was because of your players' behaviour. So all that proves is that some players just hate DMPCs to the point where they won't even give it a chance and will complain about really petty and ridiculous things.

I have also had a run in where I was playing with an excellent DM who thought the party of 8 people with only 1 druid needed an extra healer, so he put in a cleric DMPC. Said DMPC used all of these custom spells which I felt were far better than the core spells, and so I asked him to teach me them. He said no, he would only exchange them for other spells, and when I offered to share the druid spells of my order I was told that he already knew all the secret druid spells. (This was back in 2E when priests could make custom spells and spells were divided by spheres instead of classes). Little stuff like that really sours players against DMPCs.Little stuff like that is the sort of thing non-anti-DMPCers warn against doing.

I had a fried tell me a story of a DMPC who called dibs on a magic item. The party said no, that he couldn't best use said magic item, and gave it to one of the PCs, and so the DMPC attacked the party and tried to take it. The DMPC, who it turned out wasn't quite so awesome as the DM thought, was killed by the party, and the DM got pissed off and ended the campaign right there.Again: we would all say that's a major screw up on the part of the DM. That's pretty dumb. I don't even understand why you'd do that...

Really, I don't see the joy in having a DMPC. So many things can go wrong, and even if played right most players will still resent them for hogging the spotlight or imagined favoritism.1. So don't have any, and 2. Mine don't.

What is the fun of it? In combat and dialogue, which are the two main activities, controlling both sides isn't really fun and looks awkward. You can't actually solve puzzles, you are restricted to pointing out things the others missed as a sort of "no fail mode". You can't make meaningful decisions for the party without stealing their autonomy. What can you do accept describe how awesome your DMPC is, which is the hallmark of a bad one.What you describe here isn't the totality of roleplaying games. My character assists the PCs, interacts with them, defends them, gets upset when they get upset, makes fun of them when they get drunk, gives what advice she can but usually bows to party decisions, screws up, does things right, and so on.

If the DM took center stage, especially with consistency (Serpentine apparently managed after it was thrust on her, so I should be careful with my wording, I suppose), then they messed up, yes. Nobody here will argue otherwise.Wot wot?

[SleepyShadow]

I've had plenty of experience with DMPCs, from both sides of the table, plus I've given a delicious sushi analogy that's floating around on this thread somewhere (mmmm, sushi :smallbiggrin: ), so I feel as if I should actually post a bit of that experience. Hopefully, it will shed some light on what my opinion is, where it stems from, and perhaps (as was the point of this thread long, long ago) give some advice to the curious or the bored.

Example 1:

It was my turn to DM, and the party would lose their primary healer/tank if my PC left the group, since the previous DM rolled up a rogue (the group had two already). I asked the players if they wanted me to leave my character in the group. They said that they did. So my Favored Soul became a DMPC. He stopped tanking and became focused on healing when one rogue died and the player rolled up a Crusader, and he left the group entirely when another player retired her monk and rolled up a Druid. My 'DMPC' did not take much spotlight from the group out of combat either, as his personality was already such that he was not likely to talk much anyway.

Example 2:

The group was small (we had two players bail that session), so we were down to a War Blade/Sorcerer, a Rogue knife-fighter, and a Factotum gunslinger. The three of us agreed that heading into the Iron Fortress with such a small group was a bad plan, so we headed back to town and hired a Healer (the actual class from the Miniature's Handbook). I'm not sure whether she counted as a DMPC or 'just a well-built NPC that happens to be with the party for an extended period of time', but the extra character's presence not only made the adventure survivable but incredibly entertaining as well (She had a paralyzing arachnophobia).

Just my 2 cp.

[MeeposFire]

I would call that healer a DMPC for all intents and purposes assuming you meant to keep that character in the party on a semi permanent basis (as in until more players join the game).

[Talakeal]

Yeah, sorry, it doesn't really work like that. When you ignore other people's equally valid anecdotes and opinions and insist adamantly that your view is right and there is no possible compromise... well, that's what happens.

Ignoring or disagreeing with someone is one thing. I have been told that every fact I have stated is flat out wrong, and that every oppinion I have stated is uncared for. That is not normal discourse, even on internet forum, and is the most hostile I have seen here outside of some of the more bitter edition wars. I have stated my intention to leave the discussion and will do so, so yes it does work like that.

Oh, and thank you Serpentine. I disagree with you, and still can't see where you are coming from, but you actually took the time to respond to each of my points in a non offesnsive manner.

[Serpentine]

Ignoring or disagreeing with someone is one thing. I have been told that every fact I have stated is flat out wrong, and that every oppinion I have stated is uncared for.To be fair, we've had to deal with that constantly here, and flat-out blatantly so. Just go read through Yukitsu's posts. RpgGuru should've known to avoid that sort of thing, but we're pretty hard on the defensive here, and are having our opinions and experiences explicitly rejected out of hand.

[RPGuru1331]

Wot wot?
just another thought I had prior to the discussion that was wrong. "You absolutely can't take center stage with a DMPC, it's going to screw with people". Your story seemed to indicate that the other players thrust you into it. Therefore, it's possible for a DMPC to have center stage and have nothing wrong with it, just difficult and not a thing I'd trust myself with.

It does generally help those nagging doubts when the players insist on something though, doesn't it?



Ignoring or disagreeing with someone is one thing. I have been told that every fact I have stated is flat out wrong, and that every oppinion I have stated is uncared for.
Your facts are directly counter to the evidence, so yes, they are wrong. Try not saying wrong facts and they won't be called wrong. Telling people who have successfully run DMPCs that it is impossible to do so is just ludicrous.

I get why you're leery. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. You're not obligated to use DMPCs. If you don't want a GM to merely because you're worried, that's fair, and they shouldn't. But you've repeatedly and loudly insisted that because you don't understand someone else's motivations, they're therefore invalid. You've also displayed an utter inability to understand that other people don't necessarily run games the way you do, often with different goals. There's only so much patience in the world.

[Shadowknight12]

Ignoring or disagreeing with someone is one thing. I have been told that every fact I have stated is flat out wrong, and that every oppinion I have stated is uncared for. That is not normal discourse, even on internet forum, and is the most hostile I have seen here outside of some of the more bitter edition wars. I have stated my intention to leave the discussion and will do so, so yes it does work like that.

Oh, and thank you Serpentine. I disagree with you, and still can't see where you are coming from, but you actually took the time to respond to each of my points in a non offesnsive manner.

Firstly, I didn't say that you couldn't leave the discussion, my "does not work like that" comment was aimed at your expectation that others would be willing to compromise when you yourself weren't making even the slightest effort at that. It's something called reciprocity. More on that later.

Secondly, what Serpentine said is true. We're all basically denying each other's points because there are people on both sides that flat-out refuse to see the other side's point. I am one of them. I refuse to believe for a moment that a DMPC is always a negative influence on a game. Just like the people on the anti-DMPC camp are refusing to believe for a second that DMPCs can ever be a non-negative influence on the game, so too I adopt that same attitude towards them.

Thirdly, the reason your points are being denied so flatly is because you are dismissing everyone else's points with the exact same vigour as you say we're dismissing yours. You (and others as well) insist, over and over, that DMPCs cannot possibly work, period. Why should we not talk to you in the same way? If you want your point to be taken less adversely, consider adding words such as "maybe," "perhaps," "it's possible that," and make an actual effort to acknowledge the points other people are making. Reciprocity.

[Jarawara]

The problem I see here is that once again we are all working on different defintions of what a DMPC really is. Each person in this debate is imagining what a DMPC is, and how it would blow/shine/whatever within the game. Since that imagined defintion is not what the next person is imagining it to be, they don't understand why the first person sees the DMPC as blowing/shining/whatever-ing.

Think of it as the comparison of apples and oranges, but that both sides of the debate see it as a different fruit. First one says "I don't like this fruit, because I don't like how crisp it is. Plus the peel is tart and a bit chewy." Second one says "You're crazy - the fruit is beyond soft, it's nearly total juice. And besides, you remove the peel, silly." First then says "You must agree, at least, that you have to avoid the core, it's just too hard and full of seeds." Second one replies "I agree you have to remove the seeds, but the core is only a tiny filiment of fiber, easily removed and even if you don't it's still edible."

Third person comes along, sees it neither as an apple nor an orange, but instead as a banana, and asks "What core?"

(I shall try to resist the sudden urge to compare a DMPC with a kumquat. :smalltongue:)

I have heard several defining traits of DMPC's, but there seems to be no clear consensus as to which of these traits are the true defintions of DMPC's, or how many of them are required.

1) NPC's who are the DM's PC's. Whatever that means.
2) NPC's who travel with the party, or perhaps only if for extended durations.
3) NPC's who share in the treasure, XP, and/or other rewards.
4) NPC's who are effective at fighting, spellcasting, and/or other aspects of adventuring.
5) NPC's who are present in roleplaying and dialog.
6) NPC's who have storylines inherent to them.
7) NPC's who have their moment to shine.
8) NPC's who were former PC's. (The DM's, or perhaps someone else's.)
9) NPC's who are total Mary Sues, totally lording it over the players at every turn.

And I'm sure there are other traits to add to this list.

Now other than the obvious last one, the list of traits are neither positive nor negative, they are simply listed facts of the character. "This NPC used to be a PC of the DM." Does that make it a DMPC? Or just a personality that the DM is re-using as a NPC? Or what if the traits are contradictory? "This former PC travels with the party, but is outclassed by the PC's in all catagories. He is present in most roleplays, but has no inherent storyline." Is that a DMPC? One could ask why bring him along if he's not useful, but that's avoiding the question -- what combination of traits makes him a DMPC and what combination of traits make him only a NPC?

About the only consistant defintion I have ever heard to define the DMPC is that the DMPC is a badly played NPC. Therefore, a badly played NPC is a DMPC. And if it wasn't badly played, it means it wasn't a DMPC, just a well played NPC. Circular logic, yes, but it seems to be the most consistent assumption in all of these threads.

At the risk of delving into the realm of 'No True Scotsman', I would actually suggest that by the above definition of the DMPC, that Serpentine's character, whom she created as a PC to play alongside the other PC's of the group, travels with the group, has her own storyline, her own dialog, and shares in all the rewards and has her moments to shine... is NOT a DMPC.

Which of course, is rediculous. Yet seems to be the only way to explain the ongoing confusion as to how a DMPC could possibly turn out well. If it turns out well.... it wasn't a DMPC.


