PDA

View Full Version : DMPCs - a way to do them right?



Pages : [1] 2

Silus
2011-08-04, 08:33 PM
So I've been toying with the idea of adding a DMPC to the campaign I'm going to run (Reeeeeeally wanna try out the new Gunslinger class for Pathfinder), but I hear a lot of people not speak kindly of DMPCs. Should I scrap the idea or is there a way to run one without it being crap or annoying or just made of fail?

Edit: I've shifted my sights away from the gunslinger to an Archeologist (Bard)/Wizard multiclass with the express purpose of providing the occasional buff, crafting items for the PCs when they have proved "worthy", and generally giving out advice if so asked.

DontEatRawHagis
2011-08-04, 08:39 PM
Do not use it for more than one mission, keep it as NPC as possible and don't say this is my character to your players.

Also avoid using it to give them hints and stuff.

Keep the DMPC at arms length, do not roleplay it as Player it is just another NPC in your book.

My DM's current DMPC is too overpower and too much the center of attention.

Its easier for players to accept a DMPC as a quest giver who needs help getting through a dungeon than as a companion.

Yukitsu
2011-08-04, 08:39 PM
You're going to have less trouble, work or both by simply playing a gun slinger in someone else's campaign. It's possible it won't kill or cripple your game, but there's no real point in risking it.

In theory, you can run one without annoying people by making it a largely incidental secondary or background character. Just think of it as an NPC, and it will make your life more pleasant.

Dragonfire
2011-08-04, 08:41 PM
Well thing with DMPC's is to make them not be the foucos of the story and not do the players jobs for them. As long as they are in a supporting role they can add alot of flavor to a game. On the other hand if the DMPC walks into a room and is able to murder everyone in there without breaking a sweat your doing it wrong. Keep in mind all this stuff is from personal opinons though. :smallsmile:

My group has a few ones that we like alot though.

Silus
2011-08-04, 08:47 PM
Well thing with DMPC's is to make them not be the foucos of the story and not do the players jobs for them. As long as they are in a supporting role they can add alot of flavor to a game. On the other hand if the DMPC walks into a room and is able to murder everyone in there without breaking a sweat your doing it wrong. Keep in mind all this stuff is from personal opinons though. :smallsmile:

My group has a few ones that we like alot though.

I was going to, at most, have the DMPC a military commander (the PCs will be accompanies by a contingent of lvl 1 NPC riflemen for the expedition they're going on). At most, he'd be there to help defend the camp and would only tag long if the PCs asked him to.

Though I suppose that wouldn't really count as a DMPC though, would it?

Moofaa
2011-08-04, 08:49 PM
You will get mixed responses to this I am sure.

I use DMPC's frequently, because I often only have one player in a lot of my games. Since that's a bit of an un-usual situation it works in it's own way. Usually my friend makes whatever character he wants, and I make 1-2 DMPC's to support his class choices (like if he's a fighter, I make a cleric and a wizard or rogue).

Mostly, they just follow along, letting him make the larger decisions and only on occasion offering insight or guidance to help keep the plot moving along (which is the greatest advantage of a DMPC, and possibly one of it's greatest weaknesses).

Some general guidelines for a successful DMPC;

1. Never upstage the players. The DMPC should not have some insane backstory or other "fluff" characteristics that take the stage away from the PC's. Most of my DMPC's have simple backgrounds.

2. Similar to number 1, the DMPC should never have any "crunch" advantages over players. This means no crazy stats, wealth, magical gear, or insane powers that they shouldn't have.

3. Be mindful of the meta-game. Even if you follow rules #1 & 2 and make a simple, useful character that fills a needed role in the party it's tempting to use your DM knowledge to give that DMPC information that, as a character, it really shouldn't have. It's important to separate the fact that YOU know the BBEG is actually the old wizard that hired the party for the mission, but the CHARACTER wouldn't know that.

I would suggest, in a normal party (with say, 4+ REAL players), any DMPC's be limited in joining with the party for only part of the adventure, in fact this can lead to good role-play and returns of favorite DMPC's later as the players continue the campaign and enriches the world you are building.

So basically if you are making a overpowered, overgeared, min/maxed character with special powers that always seems to know when to stand behind the players because there is trouble around the corner...you're doing it wrong.

flumphy
2011-08-04, 08:51 PM
There are valid reasons to add a DMPC to a campaign, such as an otherwise small or unbalanced party. Simply wanting to play a PC is not a good reason, and, because even the best GM will be tempted to show favoritism to their own character, it is probably the worst possible reason to use a DMPC.

Content yourself with a recurring gunslinger villain, or try to find a game you can play in.

Shpadoinkle
2011-08-04, 08:53 PM
DMPCs are by definition impossible to do right because you can't DM and be a player at the same time. If you want to do that you might as well be playing with yourself.

Now, if you want a pet NPC who travels with and helps out the party, that's fine, as long as he's not a glory hog or a major plot element. Support classes are fantastic for this (or other classes working in a support role, like a wizard who mostly uses his spells to buff the PCs and as self defense. Disabling enemies is iffy though.)

Morithias
2011-08-04, 08:56 PM
the best DMPC that I probably ever made was a warforged called "Arma". It was in effect a living sidequest, and the PC's upgrade her with new parts made with a special device. This way the player's controlled what was basically my character's power level.

Needless to say, they upgraded her to insane levels and had her one shot the big bad. But the fact that THEY caused her to be that strong, made her seem more like a +6 longsword than a mary sue.

Silus
2011-08-04, 08:58 PM
There are valid reasons to add a DMPC to a campaign, such as an otherwise small or unbalanced party. Simply wanting to play a PC is not a good reason, and, because even the best GM will be tempted to show favoritism to their own character, it is probably the worst possible reason to use a DMPC.

Content yourself with a recurring gunslinger villain, or try to find a game you can play in.

*Agreeing nod* I suppose I'll wait until the players actually make their characters proper before seeing if they need a space filler...

So far we have a sniper Ranger/Fighter, a Summoner, and someone that is leaning towards Inquisitor. Not sure about the other two player though.



Now, if you want a pet NPC who travels with and helps out the party, that's fine, as long as he's not a glory hog or a major plot element. Support classes are fantastic for this (or other classes working in a support role, like a wizard who mostly uses his spells to buff the PCs and as self defense. Disabling enemies is iffy though.)

Well I'm not planning having him take on the enemies all by himself with his spear and magic helmet or anything :smalleek: A little fire support here, at most be that "big brother" type character that helps the PCs until they're strong enough to take out the bigger things themselves (like the CR 12 grab-happy, 8 legged cat thing I'm statting out). Also, sometime people won't be able to make it and I don't want to have to cancel a game because one or two people (out of 5) can't make it...

I'm thinking this is leaning more towards "favored NPC" than DMPC....

Acanous
2011-08-04, 08:59 PM
if under lv 5, the DMPC is 1 level lower than the party. If over lv 5, he is 2 levels lower than the party. (Like a Cohort)
Avoid multiclassing. a lv 15 DMPC should have, at most, 3 classes.(2 base and a prestige, in situations where you require abilities from 2 base classes to enter the prestige) 2 is better if you can pull it off. 1 is prefferential, but we all know base classes mostly suck, so not much to be done about that :p

The DMPC should take half a share of treasure, as per a cohort. A DMPC should never be used in sessions with more than 4 players- it's best used as a stopgap measure for parties who are short a player or two. In such situations, you should advise your players to take leadership and then they can play the character, or pick up a new one, should they so choose. Having a player pick up the DMPC makes plot sense and is less work. Don't force them to do it, though. (Most players will jump at being allowed Leadership, but there's a few out there who don't want to pay a "Feat tax" because the party is undermanned)

So there's the mechanics of running a DMPC without having the party roll their eyes. Story wise, try to keep things about the DMPC average for the area/class/race, and internally consistant. He's not a special snowflake, he's more like a specially skilled hireling.

If you want to indulge in creating a thought-out backstory for your DMPC, ensure that the rest of your world has similarly well written backstory. Otherwise the plot will begin a death spiral, circling around the DMPC. You will, as the player of this PC, be uniquely blind to this effect. Remember to spend some time in game playing off of things in your players' backstories, too. They'll feel less like "The Rest" in Gilligan's Island if their bios get more headline time than the DMPC.

awa
2011-08-04, 09:11 PM
Ive had good luck with dm pcs and regularly use them.
things that have worked well for me include
1) having them be weaker then the party.
2) never trying to do the same thing as one of the players
3) having the pcs have authority over them
4) support abilities like item creation, or healing

finally always remember the story is about the pcs not the dmpc

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-04, 09:11 PM
Make them Squires or Apprentices or Assistants to the Heroes, which don't actually participate in the fights, and are just helpers and stuff. Problem solved.

Silus
2011-08-04, 09:23 PM
Ive had good luck with dm pcs and regularly use them.
things that have worked well for me include
1) having them be weaker then the party.
2) never trying to do the same thing as one of the players
3) having the pcs have authority over them
4) support abilities like item creation, or healing

finally always remember the story is about the pcs not the dmpc

Well, they do have the Archeologist archetype for Bards in the Ultimate Combat book, maybe if I multiclassed that with a Wizard and just kept them back for magic item making, artifact/magic item identification, and other scholar/bookworm type stuff....

Last character I had that was even remotely DMPC'ish was a Sphinx office lady/bureaucrat that gave the PCs their missions. They thought she was....er...a not nice person. Though that may have been the personality I gave her...

claricorp
2011-08-04, 10:05 PM
Don't have them stay with the party for any extended period of time.

Squeejee
2011-08-04, 10:27 PM
A system for DMPCs I've been using lately is:

1 DMPCs don't take actions on their own unless directed by a PC, but
2 PCs do not have access to DMPC character sheets, and
3 DMPCs have their own lives and aren't always available to help the PCs.

It works out pretty well: my party's in the Desert of Desolation and have a small caravan of DMPCs following them - all by choice, as in I didn't force any of them on my players, they were recruited similar to using the "talk" option in Fire Emblem - but they mostly guard the camels while the PCs get to the real adventuring. Occaisionally Yun the Mystic Theurge is called up for some casting or Habib the Nightsong Enforcer is brought in as a flank attacker, but as long as it's the PCs doing the main thrust of the adventuring it doesn't negatively effect the game.

It can also be built up to an epic "Dragon Age II"-style confrontation where some of your old adventuring buddies fight against you while others stand with you.

Qing Guang
2011-08-04, 11:00 PM
Well I actually grew up in a system (Warlock, a 1.0 variant that's been running at Caltech since the seventies) where DMPCs were the norm. I think originally they were implemented to prevent DM sadism - if the DM's got characters, too, she's invested in the party, and she's therefore much less inclined to pull "rocks fall, everyone dies" stunts.

Admittedly, it was a lower-roleplay setting than most (everybody had 3 characters and ran 2 at a time, and there was rarely an overarching plot), but it always worked out all right. I never heard of any instances of cheating on the part of the DM or of the DM upstaging the players.

Of course, there are some basic, unspoken rules to make this work:
1) Don't cheat. (Duh.) I'm not sure why everybody thinks this is so difficult. In fact, I was really shocked going to a new system (PF, specifically) at the culture of distrust going on. DM screens, no DM characters, DM having to keep trid and calculate experience... it was really weird, making the DM into this mystical god entity. Honestly, I think a good DM ought to have enough self-control to be able to run a character without giving it little perks.
2) Don't be the unique character. Don't be the paladin. Don't be the weird race or class. Don't be the gimmick character. You don't have to relegate yourself to a support role, but it helps. (My current DM for our branch of Warlock - we had to split off due to scheduling and location issues - prefers to run Staff Chick archetypes in general. The most "out there" she ever got was a Cavalier, and that character was remarkably mild-mannered, especially compared the the Cavalier from the previous universe).
3) Don't be the star of the story. Backstories are fine; being the focal point of the plot is not. (One of the special things we do in our branch is that every so often we will go on a longer, more epic quest that eventually results in one of the players getting a special item tailored to one of their characters. Everybody gets a turn being the focus of one of these quests - except the DM.) Think of the DM's PC as a supporting actor - part of the main ensemble, but they're never going to get their own episode.
4) Don't be the hero of every fight. Pull your weight, but let the other players have the really memorable moments (unless of course things have gone horribly wrong and everybody has to go all-in).
5) Don't use your character to make suggestions. Even if everyone else is missing the completely obvious (to you) solution, you need to let them figure it out, or they'll feel cheap about getting the answer.

If you follow those you should be able to make it work. It's worked for us for years (maybe decades - I dunno how long it's been part of the system, but definitely as long as I've been watching/playing).

SamBurke
2011-08-04, 11:12 PM
It really depends. I have two players who have basically accepted that they're minor characters in an over-story, and like it a lot. MOST PEOPLE DON'T, though. Just noting these particular two.

Gavinfoxx
2011-08-04, 11:26 PM
5) Don't use your character to make suggestions. Even if everyone else is missing the completely obvious (to you) solution, you need to let them figure it out, or they'll feel cheap about getting the answer.

I would say this with a caveat. Mention, DM to players, that these characters will generally NOT make suggestions or solve things. However, by unanimous vote of the players, the characters can come up with a nudging idea if need be.

Qing Guang
2011-08-04, 11:30 PM
I would say this with a caveat. Mention, DM to players, that these characters will generally NOT make suggestions or solve things. However, by unanimous vote of the players, the characters can come up with a nudging idea if need be.

That's a good point. The main thing is letting the players - not your own feelings of "augh how are they not getting this yet" - decide when your DMPC "gets an idea."

SowZ
2011-08-05, 12:52 AM
A DMPC is like a combination of playing chess against yourself and making a second account on a web forum to agree with yourself in a debate. The only time I am cool with it is when everyone shifts DMs and even then the DMPC should be downplayed as much as possible. Otherwise, it should just be an NPC.

NikitaDarkstar
2011-08-05, 01:22 AM
First of all have you tried just asking your players if they'd be ok with you running a PC? If they are, go for it.

But please keep in mind that it should be the same power level as the other PC's at the very most and not upstage them. And I'd suggest using some sort of chart or knowledge rolls for your character IC when they need to know/guess at something, fail the roll and the character doesn't know, end of story. (At least use them as a guide) Hopefully it can help you keep your IC and OOC knowledge separate.

And also see if there is a need for one, if not you'll just annoy and for trying out a class? Well the point of trying a class is to see what it can and can't do, meaning you will be doing some optimization and min-maxing, which a DM shouldn't be doing if he runs a DMPC.

Serpentine
2011-08-05, 01:35 AM
Ho boy, here we go...
So I've been toying with the idea of adding a DMPC to the campaign I'm going to run (Reeeeeeally wanna try out the new Gunslinger class for Pathfinder), but I hear a lot of people not speak kindly of DMPCs. Should I scrap the idea or is there a way to run one without it being crap or annoying or just made of fail?Well, for starters, I'd be wary of using a class I'm not familiar with for a DMPC. Make sure you know all of its abilities and mechanics well in advance, so you don't have to keep wasting time looking through the rules on your turn in combat.