In the other thread.... (Wow, it suddenly occurs to me that the 'other thread' is over a year old now, and is long gone. The threads disappear, the debate continues unending.) Anyway, in 'a previous' thread, I had listed a group of characters from my game, and challenged people to identify the DMPC from the list. Most people failed to identify the DMPC. Those who did, did so for the wrong reasons.

Two on the list were former PC's - one of mine, one from a previous player of mine. His character was badass, arrogant, a true primadonna, but he didn't qualify as DMPC because he didn't travel enough with the party. Mine on the other hand was useless in combat, and though talkative and had his own storyline, that story didn't intrude upon the game and the character didn't influence the current storyline.

Another was commonly listed as a DMPC, as he was central to the story and was popular with the people. He even got several moments to shine, actually getting the 'final scene' of the story. But throughout the game, he always took backseat to the PC's, and ultimately had to accept one of the PC's as the new leader of his country (what would have been his job!).

Two on the list were notable in that I had secretly added PC's to the list, to see how people would identify them as. One was chosen as an 'obvious DMPC, and a total Mary Sue to boot', while the other was pretty much pegged as 'just an NPC who travels with the party'.

It seemed like nobody could clearly identify which was a DMPC, or even what would make that character a DMPC. Everyone was using different definitions back then, and everyone is STILL using different definitions today.

The only consistent defintion is place is that a DMPC ruins the game. Therefore, since none of those NPC's ruined my game... none of them are DMPC's - even though they all traveled with the party, shared the spotlight and the spoils, had their own stories and participated in the roleplays, and one of them was actually my former PC, and will be again one day. None were DMPC's, they were all just well-developed NPC's.


This fundamental miscommunication should be taken into consideration when posting our debates, or we'll all just keep talking past each other.

*~*~*



A question for the DMs who do use DMPCs if I may. What would you do if the party simply refused to let the DMPC accompany them in character, and if the DMPC insisted killed and looted him or her? Because I can almost garuntee that is how my group would react to a forced DMPC, violent hobos that they are, and I am wondering how you would respond to that.

This is a valid question... but does not apply to me. The reason for that is that I make clear right from the beginning of the game that I will be having multiple NPCs travel with the party. (They would be well advised to have them as support and assistance, as going it alone is dangerous in my world). If the prospective player had a problem with that, and didn't want a "DMPC" in his game... he wouldn't have signed on as my player.

All the players who have signed on had no issues with the NPCs in the party. They knew about it before the game began, and had no problem as it continued. There were a few NPCs who proved... 'incompatible' with the party. One ended up as a villian, the other just was invited to leave. But those examples were because of roleplay and storyline, not because "the players didn't want DMPC's".

Now if I suddenly found myself running a game at a convention, and I rolled out an NPC to adventure with the party, and the players (whom I've never met before today) strenously objected... well yeah, I'd drop the NPC like the hot potato it was and continue without him.

And if those players then asked to join my group at home? Nah, I'd drop those players like the hot potatos they are, and continue with my regular group.

[profitofrage]

stuff

This was a very well summarised and well set out argument...its a really big pitty that half way through you make a really bad assumption based on improper data.
Do you really think that the only agreed upon definition of a DMPC is just an NPC thats played poorly?
Thats wrong...its just wrong...thats like the whole point of this thread...the idea that DMPC shouldnt be a derogative term for an NPC...that its not derogitive at all.

You managed to albiet in a very clever way be wrong due to an assumption about whats agreed upon.

[Kalirren]

I typically play in very small groups, the moderator + 2 or 3 other people. Under these situations it's very important for the moderator to actually take on some of the plot-moving roles that a player typically assumes with their PC. This naturally leads to the creation of DMPCs, which I would succinctly define as NPCs with equal plot power to the PCs.

In my experience a DMPC functions best as a recurring influence, working with the PCs, or in parallel to the PCs' arc. They differ meaningfully from the bulk of NPCs in that the non-moderating players of the group know that they are of equal rank and importance to the players' characters, and that the narrative spotlight of our sessions just happens to follow the players' characters actions as opposed to those of any others. (In our parlance, we typically joke about "Plot Fu" being an attribute on the character sheet, like Strength, and we say that they have just as much Plot Fu as the PCs do.)

I would say that far from being of no conceivable use, using DMPCs has one very important function in a game. I think that DMPCs, when played well, (and that is to say, when the DMPC isn't privileged by the moderator,) offer the best way to explore the PCs' dealing with equals in a way that no other kind of NPC does. There's always a certain artificial camaraderie that exists between the PCs just because the DM is sitting on the opposite side of the screen. Essentially, any functional gaming group runs on the premise that all PCs are equivalents, each equally important to the narrative despite being each unique. Using a DMPC exposes the difference between narrative equivalence and plot power equality, and forces the players to play out their characters' interactions with a NPC at that margin.

[Just_Ice]

There's a strong difference in the application in practice, when I have a DM trying to include a DMPC as compared to one trying for a well designed NPC. Especially as granted advice to new DMs who are uncertain in any practical sense as to where the boundary is between a spotlight hog and something that is never at all emphasized in the story. It's useful in a practical sense, to avoid telling all of these new DMs to use DMPC assuming they'll think a DMPC is simply an NPC that happens to be near the party, and may instead run an additional PC.

This, I feel, is the most sensible argument against DMPCs run by fully competent DMs. "Why use a DMPC when an expertly-crafted NPC can be used instead to greater effect?"

One of the main problems with this thread, which Jarawara mentioned (and others before him) is that people both draw the lines between DMPC and NPC at different places, and that it becomes difficult to discern, even subjectively, on which side of the line a particular character rests.

There are a couple answers to the question, and as their validity depends on a couple factors, namely what you feel the difference between an NPC and a DMPC is, and what you believe the role of the DM/NPC is.

Some answers are of course, "nothing", "It doesn't actually matter". Further up the scale is "the best reason is selfish but might help keep the DM sane" and then a breadth of "it can enrich the experience".

While this argument is in some ways irrefutable, its subjectivity renders it unhelpful to any sort of resolution. Considering your history in this topic of talking out of both ends (claiming your issue is only with giving potentially dangerous advice out when you are using it as a platform for your absolutist stance), it's very difficult to lend any credence to a point that would grasp so hard at straws. Jumping at technicalities is not helping anyone, and diverges from the main point, which is of course, "nuh uh!" and "uh huh!".

I know this is the internet, but unless you can refute that, for instance, Serpentine's players did not enjoy her "DMPC", you don't really have much of a leg to stand on for an absolute "no DMPCs" stance and our discourse is fairly useless. That would mean you are basically in a big huff because other people are enjoying something you are unable to, which is the basic premise of console wars. The other possibility is that of trolling, but I'm certain is it admirable determination to protect others from the horrors of bad DMPCs.

I recommend you surrender the main point as it's literally incorrect as long as a non-zero portion of DMPCs have been enjoyed, and obviously to some effect, you are literally wrong. An argument about how one should recommend DMPCing to questioners would hold a lot more water and probably be more beneficial to your cause; giving you some victory rather than no victory.

[Jarawara]

@ Profitofrage:

Thank you for the compliment. And I also agree that my argument was flawed. That was intentional.

"Do you really think that the only agreed upon definition of a DMPC is just an NPC thats played poorly?"

Well... yes. Yes I do. That was the basic premise of my post.

But what I also tried to convey, as in the example of Serpentine's DMPC not being a DMPC, is that this basic premise is utterly rediculous! Of course it's a DMPC! And yet, nobody can seem to agree as to the traits of a DMPC, so we continue to talk past each other using differing definitions.

As in the example of my list of NPC's, and how everyone defined different characters in the list as "the obvious DMPC". Each person was looking at the list with a different definition set in their mind as to what a DMPC was, and so projected that onto my list, and came up with different answers.

We can't ever conclude this argument if we can never conclude even the basic defintions. Every time we do, somebody else comes into the discussion with a new defintion, and the debate rages anew.

Just recently, I was ready to post my defense of DMPC's in this thread, but just before I did, somebody suggested that instead of using a DMPC, why not just let the players use a henchman or hireling. I looked at my DMPC and thought... "But wait... my DMPC *IS* a henchman. Does that mean he's no longer a DMPC?"

But of course, he also a former PC, who has his own story and will be involved in the next campaign when the rest of these guys are retired. (Assuming he survives, of course.)

Then somebody else suggested that he would never have an NPC, companion, henchman, or familiar within the party that couldn't simply just be run by the players as a spare character. The DM shouldn't be playing members of the party.

But wait... My DMPC *IS* run by the players. I roleplay for them when discussing things with the players, and then the DMPC shuts up when the players are discussing things with NPCs they met. (I will sometimes have the DMPC add in comments for flavor, but the meat of the conversation, and the decisionmaking, must be reserved for the players.) Once into combat, the DMPC is run by whoever has spare time on their hands. And then, once the treasure has been divied up (again, the decision is up to the players, not me), it's then up to me to decide on whether the DMPC continues with the party or has other character-related tasks to attend to instead.

So is that a DMPC, or a NPC companion? You and I might come to an agreement, one way or the other, but then next person who wanders into the thread is going to make their own decision, and we're back to the same old argument. The only consistant definition has been that DMPC's are bad, except for when their not, and then some undefined arguments on how those DMPC's weren't really DMPC's.

If we're going to continue these debates, we have to recognize this fundamental miscommunication, and do our best to work around it/understand it, when reading the other's posts.

Or, we should just decide to agree that all DMPC's are kumquats, and then quit the thread. :smallbiggrin:

*~*

Speaking of quitting, I work nights, so it's way past my bedtime. I'll catch up with the thread later on. Peace be with you all.

[RPGuru1331]

This, I feel, is the most sensible argument against DMPCs run by fully competent DMs. "Why use a DMPC when an expertly-crafted NPC can be used instead to greater effect?"
In my case, while I could have conjured a variety of minor NPCs to have fulfilled a similar story role, they just wouldn't have been as good. It's a lot easier to flesh something out when it's actually present for a while. The only way to od that with an NPC would be to destroy immersion in no small way.

I'm also not sure I'd have come up with a better wife (long story) for a PC. It's possible I could though.

[Yukitsu]

Congratulations, you're doing better than that guy.

I'm not, I'm just more explicit in stating the obvious.