I think, most of the time, a "follower" personality type would be preferable. The sort who will offer their thoughts if requested, but otherwise go with the group. Being the "face" of the party is probably a particularly bad idea.

Give your character a minimum of spotlight - not none, but less than others, and never when someone else wants it.

Make sure you can completely divide the DMPC's IC knowledge from your own DM's OOC knowledge - and also, make sure your players know you're doing that. Stress that any information or ideas coming from the DMPC, is coming from the DMPC, not from you. Use it as a mouthpiece or cattleprod only sparingly, when the group's really stuck or wandering.

Don't grant your DMPC anything you wouldn't allow a player. If anything, be harsher on what it's allowed. Aim to be at least a bit less optimised than the rest of the party, and a step or two behind experience-wise.

I'd say "don't step on any toes", but my own DMPC was kept in the game at my players' request partly because they like the interactions between her and a similar PC... I guess, just talk to your players about what role they'd like the DMPC to take in the group.

That's probably the most important thing. Communicate with your players. Be aware of their preferences and any complaints, and be willing to be flexible.

GAThraawn
2011-08-05, 02:08 AM
^ Basically what Serpentine said. She's been through a lot of these threads that pop up over time. The moral is pretty much always the same: People who hate DMPC's hate them because they've had experiences with them in which the DM either overshadowed the rest of the party, played favourites, used them to lead the party around by the nose, or forced the players into the back seat of their own one-man show.

Those of us who have had positive experiences with DMPC's have mostly either made the characters mostly unassuming background characters, or given them personalities and roles that the players have enjoyed and latched onto. As I've said before, I never set out to make DMPC's, but my players keep insisting on finding the NPC's they enjoy the most and recruiting them, so not everyone hates DMPC's, you just have to make sure that you make them someone your players like.

zanetheinsane
2011-08-05, 08:31 AM
As everyone else suggested, never play a DMPC because you want to play a character. But if you must play a DMPC and for some reason you do want to upstage the players or show off how badass he is, I suggest two story arcs:

Have the DMPC help the players out in a short inconsequential battle. Afterward the DMPC suggests splitting up to focus on two different objectives (have the players decide which one the party will do). Let the players have the option of not splitting up and this will let you gauge your player's reactions and if they want this particular character to follow them.

And playing devil's advocate here, sometimes there may be a storyline call for the whole "super amazing upstaging DMPC". If you think it is an unavoidable route take these suggestions:

Have the DMPC get his moment of glory but then suddenly either A) Die, and it's up to the players to avenge him or carry on the mission (this is a good way to drop some sort of key piece of equipment, quest item, or just a nice bonus reward on your players, letting them loot the body always makes everyone happy). B) Unable to finish the job, defeat all of the enemies, etc. The players must then finish off the enemies, objective, mission, etc, essentially bailing him out of this situation and showing that he's clearly in over his head.

This accomplishes two things. Shows off how badass your DMPC is (which I agree is a horrible concept, but some DMs still insist on this no matter what) but in the end shows that your DMPC clearly wasn't badass enough and the only people more badass than him are the party.

If you go this route, make sure that whatever your DMPC plans to do happens very fast. His actions should take up no more than 5-10 minutes of a session tops. Remember, your players are there to play, not watch you play.

Serpentine
2011-08-05, 09:06 AM
As everyone else suggested, never play a DMPC because you want to play a character.I didn't suggest that. In fact, I think it's a valid reason to play a DMPC, as long as your players don't mind.

But if you must play a DMPC and for some reason you do want to upstage the players or show off how badass he is, I suggest two story arcs:
...
Shows off how badass your DMPC is (which I agree is a horrible concept, but some DMs still insist on this no matter what)This, on the other hand, is something no one else here has said is even remotely desirable.

Gnaeus
2011-08-05, 09:26 AM
I don't think DMPCs are ever a good idea. They can help to solve certain problems, but I have never seen a problem that a DMPC can solve that can't be solved better by other methods.

The super-powerful mary sue railroad device is obviously awful and should not be used.

Normal world: They invite the DM to cheat and/or use out of game knowledge. They can force the DM to take sides in conflicts between players. Even if the DM is NOT playing favorites, taking sides, or metagaming, there can be the perception that he is by the players, which is just as damaging. They can lead to situations where the players have been incapacitated by damage or effects and the DM is running combats against himself. They can take spotlight from players. Many/most players are reluctant to stand up to the DM and say that they don't want his DMPC in play, so getting good feedback can be problematic. They are a minefield of potential problems waiting to erupt.

Perfect world best case: They slow combat and take time from the DM that he should be using elsewhere.

For a 1-2 man party, consider gestalt. Consider free leadership feats.
For a larger party, you don't need one. If you think healing is lacking, drop some wands/scrolls/healing belts. Or allow a PC to take Leadership with restrictions on his cohort.

Gamgee
2011-08-05, 09:29 AM
There are valid reasons to add a DMPC to a campaign, such as an otherwise small or unbalanced party. Simply wanting to play a PC is not a good reason, and, because even the best GM will be tempted to show favoritism to their own character, it is probably the worst possible reason to use a DMPC.

Content yourself with a recurring gunslinger villain, or try to find a game you can play in.
I'm biased against this to the detriment where my character can be a cardboard cut out who is just a background support guy on the level of a mook.

I'm sure my players would love to have an NPC around doing more, but I feel they're here to be the heroes. So best let them do all the hero work.

Serpentine
2011-08-05, 09:31 AM
The super-powerful mary sue railroad device is obviously awful and should not be used.Certainly never done that.
Normal world: They invite the DM to cheat and/or use out of game knowledge.Not an issue.

They can force the DM to take sides in conflicts between players.Never happened, unlikely to.

Even if the DM is NOT playing favorites, taking sides, or metagaming, there can be the perception that he is by the players, which is just as damaging.Does not appear to be present.

They can lead to situations where the players have been incapacitated by damage or effects and the DM is running combats against himself.My DMPC is usually the first one knocked out.

They can take spotlight from players.Technically, it's impossible to not do this. But it isn't necessarily a problem, especially if it's kept low and the players enjoy it anyway.

Many/most players are reluctant to stand up to the DM and say that they don't want his DMPC in play, so getting good feedback can be problematic.The group went out of its way to keep my DMPC in the game. I think that's pretty good feedback.

They are a minefield of potential problems waiting to erupt.True, but that goes for everything.

Perfect world best case: They slow combat and take time from the DM that he should be using elsewhere.Concerns I've had, but my players are aware of this and don't care. I'm thinking of always having her deal average damage or something, to keep my dice-rolling to a minimum.

Gnaeus
2011-08-05, 10:40 AM
Not an issue.

Really? You don't know where the traps in your dungeon are? You don't know the vulnerabilities or immunities of the monsters you are running? How odd.


True, but that goes for everything.

No, the act of NOT playing in the same game that you are running is not a potential minefield of problems.


...Stuff that Serpent says never happened in her group

That is nice. I have seen campaigns where responsible DMs ran responsible DMPCs for months or years before it blew up. It could happen tomorrow. My argument isn't that there are no benefits that can be derived from them. It is that I know of no case where those benefits could not be acquired by a less disruptive method.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-05, 11:47 AM
The most important thing about running a DMPC or an NCP travelling with the group is making sure the players like him. If they do, they won't mind even if the character has unique abilities, its own storyline and is more powerful than them. If they don't, they will complain even if it's a weak support character. Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy guide to making sure the players will like your DMPC, because different people like different characters.

Silus
2011-08-05, 11:54 AM
The most important thing about running a DMPC or an NCP travelling with the group is making sure the players like him. If they do, they won't mind even if the character has unique abilities, its own storyline and is more powerful than them. If they don't, they will complain even if it's a weak support character. Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy guide to making sure the players will like your DMPC, because different people like different characters.

I think it mostly has to do with personality to be honest. First major named NPC I used was a Sphinx bureaucrat that gave the players their missions. She was snarky, humorless, to the point, and more than a little disinterested in the PC's complaints (as I felt was befitting of a sullen office worker that hates their job). The players hated her.

valadil
2011-08-05, 11:57 AM
Let the party decide if they can keep the DMPC. Without fail, all the DMPCs I've liked have been the ones that the party could dismiss. All the DMPCs that ruined games have been imposed upon us by the DM.

SowZ
2011-08-05, 12:13 PM
I think it mostly has to do with personality to be honest. First major named NPC I used was a Sphinx bureaucrat that gave the players their missions. She was snarky, humorless, to the point, and more than a little disinterested in the PC's complaints (as I felt was befitting of a sullen office worker that hates their job). The players hated her.

That's not really a DMPC, though.

Silus
2011-08-05, 12:21 PM
That's not really a DMPC, though.

:smalleek:
I have much to learn D=

Gnaeus
2011-08-05, 12:54 PM
Yeah, the exact definition of DMPC is a little vague, but tend to include one or more of:

They travel with the party like a Player, and help contribute to encounters. If I tell you the story of a game and you can't figure out which character is the NPC from the description, almost certainly a DMPC. Wandering around with party but 4 levels higher than PCs? DMPC. Hired by the party and 3 levels lower than the PCs, almost certainly not a DMPC.

They act like the DM's character. They may be his PC from another game. They may be much stronger than PCs. The gods/plot may shield them from adverse effects. They may be called a mary sue/marty stu if they are an idealized version of who the DM wishes he was.

They may get long cutscenes where they resolve major problems with the power of their awesomeness.

An NPC who gives the party jobs is not usually a DMPC, unless he travels with them. A good fictional example is Fisban in War of the lance, an unkillable greater god who decides to wander around with our heroes, or Gandalf, another unkillable god who wanders around with a much weaker party, feeding them information and rescuing them as needed.

Silus
2011-08-05, 01:13 PM
Yeah, the exact definition of DMPC is a little vague, but tend to include one or more of:

They travel with the party like a Player, and help contribute to encounters. If I tell you the story of a game and you can't figure out which character is the NPC from the description, almost certainly a DMPC. Wandering around with party but 4 levels higher than PCs? DMPC. Hired by the party and 3 levels lower than the PCs, almost certainly not a DMPC.

They act like the DM's character. They may be his PC from another game. They may be much stronger than PCs. The gods/plot may shield them from adverse effects. They may be called a mary sue/marty stu if they are an idealized version of who the DM wishes he was.

They may get long cutscenes where they resolve major problems with the power of their awesomeness.

An NPC who gives the party jobs is not usually a DMPC, unless he travels with them. A good fictional example is Fisban in War of the lance, an unkillable greater god who decides to wander around with our heroes, or Gandalf, another unkillable god who wanders around with a much weaker party, feeding them information and rescuing them as needed.

How about a higher level character that is worse at combat than the players? I was going to try to use an Archeologist (Bard)/Wizard multiclass as sort of a field researcher, but all the spells would be buffs/utility with MAYBE one offensive spell.

Kinda like....a Wizard version of Daniel Jackson from Stargate is what I'm thinking. And it'd give the PCs a way to get magic items while out of contact with their home world (colonial expedition to an uninhabited planet).

Qing Guang
2011-08-05, 01:29 PM
How about a higher level character that is worse at combat than the players? I was going to try to use an Archeologist (Bard)/Wizard multiclass as sort of a field researcher, but all the spells would be buffs/utility with MAYBE one offensive spell.

Kinda like....a Wizard version of Daniel Jackson from Stargate is what I'm thinking. And it'd give the PCs a way to get magic items while out of contact with their home world (colonial expedition to an uninhabited planet).

As I mentioned, being support helps, especially if you haven't had a DMPC before. Once you're more comfortable with running the campaign and running the PC, then sure, it's fine to move on to a bigger role, so long as you're never the flashy important character in the party (ie, not the swashbuckler :smallbiggrin:). Being the DM and having a PC doesn't mean you have to gimp your character. Just don't steal the spotlight.

In the end, there are two main keys to running a DMPC: a lot of self-control and a strong IC/OOC boundary. A good rule of thumb when you're not sure about something for your character (say, when you're designing loot or something) is, "If it will look like DM corruption to your players, it probably is." It's okay to run across something that will give your character a buff, but not until other players have gotten similar items. Make sure your character's power never exceeds that of the other players' characters, and you're good. And playing D&D should already have given you at least the foundation for the IC/OOC wall - it's just like when your character in a new campaign runs across a familiar (to you) monster for the first time, and you have to go ahead and cast the spell you know it'll resist, because it's your character's first choice and your character knows nothing about the creature's resistances. You can pretend to not know any of the info in the Bestiary; similarly, you can pretend not to know that chest is trapped.

Gnaeus
2011-08-05, 01:29 PM
How about a higher level character that is worse at combat than the players? I was going to try to use an Archeologist (Bard)/Wizard multiclass as sort of a field researcher, but all the spells would be buffs/utility with MAYBE one offensive spell.

Kinda like....a Wizard version of Daniel Jackson from Stargate is what I'm thinking. And it'd give the PCs a way to get magic items while out of contact with their home world (colonial expedition to an uninhabited planet).

IMO, DMPC.

Field researcher sounds like an active role. A PC could have "field researcher" as his background/motivation. Contrast with, for example, "red shirt" or "porter".

Artificer is an active, powerful PC role. When he makes choices like "do I take craft wands or magic armor/weapons?" he is favoring some PCs over others. Picking his spells when you have knowledge of future encounters is also problematic.

He is more powerful than the PCs. The fact that he chooses not to end encounters that he could solo does not make him less of a DMPC. The useless feeling of "Why am I here when that guy could be wiping the floor with them if he could only be bothered" is one reason people hate DMPCs.

Things that we do not know that would also be factors:
Will he always be with party, or will he stay in the ship and craft? (essentially making him the magic shopkeeper, probably NOT a DMPC)
Will his motivations be guiding the party, or is he a follower?
Would you be upset if bad stuff happened to him? If a monster crit on him, or a PC killed him in his sleep, would you let him die, be angry, or be OK with it?

Crusader808
2011-08-05, 01:47 PM
I use a DMPC in almost every game. Invariably it's always a utility character and it stays firmly in the background.

I've found it helps to move the game forward in the event that some critical skill is missing from the party (almost never with my group, but it happens).

What's worked for me is sticking with aiding party members, acting as a backup healer, a minor item crafter, and the like.

Nero24200
2011-08-05, 03:44 PM
I would advise against using a DMPC if you're not sure. While they can be done right it's also very easy to do them badly. If played well they can add an NPC that the PC's particularly care about, if done badly it can make the PC's put more effort into killing an ally than the BBEG and make the PC's feel like they have little options.

So if you're unsure whether or not to use one, I would avoid it unless you feel one is necessary.