Which is so much less accurate than your alchohol analogy. Yeah, right.

My analogy that methanol is mildly beneficial if done absolutely perfectly, holds an extreme risk if done wrong, is easy to do wrong and has a safer analogue? Sounds like your argument for DMPCs.


I haven't used "beneficial", I've said "not bad". But, if you seriously want to go there, first of all it's my understanding that Russian roullette goes on until the shot is fired. By definition, it ends in a death. If I'm mistaken in that, then technically, yes, Russian roulette can be considered to occasionally not have a bad outcome. If you want this analogy to be taken seriously, though, then... well, that's pretty laughable.

That's the point. It's a demonstration as to where your logic leads, that being anything with a single beneficial or conceivably beneficial case is not inherently bad. I don't have to prove that there are 0 cases of good DMPCs or that there are 0 cases of Russian roullette that don't end badly. I simply have to demonstrate that the risks outweigh the benefits sufficiently to make them conceptually bad. I do deny that there are any useful examples of well made DMPCs however.


Considered by DM and players. Having a definition would be meaningless, as each group may have a different definition.
Again: I'm saying "not bad". The opposing argument to your "DMPCs are always bad" argument is not "DMPCs are good", it's "DMPCs are not always bad". That's it.

I view anything that entails high risk, low rewards and where there are different analogous options that are low risk/high reward as bad. At the least, they lack and serious argument that one should aim for them when there are other superior alternatives. If you disagree, well that's your perogative but I don't see why this allows for beneficial advice to new DMs.


Again, your analogies are just getting ridiculous. I'm not even going to touch this one.

Again, this is the extension of your logic. You can't seriously argue that anything that can in theory have a positive outcome regardless of risk is not bad, simply because of that example.


The fact that drinking a glass of water can reduce your headache doesn't mean that taking a painkiller is bad. The fact that there's other options to DMPCs doesn't make using one bad. If a group finds having a DMPC enjoyable, then it's enjoyable for them. That's it.

Unlike a DMPC/NPC dynamic, a glass of water does not always achieve the results of a painkiller. A painkiller is beneficial and fulfills a role that water cannot, granting it a degree of utility that water doesn't have. A painkiller is also beneficial when called for, rarely harmful and easy to use.


Other characters have left the group. Other characters have made suboptimal decisions for roleplaying or convenience reasons. Other characters have low-priority plot-hooks. Is my story never about them, either? By your definition, these are not PCs, either. Better tell my players...

This negates the portion of your own definition that I explicitly agreed to, that being a PC status can change as appropriate.


Low priority is NOT "explicitly avoiding". Considering we're on an entirely different continent to any of these plot hooks, I would have to "explicitly" go out of my way to seek out any of them. That doesn't fit in my game. I have, however, contributed to it, through Reincarnation shenanigans.

Would you design a played character as a PC that has no accessable plot hooks, and is not going to seek them simply on virtue of other side stories being fulfilled?


Moreover, the plot hooks and goals of other characters have differing priorities. That doesn't mean I'm "explicitly avoiding" any of the lower-priority ones, nor that they don't matter. There's just other things to deal with.
Again: the story has continued without many characters. I presume you believe that none of them were PCs, and that all players in your games play one character through from the very start to the very end.

Again, this denies your own definition that I agreed with (that being that PC status can change). As well, my statement was not that she had some low priority quest hooks, it's that she did not have any high priority ones. From the sounds of it, your PCs do have high priority ones to go with the low priority ones.


And in actual fact, the removal of this DMPC would increase the likelihood that the original "story" would change dramatically: she was one of only two remaining original quest-getters, and the other one is Chaotic. Her death had the potential to dramatically change the story.

So did they move forward based on this character, or the chaotic one, or did the party adopt the quest goal as they were introduced? Just because I introduce a new character later on in a campaign, that is no indication that I cannot become invested in the primary goal of the group.


More No True Scotsmanship. By any reasonable definition, my character is a DMPC. Your determination to be right at all costs has no impact on that reality. Deal with it, or just accept that your definition is far more narrow than that of most others.

You don't actually know what the No-True-Scotsman fallacy is, do you?


You have shown a persistent habit of putting words in our mouths, even ones we've quite explicitly opposed. From now on, I'm not going to bother addressing them. I'm just going to point it out, so that any readers don't get confused about what is actually being said.
There's also not much point trying to argue with your "that's not really a DMPC because it doesn't support my argument" anymore, so I'm just gonna point it out with "NTS". Saves time.

Again, you don't actually know what the No-True-Scotsman fallacy is, do you.


I know this is the internet, but unless you can refute that, for instance, Serpentine's players did not enjoy her "DMPC", you don't really have much of a leg to stand on for an absolute "no DMPCs" stance and our discourse is fairly useless. That would mean you are basically in a big huff because other people are enjoying something you are unable to, which is the basic premise of console wars.

Well no, I'm in a big huff because the advice that DMPCs can be good ruins games in a very tangible sense, regardless as to the theoretical definitions, since in a very practical sense, many DMs use mine, and in the case of the ones that use the alternatives, would still benefit as much from the advice "use a well fleshed out NPC."

[Doug Lampert]

@ Profitofrage:

Thank you for the compliment. And I also agree that my argument was flawed. That was intentional.

"Do you really think that the only agreed upon definition of a DMPC is just an NPC thats played poorly?"

Well... yes. Yes I do. That was the basic premise of my post.

Certainly it seems to be the one used by the "All DMPC's are bad crowd". No True Scotsman abounds, and they won't post an actual definition to let us know what the alleged distinguishing characteristic(s) actually are.

Seriously, a year or so ago the PCs in my game voluntarily voted to give one of my NPCs a vote in party decisions, a full share of the treasure, and let her formally sign on to the group. At the time not all the PCs had all of that, two were just ad-hoc hangers on! She was more a part of the party than some of the player characters. (When those PCs did formally sign on she could easily have been the vote keeping one out, one more changed vote and they'd have rejected an actual PC after accepting her...)

I'd have said it was utterly obvious she's a DMPC, but nope, previous iterations of this type thread make it obvious, if I post the particulars almost everyone will agree she's an NPC who travels with the party.

Crap.

And the closest anyone's come to a defining distinction as to WHY she's just an NPC who travels with the party and not a DMPC is that I don't think of her as my PC.

Double Crap. My PC is the character I'm pretending to be and self-identifying with at the moment. Since neither my players nor the other posters can actually read my mind no one else KNOWS how I think of her.

But I assure you when playing her I do my best to self-identify as her and to act as she would, exact same attitude as with a PC, or for that matter as with every other NPC (including even generic orc #739).

I'm with Jarawara, tell me what externally observable characteristic will let me know an NPC is a DMPC or vice versa or the debate is meaningless.

DougL

[Yukitsu]

It's useful to disambiguate when you're trying to clear up what works and what doesn't to a new DM that comes along for advice, and wants to know about DMPCs. If your definition of one is flimsy and as is the case here, largely undefined as defended, the advice doesn't hold a lot of utility.

[kyoryu]

This was a very well summarised and well set out argument...its a really big pitty that half way through you make a really bad assumption based on improper data.
Do you really think that the only agreed upon definition of a DMPC is just an NPC thats played poorly?
Thats wrong...its just wrong...thats like the whole point of this thread...the idea that DMPC shouldnt be a derogative term for an NPC...that its not derogitive at all.

You managed to albiet in a very clever way be wrong due to an assumption about whats agreed upon.

I think what he was really trying to say is that DMPC is often used as a pejorative, and so the only thing it's really indicative of is that the players involved think the NPC is being played poorly. IOW, it's just a label attached to badly played NPCs.

I see where he's coming from, but I do think there's a few objective and subjective criteria that can be used to define a DMPC.

A DMPC:
1) is as permanent of a party member as any PC.
2) tracks advancement, progression, and equipment collection the same as any PC.
3) is at the same level as the other PCs. Any discrepancy in power level is a result of progression, not fiat.
4) has the same role in the world/plot as the PCs.

Subjectively, if another DM took over the existing game, would the current DM likely play the character as his PC? If so, that's prime indication of a DMPC.

[Just_Ice]

@Yukitsu: Impressive. It's like you pulled out the dumbest thing in my entire post to respond to. I guess your time is at a premium!

I'll just make one point, then, since apparently that's all you'll respond to. Tell me how the same idiot DM that makes terrible DMPCs could not do exactly the same amount of damage with an NPC. Let's say the DM includes Elminister and/or Drizzt or however you spell it, and portrays them in their standard capacity. Probably going to hijack the game pretty hard, no? Horrible mary sues are horrible mary sues no matter what you do, and the inverse also applies.

[Yukitsu]

@Yukitsu: Impressive. It's like you pulled out the dumbest thing in my entire post to respond to. I guess your time is at a premium!

I'll just make one point, then, since apparently that's all you'll respond to. Tell me how the same idiot DM that makes terrible DMPCs could not do exactly the same amount of damage with an NPC. Let's say the DM includes Elminister and/or Drizzt or however you spell it, and portrays them in their standard capacity. Probably going to hijack the game pretty hard, no? Horrible mary sues are horrible mary sues no matter what you do, and the inverse also applies.

The remainder isn't really anything that need be adressed. The former parts I largely agree with, and the last part is an unecessary ultimatum that I stop talking because I'm trying to prove a negative which is according to you impossible. (Prove it.) I could use flowery researcher lingo instead of just saying things like "good" or "bad" but honestly that's annoying to all parties, or I could delve into why something that can have a good outcome was still bad, though we'd never come to an agreement on those terms since last I checked, the philosophers were still arguing it.

As for those highly relevant world altering characters, read my opinion on how much power, relevance and action have on whether or not something is a PC. I don't care about those for a reason, since so long as they aren't in the spotlight, their existance does nothing or very little to hamper the game. It's only when Elminster or Drizz't suddenly become the protagonists that this style of character is a problem, and by my definition, this makes them a PC. I can certainly see how this could be construed as an NPC by some poor mook looking for advice, but how well do you think he'd handle any character of any type if his view of NPCs is that they should be of this sort?

I guess I should ask, what exactly everyone else here thinks a PC is, or indeed if they even think a DMPC has to be a PC.

[a_humble_lich]

First I agree with Jarawara, I think many people are using different definitions of what a DMPC is (including the OP).