Delwugor
2011-08-05, 03:49 PM
I have seen only one done correctly, and that character died ... twice. So my advice is kill it off in the first round of the first battle.
"The only good GMPC is a dead GMPC"

NNescio
2011-08-05, 05:36 PM
Short Answer:

Gandalf? No.

Nodwick? Yes.

SowZ
2011-08-05, 06:15 PM
Yeah, the exact definition of DMPC is a little vague, but tend to include one or more of:

They travel with the party like a Player, and help contribute to encounters. If I tell you the story of a game and you can't figure out which character is the NPC from the description, almost certainly a DMPC. Wandering around with party but 4 levels higher than PCs? DMPC. Hired by the party and 3 levels lower than the PCs, almost certainly not a DMPC.

They act like the DM's character. They may be his PC from another game. They may be much stronger than PCs. The gods/plot may shield them from adverse effects. They may be called a mary sue/marty stu if they are an idealized version of who the DM wishes he was.

They may get long cutscenes where they resolve major problems with the power of their awesomeness.

An NPC who gives the party jobs is not usually a DMPC, unless he travels with them. A good fictional example is Fisban in War of the lance, an unkillable greater god who decides to wander around with our heroes, or Gandalf, another unkillable god who wanders around with a much weaker party, feeding them information and rescuing them as needed.

As DM of the Rings teaches us, Gandalf is a good example of what not to do with an NPC. But for the sake of fun and the 3.5 power curve, I don't think I would call Gandalf a DMPC. Not counting the Hobbits, lets assume the party is around level 11-14.

One Human Fighter. One Human Fighter with one level in Ranger. One Dwarven Fighter possibly with a couple Barbarian levels. One Elven Ranger. One single-classed Wizard.

The level of power Gandalf has above the rest of the party at those levels seems pretty consistent with the level of power a well built wizard would have compared to mostly fighters.

Delcan
2011-08-05, 09:49 PM
Short Answer:

Gandalf? No.

Nodwick? Yes.

Thread over. :smallbiggrin:

One partial trick with DMPCs is to make a character that doesn't overshadow the party, but doesn't become a weight to drag around. They need to be helpful without being aggravating.

One DM I ran under had a stock DMPC to be used when the party needed a particular niche filled: Generic the Cleric, a pacifist monk with a vow of silence and a general mandate to be helpful to an adventuring party. He did nothing but heal, and didn't offer anything to the situation other than that. That's the bare minimum for a DMPC, and it generally ends up feeling slightly contrived. (Which is the other problem - if you have to hang a lampshade on your DMPC, it's not going to work so well.)

But really, the key to a DMPC is pretty simple: do the players like them? If they do, they're going to have a lot of fun with them, and probably even start sponsoring the DMPC to have their own moments of awesome. If the DMPC isn't liked, though, then nothing they do will ever entertain.

One of the best places to put a DMPC is in a support situation that no other character will fill - basically a mostly-NPC, part-time party member. For example, if the party's acquired an airship, everyone might want to be the pilot - but there's room in the roster for an engineer/artificer. She might show up every once in a while (especially when something breaks) and might contribute in a vital way during a nasty combat situation just keeping the ship afloat. In this way she might earn kudos from the players (and PCs) by appearing to give them boosts and bonuses where no PC can, just by keeping things on their side.

Ultimately, DMPCs are a touchy subject, and very hit and miss. Best of luck, and don't hesitate to abandon the idea if it proves not to work.

SowZ
2011-08-05, 10:02 PM
Thread over. :smallbiggrin:

One partial trick with DMPCs is to make a character that doesn't overshadow the party, but doesn't become a weight to drag around. They need to be helpful without being aggravating.

One DM I ran under had a stock DMPC to be used when the party needed a particular niche filled: Generic the Cleric, a pacifist monk with a vow of silence and a general mandate to be helpful to an adventuring party. He did nothing but heal, and didn't offer anything to the situation other than that. That's the bare minimum for a DMPC, and it generally ends up feeling slightly contrived. (Which is the other problem - if you have to hang a lampshade on your DMPC, it's not going to work so well.)

But really, the key to a DMPC is pretty simple: do the players like them? If they do, they're going to have a lot of fun with them, and probably even start sponsoring the DMPC to have their own moments of awesome. If the DMPC isn't liked, though, then nothing they do will ever entertain.

One of the best places to put a DMPC is in a support situation that no other character will fill - basically a mostly-NPC, part-time party member. For example, if the party's acquired an airship, everyone might want to be the pilot - but there's room in the roster for an engineer/artificer. She might show up every once in a while (especially when something breaks) and might contribute in a vital way during a nasty combat situation just keeping the ship afloat. In this way she might earn kudos from the players (and PCs) by appearing to give them boosts and bonuses where no PC can, just by keeping things on their side.

Ultimately, DMPCs are a touchy subject, and very hit and miss. Best of luck, and don't hesitate to abandon the idea if it proves not to work.

I had a DM run what seemed like a DMPC but... I think he had ulterior motives. (Also he only ever helped us in two combat encounters.) It was a monk that became my Drow raised, (essentialy halfling,) sorcerers morality pet. I would ride on his shoulders and such. He was the only thing keeping me from running from the party, (my character just didn't care about ending the 'Baraduk' threat.) But, once my character became somewhat sympathetic due to his connection with the monk, the dude was killed off. My character felt grief for someone's death for the first time in decades. To honor his memory, I swore to fulfill his duty for him and stick with the party.

I wonder if the whole thing was a plan devised by the DM to get my character on the same page as everyone else... Except he didn't encourage my mage to 'adopt' the monk or make the vow or if he did I didn't notice it... I don't know. It was dang good manipulation if it was planned.

big teej
2011-08-05, 11:20 PM
I've run a DMPC before (several at a time in fact) and player reactions ranged from "meh" to absolutely loving the character.

the "meh" reactions typically stemmed from "unfortunatly required" DMPCs

for instance, we've had a few sessions where we were .... tragically short of muscle within the party.

I allowed the party to pick from a few NPCs to help them. the characters were needed to avoid TPKs and what not, but were only present when actual party members could not be.


on the other end of the spectrum, we have Jim. the warforged.

Jim was acquired by the party by solving a puzzle, they were allowed to name him.
Jim is a warforged spear-fighter. who's (accidental) catch phrase is stabbing people repeatedly with a spear whilst repeatin "jim-jimmy-jim-jim-jimmy-jimmy-jim-jim-jim-jim-jimmy jim jim jim jimmy jim jim jim"

Jim is also under the control of the party rogue. the rogue would give me/jim orders, and Jim would follow them to the letter.
much hilarity ensued.

Serpentine
2011-08-06, 03:54 AM
Really? You don't know where the traps in your dungeon are? You don't know the vulnerabilities or immunities of the monsters you are running? How odd.I do. My DMPC does not. If anything, I tend to overcompensate and end up with a character more ignorant than she should be.

No, the act of NOT playing in the same game that you are running is not a potential minefield of problems.Running a game at all is a potential minefield of problems.

They may be his PC from another game. They may be much stronger than PCs. The gods/plot may shield them from adverse effects. They may be called a mary sue/marty stu if they are an idealized version of who the DM wishes he was.They may also be a character custom-made to fit in with the current group. They may be of comparable or lower power level to the PCs. The gods/plot may no more shield them from adverse effects than they do any other character, or may in fact do so less. They may be no more, or less, mary sue/marty stuish than any other non-DMPC character, and/or have no risk of being accused of it.

They may get long cutscenes where they resolve major problems with the power of their awesomeness.They may have little or no role in any cutscenes, or be entertaining support in the cutscenes of others, and help others to demonstrate the power of their awesomeness.

An NPC who gives the party jobs is not usually a DMPC, unless he travels with them. A good fictional example is Fisban in War of the lance, an unkillable greater god who decides to wander around with our heroes, or Gandalf, another unkillable god who wanders around with a much weaker party, feeding them information and rescuing them as needed.Another good example might be... any supporting character in any book or movie ever. Neal in Tamora Pierce's Protector of the Small, say, or Fezzik in The Princess Bride, or Chewbacca in Star Wars.

Gnaeus
2011-08-06, 02:16 PM
I do. My DMPC does not. If anything, I tend to overcompensate and end up with a character more ignorant than she should be.

Better than the other extreme, but still not good. You just admitted that the DMPC cannot be played without being tainted by DM metaknowledge. Making characters that have to be played stupid to avoid using DM knowledge does NOT help suspension of disbelief in a game.


Running a game at all is a potential minefield of problems.

A good reason not to make the problem worse by inserting additional problems into the game.



They may be no more, or less, mary sue/marty stuish than any other DMPC character, and/or have no risk of being accused of it.

Yes, DMPCs may, as you say, be no more, or less, mary sue/marty stuish than any other DMPC. But they are always worse than PCs or NPCs which do not act as the DM's PC.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-06, 04:24 PM
Yes, DMPCs may, as you say, be no more, or less, mary sue/marty stuish than any other DMPC. But they are always worse than PCs or NPCs which do not act as the DM's PC.

Wrong. I played at least one game with a DMPC, as opposed to just an NPC travelling with the group, and that character wasn't disrupting to me or the other players at all. If you've never seen a DMPC done well, then you just haven't played with a DM who's good at it.

Big Fau
2011-08-06, 04:55 PM
My DMPCs provide the party with alternatives to roles they are lacking, or provide a means to overcome WBL problems or poor stat rolls. I've had an Artificer that tagged along for the sole purpose of converting useless random items into useful equipment, for example (he doubled as a trapfinder, but I rarely use traps because I don't like stating them out and dislike premade ones). He never counted towards the party's headcount for XP or Treasure, effectively little more than a class feature I gave everyone.

In combat, my DMPCs provide minor support or draw fire (a Knight or a Warblade, for example). I set up flanking situations with the PCs, or have my DMPCs draw a stray AoO to provide tactical advantages for the other PCs.

Story-wise, my DPMCs sometimes provide sidequest plot-hooks if the PCs look bored (the hooks are never related to the DMPCs). They never provide information for the main story unless the party asks me to do otherwise (and even then, I usually don't).


Otherwise, I play them like someone else was DMing and they were my PC. My DMPCs never get abilities or items that the party couldn't also recieve or craft themselves.

dps
2011-08-06, 05:51 PM
In general, DMPCs are a bad idea IMO. There's simply too much potential for them overshadowing the party and/or becoming the focus of the campaign, or maybe worse, the players thinking that that's the case. And if they aren't overshadowing the party, they're more-or-less just another NPC.

Serpentine
2011-08-07, 12:54 AM
Better than the other extreme, but still not good. You just admitted that the DMPC cannot be played without being tainted by DM metaknowledge. Making characters that have to be played stupid to avoid using DM knowledge does NOT help suspension of disbelief in a game.No. I said "If anything, I tend to" not "I definitely always". And she's not played stupid, I just tend to err on the side of caution if it comes up. Seriously, if you're saying "if it's not done absolutely perfectly every single time in every single way in absolutely every situation then it's completely terrible", then I would suggest you have outrageously unreasonable expectations on your DMs.

A good reason not to make the problem worse by inserting additional problems into the game.It's not an "additional problem", it's an "additional potential problem", and every single element you choose to involve in your game is an "additional potential problem".

Yes, DMPCs may, as you say, be no more, or less, mary sue/marty stuish than any other DMPC. But they are always worse than PCs or NPCs which do not act as the DM's PC.You are mistaken, they are not "always worse" than PCs or NPCs.
The "than any other DMPC character" was a typo, I meant "than any other player character". I'll go fix that now.

flumphy
2011-08-07, 01:46 AM
I see attempting to run a DMPC as kind of like jumping half a dozen flaming cars with a motorcycle. It can be glorious if you pull it off, but unless you really know what you're doing you're likely to crash and burn.

Very few people are saying it can't be done. Just that attempting it isn't usually wise, especially when it's not out of necessity. Just because you've had good experiences doesn't mean the OP should go all Evel Knievel.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-08-07, 01:59 AM
Better than the other extreme, but still not good. You just admitted that the DMPC cannot be played without being tainted by DM metaknowledge. Making characters that have to be played stupid to avoid using DM knowledge does NOT help suspension of disbelief in a game.

Remove "DMPC" and replace with "PC". Remove "DM (meta)knowledge" and replace with "player (meta)knowledge". Not terribly compelling.

Actually, I've done a little blogging (http://playerside.blogspot.com/2011/07/dmpc-question.html) about this question, based on my own experience. What I've found is that the DMPC I've played worked, based on a few things.

One, he was never forced into the party. In fact, the RP group voluntarily chose him to keep around, because of his romantic connection to one of the characters, something which he had to work for. Heavily. He came under heavy suspicion about halfway through the game, about when he joined up with the group, and then things got all muddled up with his lover, from which point they had to get patched up.

Two, he's actually not on par with the characters in some respects. Physically, he got trounced in a fistfight. He turned into a punching bag for a little while. And he hasn't proven to be much more powerful than the others, at all.

Three, he ties in another area of storyline that engages the players, which they'll be moving into soon. But he's not giving them quests. He's giving them an opportunity to get into this area, period.

According to my group, it's working. And though I've made sure to keep him hanging back somewhat, he's been rather rewarding to play. And he's had a couple really, really memorable scenes, as well as providing a pretty hefty catalyst at times. But he hasn't denied the same of other characters, which is key.

Serpentine
2011-08-07, 01:59 AM
Nor does the fact you've had bad experiences mean motorcycles are the Devil.

I would point out that far more people are saying it can't or shouldn't be done than are saying it always can or should be. All we're saying is, it can be done with care, and these are some things you should watch out for and/or that you can do to make it more likely to work.

GAThraawn
2011-08-07, 04:00 AM
Nor does the fact you've had bad experiences mean motorcycles are the Devil.

I would point out that far more people are saying it can't or shouldn't be done than are saying it always can or should be. All we're saying is, it can be done with care, and these are some things you should watch out for and/or that you can do to make it more likely to work.

We've done this merry dance how many times before now? Threads like this always have two sides:

One side has had bad experiences, and discourages anyone from every playing a DMPC, because it either could or will go wrong

The other side has had good experiences, and suggests that DMPC's can be an asset, if played correctly.


So, in summary, if you play your DMPC badly, the experience will be a negative one, and if you play your DMPC well, the experience will be a positive one.

Refer above for an extensive list of suggestions for things to include or avoid with a DMPC. For further reading, consider every other thread on this exact same subject ever.

/thread.

Serpentine
2011-08-07, 04:13 AM
/thread.I admire your optimism.

TsugaruRage
2011-08-07, 06:33 AM
DMPCs are by definition impossible to do right because you can't DM and be a player at the same time. If you want to do that you might as well be playing with yourself.


If you want to do that you might as well be playing with yourself.


might as well be playing with yourself.

playing with yourself

LOL


That said, When I want to try out a class, I usally just create an enemy mook with that class. It's a great way to try new stuff out while diversifying the opponents and giving your players more stuff to kill.

As for small parties, I usally prefer to let my PCs play other characters through feats. Leadership or an Animal companion can greatly tip the balance.
Right now, I'm DMing for a party that has three PCs. There is the Bard and his Changecat companion, a Wizard and a Barbarian. So far, they've been doing great.

Drachasor
2011-08-07, 06:59 AM
I've had success twice with Squeeg, the Kobold with low self-esteem. In my experience in general, if you are going to have an NPC go around with the party, you need to make them notably less effective than any individual party member. It also helps if they have a funny voice (and/or are funny in general). That doesn't mean ineffective, mind you.

Imho, they should just be there to provide some color to the setting, but the heroics and looking awesome should be left to the players.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-07, 01:02 PM
Short Answer:

Gandalf? No.

Nodwick? Yes.

Hirelings are a fantastic thing. They have a very different arrangement with the party than the steriotypical DMPC, though. Power? Meh, not so much. In any area, really. They don't really exist for the purpose of the DM getting to play too(btw, this is generally a bad solution to the problem of wanting to play. I suggest instead arranging for taking turns DMing or the like) Perhaps most importantly, the party can ditch them at will, or tell them what to do.

I don't add DMPCs to parties, but if the players opt to hire folks, they certainly can.

Ideally, hirelings that don't participate in combat at all are best, when possible. One less character to keep track of. The DM is already the most active person in any given combat, so adding a DMPC for them to track tends to skew the spotlight time more.

If your goal is to play with a class, build an npc or three with it. It's fun, you get to test out different ideas, and if one of them doesn't work out well in practice...oh well. Just an NPC.

Gnaeus
2011-08-08, 10:26 AM
Wrong. I played at least one game with a DMPC, as opposed to just an NPC travelling with the group, and that character wasn't disrupting to me or the other players at all. If you've never seen a DMPC done well, then you just haven't played with a DM who's good at it.

False. I have seen DMPCs played responsibly who functioned well in their games for months/years. Then something changed in the dynamic (like a party conflict emerged which had not previously been there, or someone's personal feelings toward the DM or DM's significant other changed, or a situation emerged in game or a rules call was made which favored the DMPC over player X) and then the rapid spiral into game disintegration, allegations of misconduct, sometimes ruined friendships.

It does NOT require DM error for a DMPC to cause major, major problems. The perception of misconduct can be just as harmful as actual misconduct.

I believe you that you had a campaign where a DMPC was used successfully and responsibly through the entire campaign. I also believe that in that same campaign, if it had run another year, that same DMPC, still played responsibly, could have caused major problems for your group. I have seen it happen too many times with DMs that were doing the best they could.

To put it a different way, if I walk into a D&D game and see a DMPC, I regard it as a mistake on the part of the DM. Everyone makes mistakes. I make mistakes when I DM or play. When I read through his houserules, I will probably find things I think are mistakes in them also, I generally do. I would probably encourage him to dump the DMPC, but I wouldn't stand up and leave the game, or try to murder the DMPC in its sleep (as other posters in other threads have suggested). I wouldn't see it as somehow making him a bad DM, although I would view it as a bad idea.

Somebloke
2011-08-08, 10:44 AM
Basically? Make it all about the characters, even when you have your own.

1) Ensure that they compliment the character's abilities. If you're running 4e, that means play them as a leader class, or low-damage dealing controller. A long-running character in one of my games (essentially a swashbuckling fantasy version of Journey to the West, with a Princess playing the role of Tripitaka) I cut out the character from combat altogether and created a sort of 'DMPC Hand'- a series of cards the players could invoke during combat to simulate her aid.

2) Ensure that their personality complements the party's. Comic relief, only straight man...the idea is to use them to enhance the party's gaming experience and highlight their character traits, rather than stealing the spotlight. Do a reverse Bechdel test, where your DMPC mostly talks about plot points and the other characters. If they do have spotlight time, use it to highlight interesting things in the world, rather than themselves.

3) Finally, avoid giving them any authority, and where they do have authority, make sure that they only command what the players already want to do. I was very blatant about this last point in my previous game- I would have the princess make important political decisions behind closed doors that would affect the entire campaign and force the characters down a particular path...based on votes for the players.

Lysander
2011-08-08, 10:48 AM
I think the important thing is not to think of them as DMPCs but as supporting characters. A good supporting character in D&D is the same as a good supporting character in a film.

Take Indiana Jones for instance. He often turns to Sallah for help. Sallah is a funny, interesting, competent, and helpful character. But he's not the hero. If Sallah suddenly took over, beat the Nazis and recovered the artifact while Indy just looked on the movie would be very unsatisfying.

As an example, in the Last Crusade Indy needs to rescue his father and Marcus Brody (another good supporting character) from the inside of a tank. While Indy battles the Nazis, Sallah is off watching over their horses and camels. A good idea is if you have a DMPC, give them something else important to do during fight scenes. Another important thing to note about supporting characters is that they're not in the entire movie. They probably shouldn't be a permanent part of the party.

In my opinion DMPCs should fall into one of these categories:

1) The Coordinator - A helpful character who handles logistics and acts as a guide. They're only there to streamline the plot so the characters don't need to ask random NPCs on the street which inn to stay at. The coordinator already arranged things. Sometimes the coordinator might be working for the PCs, other times the PCs may be working for the coordinator.

2) Professor Exposition - They're only there to provide in depth knowledge about the situation, and process information the team recovers. They're the weak flimsy sometimes academic character that translates the ancient inscription on the temple wall if none of your characters can read Ancient Tongue.

3) Mr. Niche - A character who is very good at just one thing, to either fill in for a deficiency of the group or acts as a human MacGuffin. If your group lacks a healer add a priest who can barely fight. If your group is going on a bank heist, they might have to protect and escort the world's greatest lockpicker.

4) The Servant - This character is only there because a PC wants them there. He's either a class feature or a hireling, but he should be far weaker than the party and subservient to them.

5) The Independent - He's equal or greater to the party in power, but his agenda only partially aligns with the PCs. He may be working with the party for now, but either they can't fully trust him or they may trust him but know he'll only help up to a point. He could be an enemy that put aside his differences to fight a mutual foe, or just someone with their own business to take care of who's only helping the party in a very limited way. Use this DMPC with caution, because he might just seem like a powerful jerk that's outshining the characters.

6) Promoted Extra - If your PCs are in a campaign where they spend time with lots of NPCs, for example if they're commanders in a war leading an army, you might want to give minor characters some development and screentime to flesh out the world. You might describe what the character is doing during a battle, even if no dice are rolled and it's not really relevant what happens. The battle might be determined by whether or not the PCs can defeat the wraith king leading the enemy army, but you can still spare a sentence to mention how lovable Krog the one-eyed orc who is learning how to knit despite being a fearsome warrior decapitates two zombies by beating them with a stale loaf of bread.

7) Gandalf - Any allied NPC far more powerful than any one of the PCs, often a mentor. Find a way to keep him separate from the rest of the party as much as possible. Maybe he's busy casting a spell and they have to protect him. Maybe he ends up captured and the PCs have to rescue him. Maybe he travels with them just to the edge of Mirkwood forest, then has to go off and do something somewhere else that he won't tell anyone else about.

8) Ingeneu - A defenseless character the party is tasked with protecting or rescuing. The helpless princess (or prince) with no obviously useful skills is a good example. They're still characters though, not props, and they can still act rationally and try to help.

These character tropes often can overlap, and sometimes will shift from situation to the situation. It's totally possible for one person to fill several of these roles, or to change as they evolve and learn new skills.

SleepyShadow
2011-08-08, 11:18 AM
I'm afraid to even get involved in another thread like this. Last DMPC thread that floated around imploded in on itself. There was a lot of bickering because of stuff like this:

1) DMPCs always ruin the campaign.

2) If it is not ruining the campaign, it ceases to be a DMPC and becomes an NPC.

3) There is no such thing as a true DMPC.

4) DMPCs are liken unto sushi.

With that said, here's my advice: If the players feel the need/want for another party member, then let them have it. If they do not want it around, then do not force it upon them.

Eric Tolle
2011-08-10, 02:28 PM
I'm seeing a lot of confusion over what a DMPC is, since a lot of people are describing NPCs as DMPCs. To me the single distinguishing feature of a DMPC is this:

If the GM was playing the game instead of running it, would he be playing this character?

A henchman isn't a GMPC, nor is a support NPC, or an employer or a romantic interest. A GMPC is regarded by the GM as his character in the game, and is treated with the same jealous sense of propriety as any player does his own PC. When you combine that with the power the GM has, then that PC has an advantage no player character can match.

So bottom line: if the character is intended to support the PCs, help them look awesome, and make them the center of the story, then that's a standard NPC; if it's intended to be awesome on it's own and could well be the center of the story without the PCs, then it's a GMPC.

Serpentine
2011-08-10, 11:04 PM
I completely disagree, and my reason pretty much comes down to the fact that your assumptions about the way people play their PCs are not universal. I don't play my characters to be awesome and to carry the story on their own, and my characters can be support or a romantic interest or even, given the right circumstances, an employer (albeit one who goes along for the job).

I'm leery of your use of the word "jealous", but overall I agree with your broad definition of a GMPC as "his character in the game, ... treated with the same jealous sense of propriety as any player does his own PC". I just strongly disagree with the assumptions you make about what this means.

WildPyre
2011-08-11, 12:43 AM
Since I have a small group of friends I play with, we almost always have a "DMPC" to round out the party and aside from one instance of bad judgement on one of the other DM's part we haven't come to have any problems with them.


The ONE time we had a problem was where we were all given a very specific set up for where our characters were from and the DMPC was not only from outside of the small town that we had never left, but was from another dimension and time period, with super awesome plot cure powers. Did it ruin the game? Not at all, we still had a lot of fun, but the DMPC getting to be all super awesome extradimensional while we were from "Can't go outside the wall-City" rubbed us wrong.

The current game I'm running has 2 players, a monk and a sorcerer and the DMPC is a rogue. The rogue is a lush, a letch and general hedonist that gets easily distracted and needs the PCs to keep them focused. They also dual wield rapiers, so their battle effectiveness is less than optimal while looking badass. She acts as tour guide in the big high magic city the players are visiting and good at offering information and exposition about certain people while not being too over bearing. They met her in an alley waiting for a bakery open so she could take the same job they wanted and it was their choice to bring her along. She was down on her luck and they took pity on her.


CAN a DMPC go bad? Oh yes most certainly.

Does that mean ALL DMPCs will go badly? No, that's a generalization and an unprovable absolute.

It's like saying that because your X-Box 360 had the red ring of death, and you've heard stories of other people getting the red ring of death on their X-Box 360's then ALL X-Box 360's will get a red ring of death.

Or that you don't like chocolate pudding and neither do your friends, so chocolate pudding should be banned.

Well I'm sitting here happily playing my X-Box 360 and enjoying a bowl of chocolate pudding. You're welcome to switch to a PS3 and tapioca.

Kaun
2011-08-12, 12:23 AM
I have run a couple of DMPCs over the years and generally only because they were an NPC that the players were always involving in what they were doing anyway, so they end up getting as much info and detail about them as a PC simply due to their involvement in the game.

I don’t think I have ever introduced a DMPC into the game forcefully against the players will. But hell im not sure what the difference between a DMPC and an NPC really is.

From most threads it seems that a DMPC is a label attached to an NPC that spends a lot of time with the PC’s with out trying to kill them that the players don’t like.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-12, 04:12 AM
Well, there's a vast difference between a DMPC and an NPC who happens to be around the PCs.

I try to avoid the former, but mook backup for the PCs is fairly easy to get, and they do have a patron.

Gnaeus
2011-08-12, 06:55 AM
CAN a DMPC go bad? Oh yes most certainly.

Does that mean ALL DMPCs will go badly? No, that's a generalization and an unprovable absolute.

That is a generalization of our argument as well. All DMPCs WILL go badly /= all DMPCS could easily go badly.


It's like saying that because your X-Box 360 had the red ring of death, and you've heard stories of other people getting the red ring of death on their X-Box 360's then ALL X-Box 360's will get a red ring of death.

I reject your analogy and replace it with my own. It is like saying that because your computer got a disease from adult sites, and you've met and heard stories of other peoples computers getting diseases from adult sites, that all people who visit adult sites run the risk of getting a virus, and that the level of that risk varies by how irresponsible or responsible their behavior is while engaging in that activity. But because the risk involves the behavior of other people who aren't you, it cannot be eliminated while still practicing that activity.

Serpentine
2011-08-12, 06:58 AM
I reject your analogy and replace it with my own. It is like saying that because you got a disease from unprotected intercourse, and you've met and heard stories of other people getting diseases from unprotected intercourse, that all people who practice unprotected intercourse run the risk of getting a disease, and that the level of that risk varies by how irresponsible or responsible their behavior is while engaging in that activity. But because the risk involves the behavior of other people who aren't you, it cannot be eliminated while still practicing that activity. Of course, most intercourse is a lot more fun than running a DMPC, but YMMV.That analogy is both offensive and inaccurate. I suggest you withdraw it.

Gnaeus
2011-08-12, 07:11 AM
That analogy is both offensive and inaccurate. I suggest you withdraw it.

That analogy is not explicit, and is therefore within forum rules. It is also as accurate as anything which has been said in this thread. Since it offends you, however, I will modify.

Serpentine
2011-08-12, 07:18 AM
You got a disease from an adult site? That's a worry :smallconfused:

(might wanna finish your modification :smallwink:)

All in all, I don't mind your new version. After all, just because some adult sites are dodgy doesn't mean that we need to ban porn from the internet. Many are perfectly legitimate and safe, and careful browsing will keep you perfectly safe. You just need to know what you're doing - and believe it or not, some people do.
Sure, it's risky, and no, it's not to everyone's taste, but that doesn't mean it should never be tried if one enjoys it. It just needs to be done so with full awareness of the potential dangers and how to avoid them.

WildPyre
2011-08-12, 07:39 AM
That is a generalization of our argument as well. All DMPCs WILL go badly /= all DMPCS could easily go badly.

By the same right the exact same thing could be said about having players, using dice, running 3.5, running AD&D, running 4th ed, ordering pizza, or getting out of bed in the morning... arguing that something could possibly go wrong is futile.


I reject your analogy and replace it with my own. It is like saying that because your computer got a disease from adult sites, and you've met and heard stories of other peoples computers getting diseases from adult sites, that all people who visit adult sites run the risk of getting a virus, and that the level of that risk varies by how irresponsible or responsible their behavior is while engaging in that activity. But because the risk involves the behavior of other people who aren't you, it cannot be eliminated while still practicing that activity.

Good analogy and you're welcome to use it. I however find it a bit wordy and will continue to enjoy my chocolate pudding and X-Box 360.