RPGs can be played very differently. And people who play in a different style are not "doing D&D wrong." With some styles all sorts of DMPCs work fine (except possibly the total Mary Sue). With others any sort of DMPC is pure poison. It is like the (multiple) long discussions of whether PCs should be allowed to play characters of different gender. For some groups it seems to be no problem at all, for others it is a little weird, and for others it destroys the game. And none of them play D&D wrong.

In my experience a DMPC works best when the party is small. I would often play in groups where there would be 2 or 3 players and a DM. Even more important, is we were all close friends, and the game was not competitive at all. We were all more concerned with doing cool things than being powerful, and we fully expected the DM to fudge and cheat in order for the story to work better. The games were informal, and we generally knew we wouldn't die and that how we wanted it.

To be more precise, here are four cases where I saw a DMPC work.
1.) When playing D&D, we would often have a DMPC because one guy ended up DMing most of the time and he wanted to play too. This character was generally more of a background character, the story was driven be the actual PCs

2.) In a Mage: The Ascension game, we played much more freeform. There technically was one guy who was the storyteller, but he also had a character, and in practice we all democratically determined what was happening.

3.) At one point everyone got busy and nobody had time to run a game. We played a pure hack & slash game where we wandered random dungeons killing stuff. The DM had a character, but the DMs roll was basically just to roll the dice for the monsters. Thus his character was just as important as anyone else's.

Now the last two are unusual situations which I'm not sure I would recommend for a long campaign. But we had fun and we weren't playing "wrong."

In general I wound not recommend using a DMPC unless you know the group well. I'd think that parties/groups that are very competitive, or highly involved in the game, or highly concerned about balance and what is "fair" would not be good targets for a DMPC (under my definition, other sorts could still be OK).

----------------

* By DMPC I mean an NPC who (generally) travels with the party, whom the DM designs as if they were a PC, and whom the DM has a significant level of emotional attachment like a PC.

[Just_Ice]

The remainder isn't really anything that need be adressed. The former parts I largely agree with, and the last part is an unecessary ultimatum that I stop talking because I'm trying to prove a negative which is according to you impossible. I could use flowery researcher lingo instead of just saying things like "good" or "bad" but honestly that's annoying to all parties.

As for those highly relevant world altering characters, read my opinion on how much power, relevance and action have on whether or not something is a PC. I don't care about those for a reason, since so long as they aren't in the spotlight, their existance does nothing or very little to hamper the game. It's only when Elminster or Drizz't suddenly become the protagonists that this style of character is a problem, and by my definition, this makes them a PC. I can certainly see how this could be construed as an NPC by some poor mook looking for advice, but how well do you think he'd handle any character of any type if his view of NPCs is that they should be of this sort?

Horrible mis-use of NPCs can occur even with skilled DMs. This can also depend on your players. There are players that will look on anything NPCs do as obnoxious, just as there are those to which DMPCs are anathemic. To a limited extent I'll admit allegience matters, but in many of the worst case scenarios the players are railroaded into being the DMPC's lackeys no matter what their affiliation is.

Worst DM cases of NPCs will of course break the game and there's no reason to bother exploring them here. Very bad DMs may have trivial "cutscenes" of incredible length - note that even if done right, it's up to the players to decide if very large amounts of dialogue or plot are worth it. There exists a common NPC that usually causes very similar amounts of trouble to a DMPC if played incompetent in any way (and even then), and that is The King.

Stories can definitely be about the King and his influence of the world about as easily as it can be for a DMPC. In some ways, this is easier. The players are nearly invariably his lackies, and even in the best-intended orderings it can seem that the players' victories are his and not theirs. It is nearly required to force players to put his Highness on a pedestal for flavour reasons, and not doing so may totally undermine the King. Let's not even touch the subject of Gods, or God Kings.

This pretty much applies to any mission control or boss of any sort. As with a DMPC, the King allows for a more repeated, personal interaction with the other players that is much different than with your average NPC. There's a high-risk high-reward deal going on. Again, there's not much seperating him from quest-giving NPCs in certain situations, and there's not much seperating them from average dirtfarmer NPCs, quite often.

I've seen bad players kill good rulers because they didn't feel like bowing and someone got mad at them. It doesn't take a whole lot for them to fail. Would you not recommend a DM use them? Heck no. Many campaigns require them, they're a staple of the medieval era and a good channel for roleplaying.

Would I recommend a DMPC as readily? No. Are they very dissimilar in important ways? Not really. The thankful difference is that Kings sit on their lard butts so there's somewhere else they can probably go. The DMPC is pretty much the same except it follows them.

If you've ever liked an NPC king or resistance leader for what they add to the story, there's honestly a DMPC that offers something very similar for similar (but less mandatory) risk.

Beyond that, if anything villains can be worse.

[Choco]

In my experience a DMPC works best when the party is small.

I personally only use them in those cases. Right now I am running a game for 2 people, but luckily they seem to be handling themselves well enough to not require a DMPC. But I have some ready just in case. Plus these guys are more roleplayers than rollplayers, they have been known to ASK FOR DMPC's via asking powerful NPC's to accompany them...


* By DMPC I mean an NPC who (generally) travels with the party, whom the DM designs as if they were a PC, and whom the DM has a significant level of emotional attachment like a PC.

Heh, I find myself getting more emotionally attached to my villains than any DMPC... It's always hard when a villain who's been recurring for 2 years finally bites the dust :smallfrown:

[Solaris]

I'm with Jarawara, tell me what externally observable characteristic will let me know an NPC is a DMPC or vice versa or the debate is meaningless.

As am I. So far as I can tell, there really are none that anyone will agree to. How I can tell if mine it's an NPC or a DMPC is how much I self-identify with the character. If I ever refer to it as 'mine', then it's a DMPC.
Note that I did not say "How much it would upset me if the character died." Honestly, plot-central NPCs annoy me more if they die than DMPCs or PCs. By their nature, they're transient in the world I've crafted.

[Yukitsu]

Horrible mis-use of NPCs can occur even with skilled DMs. This can also depend on your players. There are players that will look on anything NPCs do as obnoxious, just as there are those to which DMPCs are anathemic. To a limited extent I'll admit allegience matters, but in many of the worst case scenarios the players are railroaded into being the DMPC's lackeys no matter what their affiliation is.

Worst DM cases of NPCs will of course break the game and there's no reason to bother exploring them here. Very bad DMs may have trivial "cutscenes" of incredible length - note that even if done right, it's up to the players to decide if very large amounts of dialogue or plot are worth it. There exists a common NPC that usually causes very similar amounts of trouble to a DMPC if played incompetent in any way (and even then), and that is The King.

Stories can definitely be about the King and his influence of the world about as easily as it can be for a DMPC. In some ways, this is easier. The players are nearly invariably his lackies, and even in the best-intended orderings it can seem that the players' victories are his and not theirs. It is nearly required to force players to put his Highness on a pedestal for flavour reasons, and not doing so may totally undermine the King. Let's not even touch the subject of Gods, or God Kings.

This pretty much applies to any mission control or boss of any sort. As with a DMPC, the King allows for a more repeated, personal interaction with the other players that is much different than with your average NPC. There's a high-risk high-reward deal going on. Again, there's not much seperating him from quest-giving NPCs in certain situations, and there's not much seperating them from average dirtfarmer NPCs, quite often.

I've seen bad players kill good rulers because they didn't feel like bowing and someone got mad at them. It doesn't take a whole lot for them to fail. Would you not recommend a DM use them? Heck no. Many campaigns require them, they're a staple of the medieval era and a good channel for roleplaying.

Would I recommend a DMPC as readily? No. Are they very dissimilar in important ways? Not really. The thankful difference is that Kings sit on their lard butts so there's somewhere else they can probably go. The DMPC is pretty much the same except it follows them.

If you've ever liked an NPC king or resistance leader for what they add to the story, there's honestly a DMPC that offers something very similar for similar (but less mandatory) risk.

Beyond that, if anything villains can be worse.

I largely agree, save for the king in his throne or the manager in his office, or the whatever in his whatever being very similar to DMPCs save proximity. A king the group is traveling with can be OK, being dragged into battle by your resistance leader is OK and any other iteration of your character being near the NPC. Heck, the last character I had that had a tie to a royal house got literally raped by his Queen. (how's THAT for proximity?) But these instances, in the cases that they are done well, have 1 very important difference. The campaign, even if it may have them as the essential component of the story, doesn't come from their point of view. We don't follow the king's day in the castle, we don't listen to the king solving problems XY or Z, and when you are all adventuring, what the DM tells you about and what the players enact are the adventures of the king's lackeys, not the adventures of the king.

A "poorly run" DMPC, or a PC is the focus of the adventure. We discuss and express their feelings, their reactions, they are the primary agents of response when anything comes up that need be reacted to, and it's those reactions and responses and decisions that should come to the fore in a PC, even if they are minimal. An NPC can have all of those things, but we only observe them as they are relevant to what the party is exposed to or wants to know. What the rebel leader is doing at any given time, so long as it doesn't directly affect the PCs need not be discussed. However, what the PCs are doing, saying and thinking at any time, even if irrelevant does need be discussed. A DMPC that crosses that border, where we have to sit and hear what he's doing, regardless of relevance to the rest of us, would you agree that this would be a bad thing?

Ultimately though, I don't think proximity alone can really explain the difference between a boss style NPC and a DMPC. PCs can be PCs even when not in close proximity to one another, spread across the multiverse. I don't see why a DMPC would be different from a PC in that regard.

[profitofrage]

@Yukitsu

Well I feel rather silly, I missed the whole point that you were trying to sound "rediculous" in a manor in order to prove a point.

See this is what happens when your to clever dambit :P people like me get left behind.

Overall I think that a DMPC is a an NPC that is played with more emotional attachment. Similar to the emotional attachment a player places on there PC. I think everyone can agree on this?

If you dont have emotional attachment to a regular NPC there just around ALOT. Well there hardly the DM's player character are they? they could drop off any second. If its the players who have emotional connection to the NPC...well then its just a REALLY well played NPC.

Whats more Is i think this is the trap many DM's fall in. They get emotionally attached to an NPC (thus making it a DMPC) and unintentionally (or intentionally) end up favoring that character because of the attachment.

If you want to run a Good DMPC.
1) you have to check with the party. If your players dont want something..be it a DMPC or a horror setting or what have you..why are you playing with them in the first place?
2)dont play favorites
3) If the PC's grow to dislike them...get rid of them. Would you force your players to play with a guy who disruptive and likewise pissing everyone off? no! so you cant either. PC's get to vote whos in the party, you cant take that away from them.
4) spotlight time, if there a DMPC they deserve spotlight time to, but treat them as you would a PC. you wouldnt favor Greg's character over Bill's character in a game and expect it to go well would you?

[Tyndmyr]

Is it possible to do them right?

I'm asking becasue i'm working on a game for me and some of my buddies to play together, and i'm hopeing to have a PC paladin be the main antagonist to the undead player party. i'm just worried i'll do something wrong and ruin the game for the players. Any advice?

Having PC levels doesn't make something a DMPC(according to most standard definitions of it). Slapping PC levels on an opponent is entirely legit, and you're not likely to face opposition over it unless you do it in a way that doesn't fit the world(wait, every farmer so far has been a level 20 wizard....what?). Pretty easy to do right.

A DMPC is what happens when a DM decides he wants to play as well as DM. Doing both at the same time is fairly awkward, as the role of DM and player are generally assumed to be separate. I recommend instead finding someone else in your group who wants to DM, and trading off with them. DMing for your own player is sort of like refereeing for a game you're playing in.

[Jarawara]

What the rebel leader is doing at any given time, so long as it doesn't directly affect the PCs need not be discussed. However, what the PCs are doing, saying and thinking at any time, even if irrelevant does need be discussed. A DMPC that crosses that border, where we have to sit and hear what he's doing, regardless of relevance to the rest of us, would you agree that this would be a bad thing?


I would agree with this would be a bad thing.

However, if the players get to sit and hear what the NPC's are doing, regardless of relevance to the rest of the party, can actually be quite fun. (Especially if done in roleplay so that the players can interact, or perhaps in story form so the players can read on their own time.)

I even write up stories about what the rebel leader is doing when away from the party, and not all of the stories are fully relevant to the ongoing story.

It's all about what the players want. If they *have* to sit through what a DM is force feeding them, then it's bad. If they *get* to sit through the off-scene NPC details, then it's a good thing.

If the players hate DMPC's, they wouldn't have joined my game. If they prefer active NPC's, it's because I kept searching till I found the type of player I was looking for. And of course, now that I have my 'perfect' players, if I find that what I'm providing is not working, I change to fit their desires, because I don't want to lose them.

Communication is the key. Tell the players what you're providing, ask the players what they want. If you can compromise, then happy gaming. If you cannot... then I quote Profitofrage: "why are you playing with them in the first place?"

But any DM that forces a DMPC onto a unsuspecting group of players deserves to be used as an example in the next "Bad DMPC" thread.

[Just_Ice]

I largely agree, save for the king in his throne or the manager in his office, or the whatever in his whatever being very similar to DMPCs save proximity. A king the group is traveling with can be OK, being dragged into battle by your resistance leader is OK and any other iteration of your character being near the NPC. Heck, the last character I had that had a tie to a royal house got literally raped by his Queen. (how's THAT for proximity?) But these instances, in the cases that they are done well, have 1 very important difference. The campaign, even if it may have them as the essential component of the story, doesn't come from their point of view. We don't follow the king's day in the castle, we don't listen to the king solving problems XY or Z, and when you are all adventuring, what the DM tells you about and what the players enact are the adventures of the king's lackeys, not the adventures of the king.

A "poorly run" DMPC, or a PC is the focus of the adventure. We discuss and express their feelings, their reactions, they are the primary agents of response when anything comes up that need be reacted to, and it's those reactions and responses and decisions that should come to the fore in a PC, even if they are minimal. An NPC can have all of those things, but we only observe them as they are relevant to what the party is exposed to or wants to know. What the rebel leader is doing at any given time, so long as it doesn't directly affect the PCs need not be discussed. However, what the PCs are doing, saying and thinking at any time, even if irrelevant does need be discussed. A DMPC that crosses that border, where we have to sit and hear what he's doing, regardless of relevance to the rest of us, would you agree that this would be a bad thing?

Ultimately though, I don't think proximity alone can really explain the difference between a boss style NPC and a DMPC. PCs can be PCs even when not in close proximity to one another, spread across the multiverse. I don't see why a DMPC would be different from a PC in that regard.

I'll agree that proximity isn't the distinction (though it often makes a difference to the players), but I don't agree that the presence of minutiae is either. If a King makes an off-hand remark, does that make them a DMPC? If the villain talks about an irrelevant or flavourful past, are they a DMPC? If a DM uses one of their old PCs and doesn't talk about anything inpertinent or mention anything they're doing unless it directly affects the party, they're an NPC? What if this former PC is incredibly business-like? Subtle characters are NPCs?

Technicalities are useless, of course, but by that statement you're characterizing DMPCs as characters with pervasive description, which is something the vast majority of Player Characters lack. I played with a guy who did nothing but cast magic missle, day in and day out. No roleplaying, no contributions to anything but combat, and then just constant magic missle. Hardly even moved. I know I'm not the only one on that; however strictly due to there being a player (barely) they're not NPCs. Participation also comes in degrees.

My point is that your bar for something being a DMPC is actually quite a bit higher than that of a character that is a PC. I don't think that makes sense (I would boil down your criteria for a DMPC down to "the DM never shuts up about him", which I'd agree is poison to pretty much every group in existance but it's kind of an unfair assessment and fairly unimplied to new players).

[Yukitsu]

I'll agree that proximity isn't the distinction (though it often makes a difference to the players), but I don't agree that the presence of minutiae is either. If a King makes an off-hand remark, does that make them a DMPC? If the villain talks about an irrelevant or flavourful past, are they a DMPC? If a DM uses one of their old PCs and doesn't talk about anything inpertinent or mention anything they're doing unless it directly affects the party, they're an NPC? What if this former PC is incredibly business-like? Subtle characters are NPCs?

I'm not mentioning it in terms of minutiae, I'm referincing it in terms of attention. A character for example may make an off-hand remark, but not be the protagonist or main character or what have you. Nor is subtlety and a quiet, wall-flowerish personality an indication that one is not the protagonist or main character. What matters is that a story will focus on the protagonist or PCs, and other actions though important, are only important insofar as they reference the protagonists. So a king that makes an offhand remark is only relevant to the PCs in that it's something they hear, or something that influences other NPCs into action against them. If neither of those cases are true, the offhand remark is spurious at best, OOC knowledge as an intermediary, or a change in the spotlight at worst.


Technicalities are useless, of course, but by that statement you're characterizing DMPCs as characters with pervasive description, which is something the vast majority of Player Characters lack. I played with a guy who did nothing but cast magic missle, day in and day out. No roleplaying, no contributions to anything but combat, and then just constant magic missle. Hardly even moved. I know I'm not the only one on that; however strictly due to there being a player (barely) they're not NPCs. Participation also comes in degrees.

A character that does not move, does not speak and does not do anything other than a singular type of action is not automatically barred from being the main part of the game. That little space ship in asteroids is, for example, something that barely moves, does not RP and simply spams the same attack over and over and is still the PC of the game. What matters is, that it's a game based on the little space ship that shoots asteroids.

While I'd generally be tempted to just refer to the character as an NPC, and the player himself as functionally non-participatory, I can't just make that ad-hoc decision, as you could have some reason other than "I would rather be playing my PSP" as justification, and actually enjoy such a 1 dimensional character, though in the latter case it's still a protagonist in that there is at the very least, some attention being payed in particular to his actions, ideally, moreso than the king used in earlier examples.


My point is that your bar for something being a DMPC is actually quite a bit higher than that of a character that is a PC. I don't think that makes sense (I would boil down your criteria for a DMPC down to "the DM never shuts up about him", which I'd agree is poison to pretty much every group in existance but it's kind of an unfair assessment and fairly unimplied to new players).

Well, no, the bar as to what a DMPC and a PC is the same in my view. I think the problem in part is, is that a protagonist or even main character is granted all degrees of unecessary traits that go beyond being the target of our attention, and that all other details be framed from their perspective, or in their relevance to them.


Overall I think that a DMPC is a an NPC that is played with more emotional attachment. Similar to the emotional attachment a player places on there PC. I think everyone can agree on this?

I disagree with this one. It's very easy to not be emotionally attached to a character that is your PC, and it's very easy to get emotionally attached to characters that are very distant from the plot, the group, and whom only appears once or twice very briefly in a largely irrelevant role. Ultimately, I think it lacks the notion that it's a type of PC, which I think is tautologically necessary for the definition of a DMPC.

[Just_Ice]

What a story is about and what a story is supposed to be about are often two very different things. The same thing could be said about attention.

It's funny you should mention asteroids, a one-player game that, due to hardware limitations, doesn't have a whole lot going on. A stationary gun in that game is the main character; put it in just about anything else, and it's a turret. If the asteroids did anything interesting at all it'd be impossible to tell that they weren't meant to be the focus of the game. If the controls were worse and the asteroids, say, shot each other, used special moves and talked, one could fool the player into thinking the game was just the attract mode, or that they were just watching other people play as asteroids.

Being the focus is a relative matter, not an absolute one.

[Yukitsu]

What a story is about and what a story is supposed to be about are often two very different things. The same thing could be said about attention.

It's funny you should mention asteroids, a one-player game that, due to hardware limitations, doesn't have a whole lot going on. A stationary gun in that game is the main character; put it in just about anything else, and it's a turret. If the asteroids did anything interesting at all it'd be impossible to tell that they weren't meant to be the focus of the game. If the controls were worse and the asteroids, say, shot each other, used special moves and talked, one could fool the player into thinking the game was just the attract mode, or that they were just watching other people play as asteroids.

Being the focus is a relative matter, not an absolute one.

In any 0 text third person omnicient view media where there is a lot going on beyond the little space ship that is true assuming very limited analysis (though it doesn't change who the protagonist is, it simply implies a false protagonist). That is not true with any limited perspective text based narrative such as any campaign or written text. For example, Kyon in the Haruhi novels is pretty obviously the least flashy, interesting, active or attention grabbing, but he's still the protagonist of the stories.

As a side note, a focal character is a different character from the protagonist. In the same example, Haruhi is the focal character, but not the protagonist. It's why I try to avoid the term focus and use attention instead.

[Just_Ice]

In any 0 text third person omnicient view media where there is a lot going on beyond the little space ship that is true assuming very limited analysis

Yes, but Asteroids is a pretty lopsided example, and is pretty opposite from most roleplaying games.