Kaervaslol
2011-08-12, 07:44 AM
Hirelings exist to carry torches, loot and shooting them in the knee when fleeing for a powerful zombie horde.

Lappy9000
2011-08-12, 07:56 AM
I drop in cohorts (or perhaps more appropriately, the chance for the party to acquire cohorts) pretty frequently. I use the term 'cohort' because they are above hirelings, but below DmNPC's. However, I use a few guidelines:

1) Cohorts help the party: A cohort's primary function in combat should to assist the party by buffing, healing, defending, assisting, otherwise helping out members in danger, or even just carrying stuff. They're not focused around dealing damage, and never kill steal if it can be helped (taking out the enemy harassing the glass cannon mage is totally justified, however)

2) Cohorts are optional: While fun, a cohort is not a totally necessary addition. They can be ditched at any opportunity if the players choose to, but I go great lengths to make them helpful enough, charming enough, or just outright useful enough that the party wants them around.

3) Give cohorts a rest: An extension of them being optional, cohorts shouldn't be around all the time. Maybe they have plot obligations to an outside source, or just hang around/guard the party's base. Regardless, they shouldn't overstay their welcome unless the party wants them around all the time.

I've done this pretty successfully a couple of times. The first was the party's most persistent nemesis-turned temporary ally. She could dish out the damage because the party lacked a tank at the time. The second was also a former villain, a fallen paladin who took over healing duties when the party lost access to a consistent healer. The third is a failed paladin slacker-turned factotum who guards the party's armada of carts while brewing potions and preparing lunches for their missions (he also has all the knowledge skills that the party lacks). The fourth was a dubious reforged bard whose sheer level of disdainful jerkassery was audacious enough that the party actually started to respect him.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-12, 08:29 AM
Yeah, a lot of this is about motivations.

If your motivation is "I want to be the center of attention"...bad, no, stop.

If it's "I want to play too"...that's a reasonable motivation, but there are better ways to approach that than a DMPC.

If it's "the players want to hire on this NPC they've been chatting with", rock on. I would not define this as a DMPC, but let's not get into the definition fight. That ones pretty tired. Long story short, if the reason for the DMPC is all about you, don't do it.

Ekul
2011-08-12, 11:55 AM
My GM took a bit of inspiration from Mass Effect 2 and added squadmates, and we can only bring one with us at a time. I am the party leader Artificer, the other player is a Half-Celestial Grey Guard. Our squadmates are a non-magical ranger, a Frenzied Berserker Orc with an absolutely ridiculous (Read: 40+ without even raging) strength and a Duskblade that's inspired by one of my old characters. They never force the plot in a direction, merely chip in when they want the group to do something for them and often add a lot to the story.

Do they count as DMPCs? Probably not. None hog treasure, and while they do knock XP off of our encounters, we usually go through some pretty tough stuff and level anyway. However, it's still a way for the DM to play the game without disrupting the fun of the other players.

Kaun
2011-08-12, 10:53 PM
Do they count as DMPCs? .

Yeah the rule of thumb seems to be if the players enjoy having them there they dont get the dreaded DMPC title!.:smalltongue:

Balain
2011-08-13, 01:22 AM
Makes me think of the current campaign we have going.

To start I made a druid and Barbarian. They were lovers and friends to the mayor of this town. Town is under attack so mayor asks some of the party to go find the npc while the rest work on defending the town.

The druid and barbarian join the party for a bit.


Then later on A bard joins as the druid and barbarian leave. I have a role I want the bard to play and figure in the far future he will be gone.

They party plays some more and they rescue a goblin being held prisoner by other goblins. The Paladin stat rewarding the goblin as it does good acts and eventually they arm the goblin with magical items. Now the goblin is party of the party and levels up a bit when they do. The goblin has actually now grown very fond of most of the party. The fellow playering the wizard keeps making jokes in character about killing the goblin so the goblins is ot so fond of him.


So the far future comes and I have a brilliant plan that needs the bard to go away and a new NPC join the party for a bit. So they help out the new NPC on the first quest with him. I figure in this one big fight I can kill the bard off. His hated racial enemy is there so they go toe to toe.

I hadn't counted on the party growing so attached to the bard that they risk there own lives ignoring the other foes beating on them to save the bard.

So now I have a goblin they picked up as an npc, a bard I can't just have him leave and can't kill him off in a fight and this new npc....


Well at least the party is starting to realize the xp and treasure aren't going as far as it use to lol

Cerlis
2011-08-13, 06:26 AM
How can a DMPC cause problems a DM or a PC cant?

talks about DMs valuing the DMPC as "their character"...... players do that all the time. DMs using the DMPC to police the players or one up them....Bad DMs do that all the time without NPCs, they do it with bosses, traps, and encounters.



The DMPC can be a problem, but i dont see how it can be anymore of a problem than anything else.


By the same right the exact same thing could be said about having players, using dice, running 3.5, running AD&D, running 4th ed, ordering pizza, or getting out of bed in the morning... arguing that something could possibly go wrong is futile.

exactly, and so this thread shouldnt exist. though it sounds like you are suggesting that since an argument that "DMPCs arent the problem, since anything can be a problem" completely counteracts the argument that its invalid. or in other words "you disagree with me, so you are wrong"

Serpentine
2011-08-13, 07:12 AM
exactly, and so this thread shouldnt exist.I wouldn't say that. After all, DMPCs can be tricky to get right. It's a good idea to seek advice about it.

Cerlis
2011-08-13, 07:16 AM
I wouldn't say that. After all, DMPCs can be tricky to get right. It's a good idea to seek advice about it.

ah, right, I suppose i meant "What i think this thread is turning into", which seems to be a buncha people talking about how DMPCs are ALWAYS bad and could never POSSIBLY be not bad, shouldnt exist. since if thats the assumption, any instance of saying anything resembling All DMPCs not being bad will just be disregarded.

Simular to people complaining about how when they make "help my monk" threads and get "be a swordsage" answer. This is a "Make DMPCs work" thread, so for a minute even those who firmly believe they could never work, for sake of the thread, should pretend they can and help brainstorm tips.

Serpentine
2011-08-13, 07:18 AM
Hey, compared with discussions on this topic in the past, this is downright reasonable and full of compromise :smallwink:

Gnaeus
2011-08-13, 07:53 AM
ah, right, I suppose i meant "What i think this thread is turning into", which seems to be a buncha people talking about how DMPCs are ALWAYS bad and could never POSSIBLY be not bad, shouldnt exist. since if thats the assumption, any instance of saying anything resembling All DMPCs not being bad will just be disregarded.

Simular to people complaining about how when they make "help my monk" threads and get "be a swordsage" answer. This is a "Make DMPCs work" thread, so for a minute even those who firmly believe they could never work, for sake of the thread, should pretend they can and help brainstorm tips.


So I've been toying with the idea of adding a DMPC to the campaign I'm going to run (Reeeeeeally wanna try out the new Gunslinger class for Pathfinder), but I hear a lot of people not speak kindly of DMPCs. Should I scrap the idea or is there a way to run one without it being crap or annoying or just made of fail?


It looks to me like OP asked
Should I scrap the idea or is there a way to run one without it being crap or annoying or just made of fail?. Given that original question, I think that an answer like "You should scrap it, they are made of fail" is EXACTLY on topic.

Jay R
2011-08-13, 08:39 AM
How can a DMPC cause problems a DM or a PC cant?

talks about DMs valuing the DMPC as "their character"...... players do that all the time. DMs using the DMPC to police the players or one up them....Bad DMs do that all the time without NPCs, they do it with bosses, traps, and encounters.

The DMPC can be a problem, but i dont see how it can be anymore of a problem than anything else.

A valid question, which deserves a straightforward answer:

A PC is a unique character, recognized by the play as "his own", through which he identifies himself as part of this world, and through whose actions and perceptions he learns about this world he is exploring. He will have more emotion invested in this character than any in the games, and will do anything he can to keep it alive, using its abilities and his own limited knowledge of the world.

An NPC is one of many characters run by the DM, fairly and unemotionally, through which she allows the players to learn about the world they are exploring. She will have no emotional investment in any of them, and will simply do her best to use them as tools to provide a challenging and fair experience for the players, using her complete knowledge of the world they're in.

A DMPC represents a DM with an unfairly high emotional investment in one character, and a player with unfair knowledge of the world. As a DM, you can't provide a world for your own character to learn about by exploring. As a player, you cannot fairly try to keep the DMPC alive, using all of its abilities and your knowledge of the world.

Have you ever, in any game, seen a situation in which the DM had to make a ruling about a rule or a situation that the player flat disagreed with, or seen a player try something the the DM ruled had no chance to succeed? This can happen to the PCs, but not to the DMPC. Therefore the playing field isn't even. Even with a completely fair DM, the fact that the DMPC always "sees" the exact same situation that the DM does, and the PCs don't, makes the situation inherently unfair.

It may feel like you're playing the game, but you aren't. You aren't using all your knowledge and abilities to solve puzzles and learn about the world. The one person who can't play in the baseball game is the umpire, and for the same reasons, the one person who can't play in the D&D game is the DM.

Serpentine
2011-08-13, 08:52 AM
A DMPC represents a DM with an unfairly high emotional investment in one character, and a player with unfair knowledge of the world. As a DM, you can't provide a world for your own character to learn about by exploring. As a player, you cannot fairly try to keep the DMPC alive, using all of its abilities and your knowledge of the world.Always so many loaded words... This is one of the better ones, but still so loaded.

Have you ever, in any game, seen a situation in which the DM had to make a ruling about a rule or a situation that the player flat disagreed with, or seen a player try something the the DM ruled had no chance to succeed? This can happen to the PCs, but not to the DMPC.Sure it can. Most of the time, if I'm uncertain about whether or how to allow something, I'll ask for input from my players. That goes for stuff to do with my DMPC, too. I also tend to be more conservative and less creative with my DMPC than I encourage my players to be - that's one of the reasons I chose a Lawful Good dwarven Knight as my DMPC.
My rule is: I don't allow anything for my DMPC that I wouldn't allow for a player. In fact, a lot of the time I think my players have a better chance of convincing me to include something than I do of convincing myself.

It really would be nice to see some of the anti-DMPC people put forward their arguments without all the loaded language...

Gnaeus
2011-08-13, 09:25 AM
Always so many loaded words... This is one of the better ones, but still so loaded..

It isn't biased to state the truth. A DM playing a PC, like an umpire playing for one side in a baseball game, has an unfair advantage in power. He may or may not abuse that unfair power, but he has it. And every time he makes a call, the question of whether he was consciously or unconsciously biased by his position on one side hangs in the air. You can address it. You can try to play in such a way that it isn't an issue. But it never goes away.

That feeling, that calling a DMPC unfair is a loaded term, is itself proof of why DMPCs are bad. Biased. Unfair. Cheating. These are exactly the kinds of accusations that get leveled at DMPCs and the DMs who use them. If it hurts your feelings for these words to get used, then don't put yourself in a position where other people, rightly or wrongly, may feel that way.

Serpentine
2011-08-13, 09:58 AM
Oh, please. My annoyance at having unjust accusations levelled at me "proves" that they're true? Nonsense.

Gnaeus
2011-08-13, 10:02 AM
Oh, please. My annoyance at having unjust accusations levelled at me "proves" that they're true? Nonsense.

No. Your annoyance at having unjust accusations leveled at you proves that you shouldn't put yourself into a position where a player may have that impression. It proves that if I were in your game, I couldn't call your DMPC unfair without hurting your feelings, and therefore, that you are unable to get appropriate feedback about the DMPC.

In other words, as I have said all along, it does not require ACTUAL DM misconduct for DMPCs to cause problems. Perceived DM misconduct is just as disruptive.

Serpentine
2011-08-13, 10:45 AM
No, all it proves is that if you were in my game, you wouldn't even give me a chance before levelling completely unfounded accusations at me. It proves that some people externalise their own biases and prejudices and would rather place the blame for them on others rather than giving people any opportunity to prove themselves on their own merits.
I am happy to say my players do not do any of this. They gave my DMPC a chance, they trusted me to be fair, they have embraced her to the point where they've gone out of their way to keep her, and none of your dire predictions have come true in my game.
What you claim "proven" is absolute nonsense as a universal statement of supposed fact.

Gnaeus
2011-08-13, 11:04 AM
If I go into court, and the Judge on the bench is a party to the case, it is unfair. He may say "I am going to be objective". He may try to be objective. Heck, he may even BE objective. But his position immediately taints the hearing. I would ask for a new judge in a heartbeat.

Would it be fair to go to a sports game where the referee was playing for a team? No. No one would accept that as a valid match.

Would you accept an election where all the observers and everyone counting the votes were employed by one side? No. That isn't fair. But some of those people might be good public servants who would never do anything biased. It still calls the entire process into question.

Would you play poker with someone who could see everyone's cards at the table, if they promised not to use that information? No. Whether they intentionally win, or intentionally lose, it isn't fair.

A DM playing is not fair. It is not in any way fair. He has every advantage. It is entirely reasonable for a player to call that into question. If you think that is a personal attack against you, your DMPC is massively problematic.

Serpentine
2011-08-13, 11:11 AM
Then lets just agree that it's a good thing you're not in my games, as personally, I prefer that people wait until I do something actually wrong before accusing me of foul play.
edit: By all means, if you have a concern discuss it with me, but don't then keep on insisting that no matter what I do or what I think I'm doing I'm doing it wrong and that the mere fact that you think I'm doing it wrong means I am doing it wrong. Maybe, just maybe, you should give me a bit of trust, and give me a chance to prove myself instead of dismissing everything I do as rubbish merely because you disagree with it as a matter of principle..

WildPyre
2011-08-13, 01:40 PM
If I go into court, and the Judge on the bench is a party to the case, it is unfair. He may say "I am going to be objective". He may try to be objective. Heck, he may even BE objective. But his position immediately taints the hearing. I would ask for a new judge in a heartbeat.
Something seems fundamentally wrong with this... can't put my finger on it... let's read on maybe it'll hit me.


Would it be fair to go to a sports game where the referee was playing for a team? No. No one would accept that as a valid match.
Hmm still feeling something off...


Would you accept an election where all the observers and everyone counting the votes were employed by one side? No. That isn't fair. But some of those people might be good public servants who would never do anything biased. It still calls the entire process into question.
Wait wait... I'm getting it...


Would you play poker with someone who could see everyone's cards at the table, if they promised not to use that information? No. Whether they intentionally win, or intentionally lose, it isn't fair.
Soooo close...


A DM playing is not fair. It is not in any way fair. He has every advantage. It is entirely reasonable for a player to call that into question. If you think that is a personal attack against you, your DMPC is massively problematic.

Oh oh I know what it is! The DM judge is actually now BOTH parties...
The DM Umpire playing on one of the teams OWNS the other team...
The political DM is running on BOTH sides of the card...
And the poker DM is counting the cards and dealing from the bottom of the deck anyway!