(though it doesn't change who the protagonist is, it simply implies a false protagonist). That is not true with any limited perspective text based narrative such as any campaign or written text. For example, Kyon in the Haruhi novels is pretty obviously the least flashy, interesting, active or attention grabbing, but he's still the protagonist of the stories.

As a side note, a focal character is a different character from the protagonist. In the same example, Haruhi is the focal character, but not the protagonist. It's why I try to avoid the term focus and use attention instead.

The issue with that is that D&D plays by the tenets of co-operative storytelling. Especially with the DM who must play multiple roles at once (especially if kings are popping out and joining the party), lines can often blur. They may be temporarily played as if they are their DMPC, just as they can be played as "non-protagonists", though that's a pretty artificial distinction.

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a poor example as well, as Kyon is actually the narrator (and a unreliable one at that). Let's not even get into whether he's god or not. Either way, since he's the author's mouthpiece, he's actually the closest thing in the story to a DMPC. Even worse is that he (the character) is portraying the other characters however he wants.

Tangentially:

World English Dictionary
focus (ˈfəʊkəs)

— n , pl -cuses , -ci

4. a point upon which attention, activity, etc, is directed or concentrated

9. to fix attention (on); concentrate


A focus is possibly a subject of attention. I think a pretty reasonable argument could be made that Haruhi is the main protagonist of the series, but her lack of proximity to the relevant narratives diminish this. She's also much harder to identify with than Kyon, who holds all the keys anyways.

I completely understand what you're getting at, but I think you'll find that to the reader, what the author wants them to think is trivial in comparison to what they actually do. This is why Players are very difficult to deal with, and actually why DMPCs can occasionally be helpful to the DM (as they realise how they're smashing their own character into the dirt).

Getting back on course, something I overlooked was the fact that even if you choose not to, pretty much everyone else can accept Serp's character as a DMPC and will define it as one. It's a character, made and statted by the DM with the intent of being a DMPC, is treated as a DMPC by the players, is acknowledged as one, and played as if it is one. I'm not really sure what more you could want than that.

Since your standard DM/player sees things that way, her admitting that it's okay to make DMPCs has a very different meaning to the people that read it than to you (and if you can't admit your viewpoint is at least somewhat pidgeonholed you're a little delusional). In other words, your definition is so far in left field that the vast majority of people to take her advice still won't make a DMPC, at least in your eyes.

[Yukitsu]

Yes, but Asteroids is a pretty lopsided example, and is pretty opposite from most roleplaying games.

Hence my point that though it's inherently easy to confuse the protagonist of the game when passively observing due to those limitations. It is however, an example of a protagonist that has a limited set of actions, no RP and no personality, so those can't be the criterion by which a progatonist, or indeed a PC are judged.


The issue with that is that D&D plays by the tenets of co-operative storytelling. Especially with the DM who must play multiple roles at once (especially if kings are popping out and joining the party), lines can often blur. They may be temporarily played as if they are their DMPC, just as they can be played as "non-protagonists", though that's a pretty artificial distinction.

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a poor example as well, as Kyon is actually the narrator (and a unreliable one at that). Let's not even get into whether he's god or not. Either way, since he's the author's mouthpiece, he's actually the closest thing in the story to a DMPC. Even worse is that he (the character) is portraying the other characters however he wants.

He's still the protagonist however, since ultimately what we are told is a story about Kyon, and not about Haruhi who acts as a framing device. Being the narrator doesn't prevent one from being the protagonist. Harry Dresden of the Dresden files for example is the narrator to the series, and he is very clearly the protagonist.


Tangentially:

World English Dictionary
focus (ˈfəʊkəs)

— n , pl -cuses , -ci

4. a point upon which attention, activity, etc, is directed or concentrated

9. to fix attention (on); concentrate


A focus is possibly a subject of attention. I think a pretty reasonable argument could be made that Haruhi is the main protagonist of the series, but her lack of proximity to the relevant narratives diminish this. She's also much harder to identify with than Kyon, who holds all the keys anyways.

I'm aware that they are synonyms, but I'm pointing out that a focal character may not be the protagonist, so to avoid equivocating focal character with protagonist, I'm trying to keep attention to the protagonist, since I don't think that PCs are always focal characters. Simply, in my opinion, a limitation of the English language.


I completely understand what you're getting at, but I think you'll find that to the reader, what the author wants them to think is trivial in comparison to what they actually do. This is why Players are very difficult to deal with, and actually why DMPCs can occasionally be helpful to the DM (as they realise how they're smashing their own character into the dirt).

Getting back on course, something I overlooked was the fact that even if you choose not to, pretty much everyone else can accept Serp's character as a DMPC and will define it as one. It's a character, made and statted by the DM with the intent of being a DMPC, is treated as a DMPC by the players, is acknowledged as one, and played as if it is one. I'm not really sure what more you could want than that.

That logic isn't in any sense helpful practically or theoretically though. In the practical sense, it makes sense to clearly define DMPC (I disagreed with Serp's definition on two points which have not had counters as yet directed at them) for the sake of the purpose of many DMPC threads, that giving advice. If for examples sake, new DMs come in asking about DMPCs with my preconception, and leave understanding that DMPCs are good, they will run a DMPC under my definition, and that will very probably make for a very unhappy bunch.

On a theoretical level, the opinion of everyone makes no difference at all, opinion has no place in theory. At a deeper level, that definition can be challenged, and I have challenged it on the grounds that it lacks rigor (the definition of PC that allows for that will be overly broad, and allow in virtually any character, or requires fuzzy boundaries that have yet to be defined). And again, my definition of PC, that being that they are the protagonists isn't perfect, but I have as yet heard one that holds across all PCs without inclusion of every other character in existence.


Since your standard DM/player sees things that way, her admitting that it's okay to make DMPCs has a very different meaning to the people that read it than to you (and if you can't admit your viewpoint is at least somewhat pidgeonholed you're a little delusional). In other words, your definition is so far in left field that the vast majority of people to take her advice still won't make a DMPC, at least in your eyes.

DMPC=the DM's PC. This isn't far from anyone's definition, and I don't think I've heard any "PCs are X" argument that nullifies the notion that they are protagonists.

[Greylond]

DMPCs/GMPCs are always wrong. Just say No.

A RPG Campaign should center on the Player Characters with the GM/DM playing the role of NPCs...

[a_humble_lich]

DMPCs/GMPCs are always wrong. Just say No.

A RPG Campaign should center on the Player Characters with the GM/DM playing the role of NPCs...

Wow, thank you. I must have been playing wrong for the last 25 years. Thank you for letting me know how to have fun the proper way. You persuasive argument has shown me the light.

Edit: I'm sorry that was mean. I would ask that when posting in a thread that has 8 pages of comments that you not just dismiss the opinions of half of the people without any argument other than "I'm right and you're wrong."

[Solaris]

A DMPC is what happens when a DM decides he wants to play as well as DM. Doing both at the same time is fairly awkward, as the role of DM and player are generally assumed to be separate. I recommend instead finding someone else in your group who wants to DM, and trading off with them. DMing for your own player is sort of like refereeing for a game you're playing in.

It can be awkward, unless you're used to playing games that have a different set of assumptions than D&D. Assumptions like "We're here to have fun, not fight each other" as opposed to "We're here to have fun killing monsters". Don't get me wrong, I love the hack-and-slash as much as the next guy, but there is not only one way to play a game.

That, and finding someone else to DM is not always an available luxury. Sometimes it's better to have the so-so DM who insists on the DMPC than have the really awful DM.

Lich, you're my favorite.

[Greylond]

Wow, thank you. I must have been playing wrong for the last 25 years. Thank you for letting me know how to have fun the proper way. You persuasive argument has shown me the light.


No problem, I always like helping out newbies... ;)

[Talakeal]

I still think your response was uncalled for, but allow me to make a concession to back up why I am "dismissing your beliefs".

I have never seen a DM ask players if they wanted them to use a DMPC beforehand. In my experience they are normally sprung upon the PCs at the last minute, and the few times there was a request made it was a "I really want to use a DMPC, please let me", that the player's didn't have the heart or courage to decline rather than a more neutral "Would you prefer a DMPC or not?"

If the player's actually request a DMPC I have no problem with it, but I have never seen a group of players that would. What I do see if groups that simply tolerate the DMPC and occasionally make snide comments about it when they feel it is getting special treatment.

That said, I play a very competitive environment where the players are always vying for attention and trying to outdo one another, and when I PC I enjoy actual challenges where I feel the DM is doing their best and not "letting me win" once the models hit the mat, although obviously one who sets up the scenario to be a more or less fair encounter.

A well played DMPC while I am DMing would not get to do any of the things I enjoy as a player, and a DMPC of any sort would get in my way if I was PCing, but that may just be the type of game I play.

I actually feel Tynmyndmr made the best comparison in saying it is like having a ref who is also a player. In 90% of the circumstances he is going to make biased calls or simply be too focuses on playing to do his job as a ref, and even if he does his job perfectly there are going to be too many people who are suspicious of his motives or just plain wierded out because it is unconventional and a conflict of interests.

If you're PCs actually want the DMPC there then go ahead and do it. Likewise, if you are playing a collaborative game where everyone agrees on everything and works together to tell a story then there is also no reason not to do it, that's just not the game I play or the situation in my experience, which I am in no way saying is universal and in fact is rather limited as though I have been playing for 20 years it hasn't been with a whole lot of different groups.

A side question if I may. In the "there is no real zero" thread a couple months back I was told that in many modern games like Burning Wheel it actually is the DM vs. the PCs and the DM is severely limited in their ability to make rules calls or influence the game world. How do you feel about a DMPC in a game like that?


Edit: You know, I just realized that if I had enough players to do so it might actually be preferable to have an assistant DM controlling the opponents while the head DM sets up the encounter and makes callings on rules.

[Tyndmyr]

It can be awkward, unless you're used to playing games that have a different set of assumptions than D&D. Assumptions like "We're here to have fun, not fight each other" as opposed to "We're here to have fun killing monsters". Don't get me wrong, I love the hack-and-slash as much as the next guy, but there is not only one way to play a game.

I see no reason why that first assumption couldn't be part of a D&D game. And it is pretty common to have some sort of GM-like role in many RPGs.

Sure, there's no point in talking about DMPCs in games without a DM...but it's still a phenomenon that happens in multiple games.


That, and finding someone else to DM is not always an available luxury. Sometimes it's better to have the so-so DM who insists on the DMPC than have the really awful DM.

Ah, the old "lesser of two evils" defense. It's true...good DMs are hard to find. But if you're being a DM, it seems as though you should strive to actually be a good one, and not merely "less bad" than whatever other choices are around. After all, even if you're the only DM in town, some DMing choices are still bad.

Edit: Tak, the less subjective the DMs job, the less room there is for the inherent conflict of interest to matter. If the DMs job in a given game is literally just rolling on tables to see what happens and the like, with a complete lack of subjectivity, then there's really no potential downside from him also playing a char. Some board games use a system a bit like this(Shadows over Camelot springs to mind), in which a semi-random system fills the role of DM. Unfortunately, this is rather hard to pull off well in complex RPGs, and most games don't bother to try.

[Talakeal]

Ah, the old "lesser of two evils" defense. It's true...good DMs are hard to find. But if you're being a DM, it seems as though you should strive to actually be a good one, and not merely "less bad" than whatever other choices are around. After all, even if you're the only DM in town, some DMing choices are still bad.

If the DM insisted on having a DMPC I would tell him that he clearly wants to play rather than DM and volunteer to take over for him. I am pretty sure both of us would have more fun that way.

[a_humble_lich]

I actually feel Tynmyndmr made the best comparison in saying it is like having a ref who is also a player. In 90% of the circumstances he is going to make biased calls or simply be too focuses on playing to do his job as a ref, and even if he does his job perfectly there are going to be too many people who are suspicious of his motives or just plain wierded out because it is unconventional and a conflict of interests.


This is the only analogy I've seen in this thread that I like (sorry to the sushi fans out there). If we are talking about the World Cup or the Superbowl having a ref who is also a player would be insane. It would even be a bad idea for a high school football game.

But if a bunch of friends get together with a ball in the park it would be nearly unheard of to ask one of the guys, "hey would you mind ref-ing instead of getting to play?" Instead, everyone is generally honest about what is out of bounds, etc. (Or they are not honest and fights break out :smallsmile:)

DMPCs are the same way. In a highly competitive group--bad news. In an informal group they can work fine.

[Tyndmyr]

But if a bunch of friends get together with a ball in the park it would be nearly unheard of to ask one of the guys, "hey would you mind ref-ing instead of getting to play?" Instead, everyone is generally honest about what is out of bounds, etc. (Or they are not honest and fights break out :smallsmile:)

DMPCs are the same way. In a highly competitive group--bad news. In an informal group they can work fine.

What happens in a backyard game is that nobody is asked to be the ref. Instead, everyone just plays. When a rules disagreement arises, it is settled by who yells the loudest. Ahem, I meant democracy.

This doesn't really track to a DMPC situation....it that situation, you still have a person playing the role of DM(the ref in our analogy).

Now, you certainly CAN resolve disagreements about the rules by consent of all those playing, and, together with other means, dispense with the DM role altogether, but this is an unusual way to play most games, and some games simply are not designed to make this easy.

[RPGuru1331]

I see no reason why that first assumption couldn't be part of a D&D game. And it is pretty common to have some sort of GM-like role in many RPGs.
Swing and a miss.

Dude, you assumed an adversarial role between players and DM. That's not always going to happen. If it's not the case, it isn't automatically a case of some sort of conflict of interest, and the DM isn't failing to referee or whatever, because that's not their goal.


Ah, the old "lesser of two evils" defense. It's true...good DMs are hard to find. But if you're being a DM, it seems as though you should strive to actually be a good one, and not merely "less bad" than whatever other choices are around. After all, even if you're the only DM in town, some DMing choices are still bad.
As long as I provide a good plot and keep players feeling involved, by my metric, I did good. My players are generally the sort to agree. Having a PC does not necessarily relate to this (Though it can if I warp the plot around them). It's not about being the 'lesser evil'. I can do a good job, regardless. If you don't think you have that much skill, or if your intentions are actually fundamentally against this ideal, then don't do it. I don't care. I usually don't either.

This talk of 'inherent conflict of interests' completely places the GM's interest as seperate from the players. It's stupid.


I have never seen a DM ask players if they wanted them to use a DMPC beforehand. In my experience they are normally sprung upon the PCs at the last minute, and the few times there was a request made it was a "I really want to use a DMPC, please let me", that the player's didn't have the heart or courage to decline rather than a more neutral "Would you prefer a DMPC or not?"
"I'm thinking of doing X, what do you think?" is my go to. I'm not a mind reader after all, and if an idea I have isn't going to work with folks planned storyline, I need to know in advance.


A well played DMPC while I am DMing would not get to do any of the things I enjoy as a player, and a DMPC of any sort would get in my way if I was PCing, but that may just be the type of game I play.
It is. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Even I don't do it often. I'm just saying it can be done right.



I actually feel Tynmyndmr made the best comparison in saying it is like having a ref who is also a player. In 90% of the circumstances he is going to make biased calls or simply be too focuses on playing to do his job as a ref, and even if he does his job perfectly there are going to be too many people who are suspicious of his motives or just plain wierded out because it is unconventional and a conflict of interests.
It's only a good comparison if people play like you. It utterly fails at any alternative thought behind playing.




A side question if I may. In the "there is no real zero" thread a couple months back I was told that in many modern games like Burning Wheel it actually is the DM vs. the PCs and the DM is severely limited in their ability to make rules calls or influence the game world. How do you feel about a DMPC in a game like that?
How retro. If the game is literally set up to be DM vs. Players then yes, that's a problem there.

[Greylond]

What happens in a backyard game is that nobody is asked to be the ref. Instead, everyone just plays. When a rules disagreement arises, it is settled by who yells the loudest. Ahem, I meant democracy.

This doesn't really track to a DMPC situation....it that situation, you still have a person playing the role of DM(the ref in our analogy).

Now, you certainly CAN resolve disagreements about the rules by consent of all those playing, and, together with other means, dispense with the DM role altogether, but this is an unusual way to play most games, and some games simply are not designed to make this easy.

No, it's more like a bunch of friends get together for a backyard game, appoint one player to be the Ref (with the ability to make final rules calls)AND the "Ref" plays. The idea of a non-biased Ref is suddenly out the window...

[Tyndmyr]

Swing and a miss.

Dude, you assumed an adversarial role between players and DM. That's not always going to happen. If it's not the case, it isn't automatically a case of some sort of conflict of interest, and the DM isn't failing to referee or whatever, because that's not their goal.

No. A ref and a team need not have an adversarial relationship either.

Conflict of interest is inherent because you're judging something you have a vested interest in. The adversarial nature or lack of it is irrelevant. Is there a conflict of interest in a businessman deciding his own pay rate? Certainly. Does that mean he's an adversary of anyone? No. These things are not inherently related.


As long as I provide a good plot and keep players feeling involved, by my metric, I did good. My players are generally the sort to agree. Having a PC does not necessarily relate to this (Though it can if I warp the plot around them). It's not about being the 'lesser evil'. I can do a good job, regardless. If you don't think you have that much skill, or if your intentions are actually fundamentally against this ideal, then don't do it. I don't care. I usually don't either.

Can you do a better job without it, though? If so, it's still worth taking a hard look at it.


This talk of 'inherent conflict of interests' completely places the GM's interest as seperate from the players. It's stupid.

In most games, the role of GM and player are very different. They DO have different interests. You seriously think that each player is considering everything the GM has to consider to make the game a success? If so, you must have a very unusual group of players.


"I'm thinking of doing X, what do you think?" is my go to. I'm not a mind reader after all, and if an idea I have isn't going to work with folks planned storyline, I need to know in advance.

This is a solid general rule. That said, I've never seen a DMPC presented like that. It's always been either a complete surprise, or a case of a DM who really wanted to play, and pulls the guilt trip. But yeah, all potentially controversial topics are better if brought up in advance.


It's only a good comparison if people play like you. It utterly fails at any alternative thought behind playing.


How retro. If the game is literally set up to be DM vs. Players then yes, that's a problem there.

Well, we've already dispensed with that. You need not hold to the DM vs Player attitude to recognize that DMs and Players have differing sets of responsibilities. That of the DM almost always includes the role of arbiter of the rules.

And arbitrating the rules for yourself is a bit unfair if nobody else gets to do the same.

[Yukitsu]

As long as I provide a good plot and keep players feeling involved, by my metric, I did good. My players are generally the sort to agree. Having a PC does not necessarily relate to this (Though it can if I warp the plot around them). It's not about being the 'lesser evil'. I can do a good job, regardless. If you don't think you have that much skill, or if your intentions are actually fundamentally against this ideal, then don't do it. I don't care. I usually don't either.

Here's the argument Tyndmyr is arguing against.

A+B>C
ergo B>0.

I think you can see the flaw in that reasoning. Solaris made the argument that a DMPC is fine, because a bad DM running one is better than no DM at all. Your iteration of the argument is slightly different depending upon interpretation, but unless you're explicitly saying the DMPC did nothing to worsen or hinder the campaign, it's the same flawed argument.

[RPGuru1331]

No. A ref and a team need not have an adversarial relationship either.
True. However, the team has to have an adversarial relationship with SOMETHING or there's nothing to referee, though. Actually, this metaphor is deeply flawed to begin with, because the referee is also the coach of the 'opposing team', the monsters (typically).



Conflict of interest is inherent because you're judging something you have a vested interest in. The adversarial nature or lack of it is irrelevant. Is there a conflict of interest in a businessman deciding his own pay rate? Certainly. Does that mean he's an adversary of anyone? No. These things are not inherently related.
Actually, the businessman would have to be an independent operator sitting at the top of his hierarchy to not have an adversarial role in this regard. A middle manager or whatnot deciding his own salary stands in direct opposition to, for instance, shareholders (And/Or the people above them).

People at the top with nobody to answer to can't have a conflict of interest. There's only one interest that exists to consider, their own. You need to have multiple interests that stand against each other.


Can you do a better job without it, though? If so, it's still worth taking a hard look at it.
No. I mean, I could have done probably an equivalent job without it. There would have been kung fu healers and such that could have wandered, or we could have just spent more downtime, or I could have rearranged things so that lacking a kung fu doctor wasn't so relevant (The secret arts of medicine don't really care much about damage to health; anyone with medicine skill can do the health damage). I'm about 94% positive I couldn't have come up with a better NPC wife for one of the PCs too. It may have been a better game for it, since there was one more consistent and rich, developed character along for the ride. It was certainly not worse.