Those were some good riddles, but I think I got them.

Seriously though you're looking at this as the DM playing AGAINST the players and THAT is where the problems arise with or without a DMPC because the DM who's playing against the players doesn't NEED a DMPC he has everything else in the world including all the stuff the party is trying to kill and is trying to kill the party.

By that logic the game isn't doomed when the DMPC is introduced... it's doomed as soon as you get involved.

Silus
2011-08-13, 01:48 PM
As the OP, I'd like to take this time to input a little information about the group:

The classes the players have chosen is as follows

Rogue
Ranger
Cavalier
Summoner
Bard

Just figured that might aid in the discussion a bit.

Yukitsu
2011-08-13, 01:49 PM
If the party already has a bard, that option should be right out. At this point, they are low on healing, but it's not absent, the justification of "they're missing a role" doesn't really apply here. I'd go with not using one. (though as a caveat, I wouldn't use one even if I were DMing for 1 player, I'd adjust my story instead.)

WildPyre
2011-08-13, 01:58 PM
Yeah I'd say the party isn't really missing anything and you have 5 players. A DMPC would be superfluous. Generally I only throw in a DMPC to help out when the party is 3 or less people and has obvious gaps in roles.

Silus
2011-08-13, 02:11 PM
If the party already has a bard, that option should be right out. At this point, they are low on healing, but it's not absent, the justification of "they're missing a role" doesn't really apply here. I'd go with not using one. (though as a caveat, I wouldn't use one even if I were DMing for 1 player, I'd adjust my story instead.)

I think the Bard players said he was going to be leaning more towards a combat role however. He's the one I'm most fuzzy on, so I'll try to get an update tomorrow.

a_humble_lich
2011-08-13, 02:32 PM
Would it be fair to go to a sports game where the referee was playing for a team? No. No one would accept that as a valid match.

Would you accept an election where all the observers and everyone counting the votes were employed by one side? No. That isn't fair. But some of those people might be good public servants who would never do anything biased. It still calls the entire process into question.


As I said in the last thread about DMPCs, this is massively dependent on play style. Yes, a professional sports game where the referee was playing on one team would be massively unfair. However, there are also many cases where it would be normal. You could have a family baseball game where Uncle Bill makes all the rules calls because he knows the rules best. Or a team could play a scrimmage with itself, where the team's coach plays on one side and acts as referee. He is trusted as impartial because he is the coach. If the players trust the referee to be impartial it is not a problem. And when you have a small group of friends this kind of trust is quite possible.



A DM playing is not fair. It is not in any way fair. He has every advantage. It is entirely reasonable for a player to call that into question. If you think that is a personal attack against you, your DMPC is massively problematic.

Again, you are assuming other groups share play style. There are groups out there who care far less about what is "fair".

Edit: I fixed my quotes:smallredface:

Yukitsu
2011-08-13, 02:44 PM
I think the Bard players said he was going to be leaning more towards a combat role however. He's the one I'm most fuzzy on, so I'll try to get an update tomorrow.

The fact that he's playing a more combat oriented bard doesn't really mean much. It's still not a good idea to step into the general territory of a character, and honestly, they have some good support classes in there anyway.

WildPyre
2011-08-13, 02:46 PM
The fact that he's playing a more combat oriented bard doesn't really mean much. It's still not a good idea to step into the general territory of a character, and honestly, they have some good support classes in there anyway.

And three characters with access to UMD. They should be fine.

Silus
2011-08-13, 03:37 PM
And three characters with access to UMD. They should be fine.

*Nods* Fair enough. Would it be a "good" idea to at least mock up some DMPC/NPCs for a healing role if the PCs decide they need a little more backup?

Jay R
2011-08-13, 04:09 PM
Always so many loaded words... This is one of the better ones, but still so loaded.

It is not enough to call them loaded. To argue against them, you must show that they are in some way untrue. Otherwise, you've simply ignored the question of whether they are loaded unfairly, or if they fairly and accurately describe the emotions of the situation.

I said that the player of the DMPC has an unfair amount of knowledge compared to the other players. You can call that "loaded words" if you like, but they are clearly true. The DM *does* have more knowledge of the world than the players.

I said that you cannot use all of the DMPC's abilities and your knowledge to try to keep him alive, as the other players are doing. This is not "loaded language"; it is a loaded situation. And the statement is clearly true - you *can't* use all your knowledge.

I said, "It may feel like you're playing the game, but you aren't. You aren't using all your knowledge and abilities to solve puzzles and learn about the world." There are no evaluative words here at all. It is a simple description of what playing the game means, for every player, but not for the DM.


It really would be nice to see some of the anti-DMPC people put forward their arguments without all the loaded language...

I understand. It would be nice if you left out the word "loaded" and instead put forth an argument at all.

In any case, here is an argument with no "loaded" words. Consider players A and B.

Player A sometimes disagrees with the DM about the application of the rules. Player B never does.

Player A sometimes misunderstands the situation based on the description given. Player B never does.

Player A often ignores what appears to be an obscure fact, when the DM knows it's crucial. Player B never does.

Player A sometimes makes mistakes because he fails to understand an NPC's motivation. Player B never does.

Player A sometimes spends unnecessary hours searching a room, or following a person, or examining an item, because he does not yet know that the room, person or item is unconnected to the main plot. Player B never does.

Player A sometimes plans things that the DM thinks cannot work. Player B never does.

In each of these cases, Player B has a huge advantage in the game, even if the DM is scrupulously fair, just because player B's mind works like the DM's does.

Finally, even if the above never affects anything, player A sometimes thinks the DM is more fond of player B's character than player A's character.

Are you so completely detached from the DM-controlled character running with the party that you will have no more fondness for him than for any PC or NPC? If you can really do that, then call him an NPC, not a DMPC.

You are running an entire world full of characters, called NPCs. If you name one of them a DMPC, then you have put a label on him that makes him more special than the whole world of NPCs. The players will draw the obvious conclusion, whether it is true or not, that he is also more special than their PCs.

Yukitsu
2011-08-13, 07:52 PM
*Nods* Fair enough. Would it be a "good" idea to at least mock up some DMPC/NPCs for a healing role if the PCs decide they need a little more backup?

Stat one up, but only bring it in if they go out of their way to hire one. I generally have a standard set of potential hirelings pre-statted out for the players so I don't have to write them up.

WildPyre
2011-08-13, 08:35 PM
Stat one up, but only bring it in if they go out of their way to hire one. I generally have a standard set of potential hirelings pre-statted out for the players so I don't have to write them up.

This is a good idea... and I'd keep them at least 2 levels under the party... or gimp them/use NPC classes only if the party is level 1 or 2.

It's a fine balance... you can give them a bit of personality, but try to keep them mundane. DMPCs can be a bit more interesting than hirelings, but still not use any options that aren't available to the players and the players should still outclass them. I tend to give my DMPCs a few flaws or bad choices to keep them from being too powerful, while hirelings are generally terribly average for their level.

Drachasor
2011-08-13, 10:29 PM
If I go into court, and the Judge on the bench is a party to the case, it is unfair. He may say "I am going to be objective". He may try to be objective. Heck, he may even BE objective. But his position immediately taints the hearing. I would ask for a new judge in a heartbeat.

Competitive zero sum environment, generally speaking. One side wins, one side loses (barring a settlement).


Would it be fair to go to a sports game where the referee was playing for a team? No. No one would accept that as a valid match.

Competitive zero sum environment, ALWAYS. One side wins, the other side loses.


Would you accept an election where all the observers and everyone counting the votes were employed by one side? No. That isn't fair. But some of those people might be good public servants who would never do anything biased. It still calls the entire process into question.

Competitive zero sum environment, always. One side wins, the other side loses (well, more complicated in some countries, but the sum of winnings on all sides sums up to 100%).


Would you play poker with someone who could see everyone's cards at the table, if they promised not to use that information? No. Whether they intentionally win, or intentionally lose, it isn't fair.

Competitive zero sum environment, always.


I mean seriously, do you think any of these is remotely applicable to D&D? It is NOT a competitive game, certainly not one between the players and the DM. If it is, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. It isn't zero sum either, because when everyone works together to have fun, the overall level of fun increases -- there are not limited rewards that get spread out among the participants. And if this is the case, then yeah, a DMPC is going to be bad. If the DM doesn't feel he has to compete with the players (and he shouldn't), then there's no particular reason why a DMPC would have to be a bad thing.

Lappy9000
2011-08-13, 10:39 PM
A valid question, which deserves a straightforward answer:

A PC is a unique character, recognized by the play as "his own", through which he identifies himself as part of this world, and through whose actions and perceptions he learns about this world he is exploring. He will have more emotion invested in this character than any in the games, and will do anything he can to keep it alive, using its abilities and his own limited knowledge of the world.

An NPC is one of many characters run by the DM, fairly and unemotionally, through which she allows the players to learn about the world they are exploring. She will have no emotional investment in any of them, and will simply do her best to use them as tools to provide a challenging and fair experience for the players, using her complete knowledge of the world they're in.

A DMPC represents a DM with an unfairly high emotional investment in one character, and a player with unfair knowledge of the world. As a DM, you can't provide a world for your own character to learn about by exploring. As a player, you cannot fairly try to keep the DMPC alive, using all of its abilities and your knowledge of the world.

Have you ever, in any game, seen a situation in which the DM had to make a ruling about a rule or a situation that the player flat disagreed with, or seen a player try something the the DM ruled had no chance to succeed? This can happen to the PCs, but not to the DMPC. Therefore the playing field isn't even. Even with a completely fair DM, the fact that the DMPC always "sees" the exact same situation that the DM does, and the PCs don't, makes the situation inherently unfair.

It may feel like you're playing the game, but you aren't. You aren't using all your knowledge and abilities to solve puzzles and learn about the world. The one person who can't play in the baseball game is the umpire, and for the same reasons, the one person who can't play in the D&D game is the DM.I'm going to disagree with you on a number of counts here.

Any NPC that has been pre-made (and sometimes invented on the spot) has a level of emotional investment for me, especially cohorts that travel with the party. To do without would easily turn into a world of cardboard cut-outs.

And no, it's not playing the game. As a Dungeon Master, it's my job to make sure everyone's having fun, first and foremost. By your definition, almost all my NPC's are DMPC's, which is just fine in my opinion. They are tools to enhance the players' experiences by filling in a missing role in combat, being a buffer or supporter, or by simply acting as a work horse or quest giver.

The distinction is that I don't let non-player characters get in the way of the player-character's fun. If the NPC (or DMPC) gets killed, bummer, the story will still move on. The PC's are the stars while the NPCs are at best supporting actors. Run poorly, a DMPC will destroy a game. Run well, a DMPC can only serve to enhance the experience.

Yukitsu
2011-08-14, 12:14 AM
The distinction is that I don't let non-player characters get in the way of the player-character's fun. If the NPC (or DMPC) gets killed, bummer, the story will still move on. The PC's are the stars while the NPCs are at best supporting actors. Run poorly, a DMPC will destroy a game. Run well, a DMPC can only serve to enhance the experience.

I've found that at best, they don't make things worse. I don't view them as enhancing the experience even at their best.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-14, 04:47 AM
Hmm...

Maybe some examples would help cut through all this theorycraft.

How would everyone rate the following NPCs (whether you term them DMPCs is up to you)? Some are real examples I've either run, had run on me, or am thinking about running, some are not.

1. In a 3-player party with no healing, a cleric who also happens to be the questgiver. Same level as party, plays as buff/debuff support.

2. In a 7-player party with more than enough role diversification, a comic relief character. Same level as party, plays as yet-another-beatstick.

3. In a 6-player party with three beatsticks and lacking skillmonkeys, an arcanist. 4 levels above the party, summons monsters as beatsticks.

4. In a 4-player party with no healing and two beatsticks, a bunch of mooks. 2 levels below the party, act as beatsticks.

5. In a 5-player party with sufficient role diversification, a disguised demon. Roughly same power level as party, acts as support and secret villain.

6. In a 5-player party that has little healing and too many beatsticks, an aristocrat. 1 level below the party, is PCs' patron and needs to be escorted.

Serpentine
2011-08-14, 05:08 AM
It is not enough to call them loaded. To argue against them, you must show that they are in some way untrue. Otherwise, you've simply ignored the question of whether they are loaded unfairly, or if they fairly and accurately describe the emotions of the situation.

I said that the player of the DMPC has an unfair amount of knowledge compared to the other players. You can call that "loaded words" if you like, but they are clearly true. The DM *does* have more knowledge of the world than the players.The "fairness" depends on the DM's ability to seperate the different category of knowledges. This is not a skill everyone has. It happens to be one of the few things I can honestly and confidently say I am genuinely good at as a DM.

I understand. It would be nice if you left out the word "loaded" and instead put forth an argument at all.I have given several over the course of this thread.

In each of these cases, Player B has a huge advantage in the game, even if the DM is scrupulously fair, just because player B's mind works like the DM's does.I acknowledge that the situation you describe is a real one - and in fact, I suspect, it's also relevant to "DM's partner" discussions, as said partner naturally has more access to the DM and more time and ability to discuss things with them. I do not acknowledge that it's necessarily a problem, nor that it necessarily gives "Player B" a truly unfair advantage so long as communication is open and frequent.

Finally, even if the above never affects anything, player A sometimes thinks the DM is more fond of player B's character than player A's character.That's Player A's problem, not the DM's. Dialogue, and possibly compromise, is necessary to resolve it, but it is not the DM's fault, nor is it the hypothetical "Player B"'s.

Are you so completely detached from the DM-controlled character running with the party that you will have no more fondness for him than for any PC or NPC? If you can really do that, then call him an NPC, not a DMPC.I have as much fondness for my DMPC as I do for any other PC I've played. I am also fond of a number of my villains and the like, incidentally. So what?

You are running an entire world full of characters, called NPCs. If you name one of them a DMPC, then you have put a label on him that makes him more special than the whole world of NPCs. The players will draw the obvious conclusion, whether it is true or not, that he is also more special than their PCs.My DMPC is no more special than any of the PCs, which - at least theoretically - are no more special than any other character living in the world. Her "speciallness" is irrelevant, in any case: she is at least as restricted and prone to death or inconvenience as any other character (for example, she's died at least as many times as any PC in my game, and I deliberately had a god of Chaos twist her boon in a very inconvenient way mostly cuz it was funny, as well as in-character for the god).
My players have not drawn the supposedly "obvious" conclusion, because my players trust me, I'm open about what I do, I talk to them and listen to their opinions, and because I am fair - whether you want to believe it or not. They have, in fact, gone out of their way to keep her in the game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176851).
Your loaded language and your universal assumptions do not apply to me nor to my DMPC.

Yukitsu
2011-08-14, 10:30 AM
Hmm...