I mean, as long as you do a good job, it becomes a matter of academia. It's not like you're getting paid for the product, or like players and DMs typically conduct rigorous assessments. Heck, it's not like there's even wrong with producing a less than 100% optimal finished work, as long as 96% was still enjoyable to everyone else As long as the DMPC is itself a net good, it doesn't really matter whether or not the DMPC is the greatest net good possible, it's acceptable for a GM to do.


In most games, the role of GM and player are very different. They DO have different interests. You seriously think that each player is considering everything the GM has to consider to make the game a success? If so, you must have a very unusual group of players.
Yeah, you have different roles. But the way I usually end up playing is very plot centric, and having a good, cool story is everyone's central goal. Within whatever the GM thought up as the basis (Typically, IME, there are other ways to do it), the others will have their own ideas on what constitutes this, and at least for their individual PC will have their own plot. Truly ideally, and because I generally screen heavily before accepting a player anyway, every player is frequently interested in the stories of the others as well. Everyone's interests are in rough harmony. The GM's role is to holistically integrate them, but players frequently will do so themselves at their own initiative (IME at least). Now, that doesn't mean they always do. That's why I would agree that the DM's got a different role. Sometimes, two personal stories conflict, but IME, this doesn't mean the two players will be particularly antagonistic. It can, and I've seen it elsewhere, but sometimes it just means they want to see the two play out against each other.

Given all this, it really doesn't change that much to add a DMPC. IME, though apparently not in those of others, it also helps substantially if they take a smaller role in this. Even if you were some sort of perfect person with no fear of making a mistake, there will always be appearances to maintain and look to, after all, and if players feel maligned that's fair. But it's certainly doable,a nd doable well.




I think you can see the flaw in that reasoning. Solaris made the argument that a DMPC is fine, because a bad DM running one is better than no DM at all. Your iteration of the argument is slightly different depending upon interpretation, but unless you're explicitly saying the DMPC did nothing to worsen or hinder the campaign, it's the same flawed argument.
The major flaw in that argument is the DMPC doesn't have to be evidence of a bad GM in the first place. With this premise demonstrably false, the conclusions flowing from it are... irrelevant.

[stainboy]

I'm asking becasue i'm working on a game for me and some of my buddies to play together, and i'm hopeing to have a PC paladin be the main antagonist to the undead player party. i'm just worried i'll do something wrong and ruin the game for the players. Any advice?

Gicko, if you're still reading:

Paladins are hard to pull off as BBEGs. In 3.5 you stretch out a boss fight through through lackeys, field control, and action denial. Your paladin will run into melee and die in the first round.

A recurring antagonist needs at least one cheap trick to escape from a losing fight. Teleport or Word of Recall works if you can keep the BBEG from dropping in one round, Contingency solves the one-round problem, Clone is even better, Astral Projection is best. Paladins don't get anything like that.

Make that paladin a cleric. (And still have a backup plan for when the PCs kill him/her early.)

[Tyndmyr]

The major flaw in that argument is the DMPC doesn't have to be evidence of a bad GM in the first place. With this premise demonstrably false, the conclusions flowing from it are... irrelevant.

They are....once you demonstrate that the premise is false. Merely stating it doesn't quite rise to the level of demonstrating it.

[profitofrage]

They are....once you demonstrate that the premise is false. Merely stating it doesn't quite rise to the level of demonstrating it.

its been demonstrated through out the thread. Any time a DMPC has been used to good effect? yea that disproves the notiong a DMPC is a symptom of bad DMing..because it was pulled off succesfully. even made the game better. unless you refute that those characters WERNT DMpc's...well the argument mention is flawed.

[Tyndmyr]

its been demonstrated through out the thread. Any time a DMPC has been used to good effect? yea that disproves the notiong a DMPC is a symptom of bad DMing..because it was pulled off succesfully. even made the game better. unless you refute that those characters WERNT DMpc's...well the argument mention is flawed.

A runny nose is a commonly accepted symptom of a cold.

By your logic, if there was ever one example of a runny nose without a cold, it would not be a symptom. I don't think you're using the word the same way everyone else does.

[profitofrage]

The point wasnt that a bad DM wont use a DMPC the point was that a DMPC doesnt nessisarily make a bad DM.

All of this "lets try and compare what using a DMPC is like" really doesnt put anything forward for the issue.

point of fact : regardless of your definition of a DMPC, there have been examples given of them being done right. I.e the inclusion overall either made no ill effect or indeed INCREASED the fun had by all.

Conclusion : DMPC's then cannot be completly bad, they must have a right and wrong way of doing it.
Period.
Refuting it is to refute that the prior examples dont exist or arnt acceptable for whatever reason.

[Yukitsu]

Yes, exactly. The point in contestation is that those examples are inherently flawed, because they either require an ad-hoc definition of a DMPC, or a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists (or imply that DMPC is a fuzzy logic thing). Hence they either need to be given better definitions demonstrating that they are DMPCs, or they need to be discluded from the premise, or that we should appeal to fuzzy logic instead of definitive categorization.

[Shadowknight12]

Yes, exactly. The point in contestation is that those examples are inherently flawed, because they either require an ad-hoc definition of a DMPC, or a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists. Hence they either need to be given better definitions demonstrating that they are DMPCs, or they need to be discluded from the premise.

By that very same token, why are the examples of bad DMPCs automatically accepted? Aren't they subject to that exact same logic? Why can't we say that those examples are too inherently flawed, because they require an ad-hoc definition of a DMPC, or a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists?

[Sucrose]

By that very same token, why are the examples of bad DMPCs automatically accepted? Aren't they subject to that exact same logic? Why can't we say that those examples are too inherently flawed, because they require an ad-hoc definition of a DMPC, or a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists?

...Because the DMPCs that are bad are a subset of what you are calling DMPCs? It is an inherently more narrow category than the category that you are labeling 'DMPC.' It is just as ad-hoc, though, since DMPC is not an objective term, but a bit of lingo that the roleplaying community has developed.

[Shadowknight12]

...Because the DMPCs that are bad are a subset of what you are calling DMPCs? It is an inherently more narrow category than the category that you are labeling 'DMPC.' It is just as ad-hoc, though, since DMPC is not an objective term, but a bit of lingo that the roleplaying community has developed.

Precisely. I'm pointing out that any reasoning that declares an example as invalid can be used to declare any other example as invalid, because this matter is inherently subjective. Logic only determines whether a given reasoning is valid or invalid, regardless of whether its premises are true or false. This debate has a side that says "All DMPCs are always bad" and another that says the exact opposite, "Not all DMPCS are always bad," premises that we can call A and -A. Since we cannot know which of those two premises are true, any valid reasoning that uses A will be just as valid if we replace A with -A. And conversely, any valid reasoning that attempts to disprove -A can be used to disprove A with the same ease. Strict logic will lead us nowhere if we cannot determine the truth of the premises involved, and this is one of such cases.

[Sucrose]

You're missing the point. The ad-hoc bit of your argument is valid, but the 'a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists' bit is not. Yukitsu's definition clearly does not hit every character that exists. For one thing, it doesn't hit the characters that he said don't seem to be DMPC's.

[SleepyShadow]

Gicko, if you're still reading:

Paladins are hard to pull off as BBEGs. In 3.5 you stretch out a boss fight through through lackeys, field control, and action denial. Your paladin will run into melee and die in the first round.

A recurring antagonist needs at least one cheap trick to escape from a losing fight. Teleport or Word of Recall works if you can keep the BBEG from dropping in one round, Contingency solves the one-round problem, Clone is even better, Astral Projection is best. Paladins don't get anything like that.

Make that paladin a cleric. (And still have a backup plan for when the PCs kill him/her early.)

I think it is fairly safe to assume that Gicko has left the building. This thread has gotten so far derailed that not even a Word of Recall would fix it now.

[Shadowknight12]

You're missing the point. The ad-hoc bit of your argument is valid, but the 'a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists' bit is not. Yukitsu's definition clearly does not hit every character that exists. For one thing, it doesn't hit the characters that he said don't seem to be DMPC's.

"X does not apply to characters who do not fit into the definition of X." Obviously. That's a tautology. A = A. Regardless of whether A (or X) is true or false, the reasoning will always be true because it's tautological and therefore irrelevant. I can use it, too: "What others term 'Bad DMPCs' are not DMPCs because they don't fit into my definition of what a DMPC is, so my argument remains uncontested!" In statistics, there's an equivalent strategy, which is to discard diverging results.

TL;DR: Tautologies don't make you right.

[Tyndmyr]

You're missing the point. The ad-hoc bit of your argument is valid, but the 'a broad definition that hits essentially every character that exists' bit is not. Yukitsu's definition clearly does not hit every character that exists. For one thing, it doesn't hit the characters that he said don't seem to be DMPC's.

Ugh. I hate how these debates always end up in arguing over the definition.

I've always defined it as if the DM has a PC, then that's a DMPC. If it acts like a PC, quacks like a PC, and tastes like a PC, it counts.

Egrarious abuses like bending the rules everyone else adheres to for the DMPC is not required to make it a DMPC, but of course, like all favoritism, is also problematic, and is likely to worsen the situation.

[MeeposFire]

Ugh. I hate how these debates always end up in arguing over the definition.

I've always defined it as if the DM has a PC, then that's a DMPC. If it acts like a PC, quacks like a PC, and tastes like a PC, it counts.

Egrarious abuses like bending the rules everyone else adheres to for the DMPC is not required to make it a DMPC, but of course, like all favoritism, is also problematic, and is likely to worsen the situation.

The reason it goes back to a definition is because people don't accept things. For instance I talked about how a DM controlled party member (a permanent party member of which I call a DMPC) was not a DMPC but was a "well played NPC". This despite the fact the character acted like a player character, was treated by everybody as a player character, and I am sure the dragons that nearly killed him thought he tasted like one. Since some people thought he did not meet their criteria for a DMPC my "evidence" was pushed aside.

I will grant that we are unlikely to agree to a definition. At best you might be able to make a list of things to avoid but for that to succeed you would have to convince people that you can have successful DMPCs which seems to be impossible for some people.