Maybe some examples would help cut through all this theorycraft.

How would everyone rate the following NPCs (whether you term them DMPCs is up to you)? Some are real examples I've either run, had run on me, or am thinking about running, some are not.

Scale 1-10:


1. In a 3-player party with no healing, a cleric who also happens to be the questgiver. Same level as party, plays as buff/debuff support.

3. About 5 points lower than the same quest giver giving free healing potions, wands and belts. 3 players isn't small enough a party to justify needing more people to just bulk up the group, and I don't think "person who tells you what you're supposed to do" should also be looking over your shoulder while you're actually questing.


2. In a 7-player party with more than enough role diversification, a comic relief character. Same level as party, plays as yet-another-beatstick.

0. Comic relief characters are specifically designed to draw attention to the hilarity they are causing. At 7 players, there's little enough attention being payed to each player as it is.


3. In a 6-player party with three beatsticks and lacking skillmonkeys, an arcanist. 4 levels above the party, summons monsters as beatsticks.

0. An overpowered example that is trying to render 3 members irrelevant or redundant.


4. In a 4-player party with no healing and two beatsticks, a bunch of mooks. 2 levels below the party, act as beatsticks.

2. Trying to take over existing party role of 2 players, but at least the players look good in comparison.


5. In a 5-player party with sufficient role diversification, a disguised demon. Roughly same power level as party, acts as support and secret villain.

0-7. Most DM's that try this don't give any honest ability to detect that they're the villain and try to dishonestly thwart the fair discovery of the demon's actual intent. That's a 0. In cases where the DM is willing to do the reveal at any moment, this is a villain, but only a slightly better than average one.


6. In a 5-player party that has little healing and too many beatsticks, an aristocrat. 1 level below the party, is PCs' patron and needs to be escorted.

3. Do the escorting, if he's annoying, you dump him, if he wasn't, you dump him and get on with life. At the 5 player count, he's most likable as someone who isn't taking time from the players.

Silus
2011-08-14, 11:17 AM
*Pops back in* OP here again. Turns out there's been some changes in the lineup. We're getting two more players (one of which is rolling a Cleric), the Summoner has shifted to Gunslinger and the Bard is now a Gnome Bard with the Archeologist Archetype (From Ultimate Combat). Still unsure about the 7th player though.

Since they're all going to be starting at lvl 1, and are going to be fighting packs Akata early (they have a bite disease that can turn you into a Void Zombie that eventually turns into an Akata), I'm strongly considering adding along a Druid or an Alchemist for a botanist role in the colony and who will have the ability to cure diseases (I'm thinking via potions as opposed to spells). I don't want to baby sit the party any, but I don't want them to all die from Void Death after just the first encounter.

Cure Disease = 3rd lvl spell = ~lvl 5 to cast

Edit: Void Death stats (just to get an opinion if I should go with a Cure Disease NPC idea)

Void Death Bite - Injury; save Fort DC 12; onset 1 hour; frequency 1/day; effect 1d2 Dex and 1d2 Con damage; an infected creature who dies rises as a void zombie 2d4 hours later; cure 2 consecutive saves.

Serpentine
2011-08-14, 11:50 AM
Keep in mind that with a group of 7, combat's already gonna be painfully slow.

Kerrin
2011-08-14, 06:54 PM
In my experience (and others' may vary) I've only seen DMPCs work well when they're played more as NPCs. When the DM feels the DMPC is a full fledged character in the game (THEIR character) it hasn't gone well.

The only time I personally use DM played members of the party is to round out the party's capabilities. For example, in our game at home we were going to play a module that needed more than three characters but we would have only had a divine, a martial, and a skill monkey. So, I added an underpowered NPC wizard to the party The wizard stays out of the spotlight, only casts the bare minimum spells necessary, and only offers up sage advice if the players have exhausted their ideas on how to proceed from their apparent story dead end.

I don't like it when DMs get invested in their DM played party members to the same extent that the players are invested in their characters. Usually such cases don't turn out well. Though I'll admit that it's possible there are cases where it has.

SowZ
2011-08-14, 10:31 PM
A valid question, which deserves a straightforward answer:

A PC is a unique character, recognized by the play as "his own", through which he identifies himself as part of this world, and through whose actions and perceptions he learns about this world he is exploring. He will have more emotion invested in this character than any in the games, and will do anything he can to keep it alive, using its abilities and his own limited knowledge of the world.

An NPC is one of many characters run by the DM, fairly and unemotionally, through which she allows the players to learn about the world they are exploring. She will have no emotional investment in any of them, and will simply do her best to use them as tools to provide a challenging and fair experience for the players, using her complete knowledge of the world they're in.

A DMPC represents a DM with an unfairly high emotional investment in one character, and a player with unfair knowledge of the world. As a DM, you can't provide a world for your own character to learn about by exploring. As a player, you cannot fairly try to keep the DMPC alive, using all of its abilities and your knowledge of the world.

Have you ever, in any game, seen a situation in which the DM had to make a ruling about a rule or a situation that the player flat disagreed with, or seen a player try something the the DM ruled had no chance to succeed? This can happen to the PCs, but not to the DMPC. Therefore the playing field isn't even. Even with a completely fair DM, the fact that the DMPC always "sees" the exact same situation that the DM does, and the PCs don't, makes the situation inherently unfair.

It may feel like you're playing the game, but you aren't. You aren't using all your knowledge and abilities to solve puzzles and learn about the world. The one person who can't play in the baseball game is the umpire, and for the same reasons, the one person who can't play in the D&D game is the DM.

Not disagreeing with the general principle, but as a DM I do have emotional investment in my NPCs. I make sure they have motivations and are fully fleshed out people. Some I like. Some I dislike. Some are important for driving the story, (though never as important as the players in this respect,) and some are done with the PCs lives fairly quickly. I don't view one as my character. He is part of the world. But I am still attached to one.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-16, 12:55 AM
Are you so completely detached from the DM-controlled character running with the party that you will have no more fondness for him than for any PC or NPC? If you can really do that, then call him an NPC, not a DMPC.

Can't everyone do this?

I mean, even as a player, I've OOC encouraged the party to kill off my PC (My character was being a complete bitch IC, she'd just given another party member a Negative Energy Poke for being stupid IC).

The only time I've rule fudged as DM was to prevent a TPK in the first session, which I think most would agree with.

Numinous
2011-08-16, 09:55 PM
My favourite way to use a DMPC: start planning how your going to kill it off as soon you introduce it. Make sure it's well and truly dead by the climax of the adventure.

Think Obi-wan in Star Wars, or Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. Put the heroes on the path to adventure, then die so that the PCs are the heroes of the story. Don't do a Gandalf from the later parts of LotR, he's one of the bad DMPCs :-)

Serpentine
2011-08-16, 09:57 PM
My DMPC's died 3 times - the last a deliberate attempt to get rid of her. The players decided to bring her back every time.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-17, 04:54 AM
Isn't anyone else going to rate the examples I gave? :smallfrown:

Tyndmyr
2011-08-17, 07:26 AM
It looks to me like OP asked . Given that original question, I think that an answer like "You should scrap it, they are made of fail" is EXACTLY on topic.

Well, yeah...the motivation of "I want to try this class out" isn't an especially convincing reason for a DMPC. There are many other ways to try a class out with less risk. An alternative solution to his root desire is a quite reasonable thing.


Oh, please. My annoyance at having unjust accusations levelled at me "proves" that they're true? Nonsense.

Not in the slightest. It merely shows that the accusations are troublesome and undesired. So, even if there isn't the slightest shred of truth to a perception of unfairness, that perception can still be problematic.

Avoiding undesirable perceptions is part of the art of GMing. A *lot* of what GMs do is perception based. DMPC's can be dangerous for the perception of fairness even if you haven't done a thing unfair.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-17, 07:42 AM
Hmm...

Maybe some examples would help cut through all this theorycraft.

How would everyone rate the following NPCs (whether you term them DMPCs is up to you)? Some are real examples I've either run, had run on me, or am thinking about running, some are not.

1. In a 3-player party with no healing, a cleric who also happens to be the questgiver. Same level as party, plays as buff/debuff support.

Dislike. Would consider them a DMPC. This turns the party into hirelings in practice, and removes a great deal of narrative control from the players. Would be better if the healer was just a healer, not buff/debuff/questgiver. Then, the relationship of PCs to NPC would be entirely different.


2. In a 7-player party with more than enough role diversification, a comic relief character. Same level as party, plays as yet-another-beatstick.

Comic relief is great...but I wouldn't look to add to a seven person party. Managing large parties is a bit of work in 3.5 to make go smoothly, and boosting party size is not worth the payoff of a few jokes.


3. In a 6-player party with three beatsticks and lacking skillmonkeys, an arcanist. 4 levels above the party, summons monsters as beatsticks.

What? Terribly inappropriate. You should never be TRYING to invalidate your players characters and replace them with NPCs. The fact that it's already a six player party makes it worse.


4. In a 4-player party with no healing and two beatsticks, a bunch of mooks. 2 levels below the party, act as beatsticks.

These sound like hirelings or cohorts. These are a reasonable option if the players have sought them out, and it makes sense in the context of the story. I would try to avoid getting the numbers too large, though. Armies of mooks are sometimes problematic.


5. In a 5-player party with sufficient role diversification, a disguised demon. Roughly same power level as party, acts as support and secret villain.

The secret villain thing is a very tired plot device. I too once thought this was a clever idea(first campaign), but yknow...here's the thing. There's literally no way to mechanically represent this without either denying the party checks or putting his disguise/whatever high enough that they have no chance to discover it. Otherwise, by virtue of sheer quantity of interaction, they WILL discover it early.

It's also a pure plot thing, which I dislike, as the party is already doing fine without it. Again, if you're doing it because you want it, and the party doesn't...look for an alternative option.


6. In a 5-player party that has little healing and too many beatsticks, an aristocrat. 1 level below the party, is PCs' patron and needs to be escorted.

Might be decent for a night. I would not want to turn an entire campaign to "guard the squishy NPC" though. I wouldn't call this a DMPC problem necessarily, as this character does not sound particularly PC-like. Still, players tend to tire of escort quests after a while. Definitely best to avoid them becoming a current member of the party(which, tbh...isn't even a very realistic career choice for an aristocrat).

LansXero
2011-08-17, 08:38 AM
Makes me think of the current campaign we have going.

To start I made a druid and Barbarian. They were lovers and friends to the mayor of this town. Town is under attack so mayor asks some of the party to go find the npc while the rest work on defending the town.

The druid and barbarian join the party for a bit.


Then later on A bard joins as the druid and barbarian leave. I have a role I want the bard to play and figure in the far future he will be gone.

They party plays some more and they rescue a goblin being held prisoner by other goblins. The Paladin stat rewarding the goblin as it does good acts and eventually they arm the goblin with magical items. Now the goblin is party of the party and levels up a bit when they do. The goblin has actually now grown very fond of most of the party. The fellow playering the wizard keeps making jokes in character about killing the goblin so the goblins is ot so fond of him.


So the far future comes and I have a brilliant plan that needs the bard to go away and a new NPC join the party for a bit. So they help out the new NPC on the first quest with him. I figure in this one big fight I can kill the bard off. His hated racial enemy is there so they go toe to toe.

I hadn't counted on the party growing so attached to the bard that they risk there own lives ignoring the other foes beating on them to save the bard.

So now I have a goblin they picked up as an npc, a bard I can't just have him leave and can't kill him off in a fight and this new npc....


Well at least the party is starting to realize the xp and treasure aren't going as far as it use to lol

This is the only way, imho, I can see a "DMPC" ever done right. You have like infinite characters to play (for me, every monster and random peasant and village are MY characters, and their turn is my turn. Doesnt mean I will throw a fit if they die, its just that my role as DM means Im the "blue team", "bad guys" "monster group" or whatever) so why the need for a single one lodged in the other side, sticking out like a wound?

Either you use your DM knowledge/authority to help it unfairly, or you curtail yourself from it to nerf it unfairly. You will never outsmart yourself or figure things out by your facial expresion or the inflection of your voice to then plan ahead, you cant actually keep things away from you and plan with the other players to thwart yourself, and if you tried it robs the players of the "getting away with it" feeling. Its just... not the same.

Now, some people like meatgrinder dungeons with a metal spoon being a lvl 12 PC's entire wealth, and some people like "monster of the week" monty haul campaigns, so certainly there are groups out there who wont mind a DMPC and DMs out there who dont mind nerfing themselves to keep it in check. Hell some people may even like being dragged by the nose by an uber "problem" DMPC, people are diverse and weird like that. But still, that doesnt mean that it objectively isnt a source for problem, just like the fact that you can fix a broken thing doesnt mean it didnt break in the first place. Its a trap, a time bomb, and it can very easily go wrong, so again, why do it? If you want to provide flair and flavor to the party by adding one, two or twenty NPCs along, as long as they actually want them along, fine, but why single it down as YOUR character and YOUR ONLY character when the entire rest of the world is also yours to play as?

Gnaeus
2011-08-17, 08:46 AM
Isn't anyone else going to rate the examples I gave? :smallfrown:

I don't believe my rating would be much different than Yukitsu's. Tyndmyr's was pretty darn good also.

LansXero
2011-08-17, 09:21 AM
Hmm...
1. In a 3-player party with no healing, a cleric who also happens to be the questgiver. Same level as party, plays as buff/debuff support.


Bringing the questgiver alone? I dont think me or my group would go for that. If he is the one important / paying us, why risk him?


2. In a 7-player party with more than enough role diversification, a comic relief character. Same level as party, plays as yet-another-beatstick.

No way, turns already take forever with over 6 people. If it was a smaller party, sure, but at that size? No way.


3. In a 6-player party with three beatsticks and lacking skillmonkeys, an arcanist. 4 levels above the party, summons monsters as beatsticks.

Numbers become a problem again, but it would mostly come down to personality.


4. In a 4-player party with no healing and two beatsticks, a bunch of mooks. 2 levels below the party, act as beatsticks.

Not very likeable. They would probably used as henchmen to be sent out on assorted stuff (like stealing or working on a stronghold or something). Also: long turns.


5. In a 5-player party with sufficient role diversification, a disguised demon. Roughly same power level as party, acts as support and secret villain.

If I did that Id have to do it VERY well or they would think Im just pulling stuff out of my backside to troll them.


6. In a 5-player party that has little healing and too many beatsticks, an aristocrat. 1 level below the party, is PCs' patron and needs to be escorted.

I actually just did this one, turned out personally likeable enough they carried it through and just gave her a city of her own. Players are weird. Then again, neither of those examples truly HAVE to be DMPCs, I just see them as temporary accesory NPCs that the party may or may not take along at some point. So I dont really see how its that relevant.

Kjata
2011-08-17, 09:56 AM
I had a bit of advice from an excellent DM when I began my first game. If there are NPCs with the party for any reason, have them fight "off screen," or if they are there to fill a party gap, then let the players control him. He said it is boring for everyone when DM is fighting himself, and I agreed. Party needs a healer? Make him too cowardly for combat, and hide until the fighting is done, or give him to a player. Needs a meatshield? Give him to the party face, who sucks in combat anyway.

Drachasor
2011-08-17, 11:28 AM
1. In a 3-player party with no healing, a cleric who also happens to be the questgiver. Same level as party, plays as buff/debuff support.

First, you can always add healing. Steal Healing Surges from 4E is my favorite way to go.

Anyhow, this guy...depends on how he is played. If he's bossy and the DM tries to make the players listen to him because he's the quest giver, then that's horrible. If the players are perfectly free to tell the guy to shove it and that he's wrong (on whatever), then that's ok. The DM better be ready with a backup healer depending.

I think one would find a LOT of this depends on how the DM runs things.


2. In a 7-player party with more than enough role diversification, a comic relief character. Same level as party, plays as yet-another-beatstick.

Well, this is what my DMPCs have been. Same guy really in both games (different groups). Squeeg, the Kobold with low self-esteem. He was not very effective in combat. I've never had seven players though.

I think there are problems one can run into here. First, if the DMPC is too effective, then that overshadows what PCs are doing. Imho, the DMPC shouldn't be better than any of the players, since their the heroes. No one going around with the party regularly should show them up. Maybe you have a one off session where Captain Awesome goes to handle a dragon while the party does something else (note this makes the party non-superfluous). Never, ever have a regular member of the group as a NPC show up the PCs -- well, there are extreme exceptions to this such as if the PCs are being so mindnumbingly stupid it is pretty much OOC for them, then an NPC can point that out (but sometimes it is fun not to). Anyhow, a DMPC is NOT there for you to mess around with some build optimized for combat effectiveness.

The other problem is if the guy takes up too much time. In a 7 person party, this is a real possibility. Of course, if they just have one attack per round, then it doesn't matter. A little custom design can make it so they have a pretty trivial time impact. Again though, they should be weaker than anyone in the party, imho. That should ensure there are no ill feelings.

Of course, there needs to be a point to having the DMPC in the party. Comic relief or whatever. Otherwise, why bother?


3. In a 6-player party with three beatsticks and lacking skillmonkeys, an arcanist. 4 levels above the party, summons monsters as beatsticks.

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Completely undermines the contribution of the players. That's just about the worst thing you can do with a DMPC.


4. In a 4-player party with no healing and two beatsticks, a bunch of mooks. 2 levels below the party, act as beatsticks.

A bunch of people two levels below can easily show up the party, depending. More significantly, they can take up a bunch of time. This is only ok if they aren't really DMPCs and are more like people under the command of the PCs (and the PCs enjoy this).

Err, adding to my other comments, "showing up the party" doesn't just mean combat. A guy that takes a leading role in social situations is also terrible. Minor stuff like picking locks or something isn't bad (this takes up very little game time), ASSUMING the players don't have someone doing that already. Essentially, no hogging the spotlight.


5. In a 5-player party with sufficient role diversification, a disguised demon. Roughly same power level as party, acts as support and secret villain.

That can be done well, or done horribly, imho. As long as the DM is comfortable with the disguised demon getting found out (if the PCs are cleverer than expected), then it is ok. Again though, best not to steal spotlight even with this DMPC. Sounds like he's going to be around for a while and spotlight stealing is bad no matter what form it takes if it happens with any regularity. So such a guy should definitely be holding himself back and perhaps flee often -- this can actually be pretty tricky to do right, I think.


6. In a 5-player party that has little healing and too many beatsticks, an aristocrat. 1 level below the party, is PCs' patron and needs to be escorted.

Nothing wrong with this, so long as he doesn't steal the social spotlight.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-17, 11:29 AM
Yeah, in my games, hirelings are assigned to the person who pays for them to manage and run. Less work for me, they get the feeling of power, and often get into it with "their" people.

Win/Win.

Rogue Shadows
2011-08-17, 02:31 PM
Rogue Shadow's Guide on How to Play a DMPC Correctly

Chapter One: How to Not Screw Up

Don't screw up, and you will have not screwed up.

The End.

About the Author
Rogue Shadows has personally run two DMPCs over his six-year career as a DM. He has never recieved any complaints because he remembers that the PC part is more important than the DM part of DMPC. He lives in Masschusetts with his cat, Puck.

Gnaeus
2011-08-17, 03:42 PM
Rogue Shadow's Guide on How to Play a DMPC Correctly

Chapter One: How to Not Screw Up

Don't screw up, and you will have not screwed up.

The End.

While technically correct, the author fails to mention that mistrust, accusations, criticism, bad feelings, broken games and ruined friendships are possible side effects of DMPCs even when used as directed by DMs. Screwing up is not required.

Rogue Shadows
2011-08-17, 05:37 PM
While technically correct, the author fails to mention that mistrust, accusations, criticism, bad feelings, broken games and ruined friendships are possible side effects of DMPCs even when used as directed by DMs. Screwing up is not required.

That seems like a problem with the players, not the DM. Discussion of how to deal with easily offended and/or paranoid players was beyond the scope of my tome.

Sewercop
2011-08-18, 08:04 AM
As a slayer and murderer of DmPc`s i can say that i really really really hate em!
(Feel free to read this with obscene language instead of the word really.)


I only see DMs telling how great they are at running a dmpc. That do not count imo. What counts, again imo, are what players say.
I have never seen a good dmpc. Ever.

I have seen great,fantastic,awesome npc`s, but I have never ever seen a halfway descent dmpc.

I mostly dm, and i never use a gmpc. I use npc`s. And if i stat em out, its because its ok to have a statblock at hand if the players feel like slaying it and grab the loot.

If you play a character in a game run by yourself... How on earth can you say that your objective?

This thread should not allow Dm\gms\mc etc to post on how great they are at running dmpcs.
It should only allow players to testify what they think about gmpcs.


note: and one gm and one player groups are not allowed to testify.

Thats my opinion!(or hatred if you wanna call it that)

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 08:15 AM
I only see DMs telling how great they are at running a dmpc. That do not count imo. What counts, again imo, are what players say.
I have never seen a good dmpc. Ever.

I have seen great,fantastic,awesome npc`s, but I have never ever seen a halfway descent dmpc.

I am forced to agree. I also feel that it's inherently difficult for DMs to rate themselves in such a way as to be convincing over the internet. There's just so much subjectivity and such...it's hard.

I mean, even the worst GMs I've met in person were convinced that they were awesome. Sure, they may have had the odd problem player, but whatever. And, tbh...even the best GMs HAVE had problem players. I've also known people that continued to play for quite long periods of time under GMs that they hated...lots of them never even said anything about it to the guy.

Rating GMs you don't know personally/haven't played with is quite hard.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 08:28 AM
What counts, again imo, are what players say.My players unanimously and conciously chose to keep on a DMPC I attempted to kill off. My players have decided that this DMPC increases their enjoyment of that game.

I have never seen a good dmpc. Ever.That doesn't mean that they don't exist, any more than if I said "I have never seen a bad DMPC. Ever." means there are no bad DMPCS.

If you play a character in a game run by yourself... How on earth can you say that your objective?Because 1. that's something I'm good at, and 2. I don't play my PCs in a way people such as yourself appear to.

This thread should not allow Dm\gms\mc etc to post on how great they are at running dmpcs.
It should only allow players to testify what they think about gmpcs.
I suggest you consult the rules, particularly the section on trying to dictate who can and can not post in threads.

WildPyre
2011-08-18, 08:37 AM
As a slayer and murderer of DmPc`s i can say that i really really really hate em!
(Feel free to read this with obscene language instead of the word really.)
Okay but how do you really feel about them?



I only see DMs telling how great they are at running a dmpc. That do not count imo. What counts, again imo, are what players say.

Well the OP was asking about tips on running their DMPC so I think it's within the spirit of the thread for people to share info on how they run their DMPCs...



I have never seen a good dmpc. Ever.

I have seen great,fantastic,awesome npc`s, but I have never ever seen a halfway descent dmpc.

Then do tell about the bad ones and help others from falling into those traps so that their players might not grow such a frothing hatred for a specific type of character.


I mostly dm, and i never use a gmpc. I use npc`s. And if i stat em out, its because its ok to have a statblock at hand if the players feel like slaying it and grab the loot.

This makes me wonder how often your random NPCs get themselves stabbed.


If you play a character in a game run by yourself... How on earth can you say that your objective?

The same way you stay objective with any other NPC. A player character is built (generally) with the intent on having that singular character that you will be playing and it will be your focus and "avatar" in this game world.

Conversely a DMPC is made by the DM to (presumably) assist the party in some way that they are lacking/need and joins the DM's characters in the list of infinite NPCs in the game world. It should hold no more place in the DM's heart than "Goblin with a spear #5", "Steve the shopkeep" or "Queen Falalalala of the Elves".


This thread should not allow Dm\gms\mc etc to post on how great they are at running dmpcs.
It should only allow players to testify what they think about gmpcs.

note: and one gm and one player groups are not allowed to testify.


I will immediately form a forum subcommittee to lay out the laws and regulations pertaining to the expressing of anecdotes and... wait... yeah we'll just let people post what they want.



Thats my opinion!(or hatred if you wanna call it that)

Rabble rabble rabble...

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 08:45 AM
Conversely a DMPC is made by the DM to (presumably) assist the party in some way that they are lacking/need and joins the DM's characters in the list of infinite NPCs in the game world. It should hold no more place in the DM's heart than "Goblin with a spear #5", "Steve the shopkeep" or "Queen Falalalala of the Elves".I disagree, and think this pretty much describes Just Another NPC.
A DMPC (as a generalisation, but I think overall pretty accurate for the most part) is a character the DM considered their own personal character in the game, distinct from all the other NPCs. The important part of running a good DMPC is that although it's more important to the DM than NPCs, it can never be as important as the PCs.

WildPyre
2011-08-18, 08:50 AM
I disagree, and think this pretty much describes Just Another NPC.
A DMPC (as a generalisation, but I think overall pretty accurate for the most part) is a character the DM considered their own personal character in the game, distinct from all the other NPCs. The important part of running a good DMPC is that although it's more important to the DM than NPCs, it can never be as important as the PCs.

I am not apposed to this outlook on them either. *tips his hat*

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 09:09 AM
I am forced to agree. I also feel that it's inherently difficult for DMs to rate themselves in such a way as to be convincing over the internet. There's just so much subjectivity and such...it's hard.

I mean, even the worst GMs I've met in person were convinced that they were awesome. Sure, they may have had the odd problem player, but whatever. And, tbh...even the best GMs HAVE had problem players. I've also known people that continued to play for quite long periods of time under GMs that they hated...lots of them never even said anything about it to the guy.

Rating GMs you don't know personally/haven't played with is quite hard.

DM's opinion's of themselves and what they do is even worse when no one else will DM. I've joined groups where I had previously mentioned I was willing to DM, and later on called him out on something. The supposedly contented players just jumped the poor guy like vultures. I don't think players are willing enough to level valid criticisms against their DMs, and just try to keep the DM from dumping the campaign, so I think a lot of DMs, especially chronic DMs don't realize how bad they are at times.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 09:15 AM
If my players have problems they won't take up with me, that's their problem. I give them plenty of opportunity to critique me. And they've gone out of their way to say they want my DMPC.
You guys really seem to keep grasping at ways to avoid considering that maybe, just maybe, some of the people who are okay with some DMPCs are self-aware, self-critical, honest, and genuinely good at/fine with DMPCs.
I am not apposed to this outlook on them either. *tips his hat*Heh. Jolly good show.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnkoawN4hi1qf6igj.jpg

Sewercop
2011-08-18, 09:19 AM
I am in no way trying to stop anyone from posting in this thread.
To quote myself:


Thats my opinion!(or hatred if you wanna call it that)

Why i dislike gmpcs?
There is no need for them, at all. The gm can tailor the world and encounters so a gmpc are not needed.
I do not belive that it is possible to play a gmpc as if you do not know whats going to happen. Because you are the gm, you always know whats coming next.

The only way i can see it happen are a split personality that only happens when your in character...
Thats not likely.

You ask how i play npcs?
oh man, i have no clue. You will have to ask my players.

If my npcs ever gets stabbed? yup... not often... but it happens. I let my players decide if they wanna do that.

bad stories about gmpcs? I have no interest in writing a novel about it, but i can say one thing that should happen if you must have a gmpc.

If there is a need for a gmpc, tailor the adventure and world to suit the group instead. If you still need one. Become a player instead.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 09:21 AM
If my players have problems they won't take up with me, that's their problem.

Yeah, this attitude right here, this is why we can't have nice things. I don't have to be told by a group that my work is bad, adequit or good, I just know I can always strive to make it better, more accessable and more fun.

Edit: I guess this isn't entirely fair, I can generally pick up whether or not the group is enthused by the game, bored, frustrated whatever because I'm good at that. If you can't pick up on the table's reaction to certain elements, you certainly won't be able to tell what they want.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 09:26 AM
I am in no way trying to stop anyone from posting in this thread.
To quote myself:You also said:
This thread should not allow Dm\gms\mc etc to post on how great they are at running dmpcs.
It should only allow players to testify what they think about gmpcs.


note: and one gm and one player groups are not allowed to testify.

The only way i can see it happen are a split personality that only happens when your in character...
Thats not likely.I can do it. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different to separating IC and OOC knowledge as a player. It's just an extra layer.

No one's saying DMPCs should be used, nor that they're always good or even that they're easy. Just that they're not always bad, and it doesn't make you a bad DM just for using one.

Objection
2011-08-18, 09:26 AM
I do not belive that it is possible to play a gmpc as if you do not know whats going to happen. Because you are the gm, you always know whats coming next.

This is kinda like saying it's impossible to play a dumb pc if you're intelligent irl, because you have knowledge and understanding that your pc doesn't.

EDIT: Or what Serpentine said just above me.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 09:29 AM
Yeah, this attitude right here, this is why we can't have nice things. I don't have to be told by a group that my work is bad, adequit or good, I just know I can always strive to make it better, more accessable and more fun.Where did I say anything opposed to that? I notice you conveniently lopped off the very next sentence: " I give them plenty of opportunity to critique me." I am open to criticism and advice, and I'm always trying to improve myself. If my players choose not to take those opportunities, then it's not my fault if I continue something they don't enjoy - how am I meant to know if they don't tell me? And they've gone out of their way to tell me that my DMPC is something they do enjoy - and I've gone out of my way to confirm it.
You've already decided my experiences and opinion, as a DM, are disqualified. Why won't you at least accept the experiences and opinions of my players, whom you have deemed "the only opinions that matter"?

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 09:29 AM
This is kinda like saying it's impossible to play a dumb pc if you're intelligent irl, because you have knowledge and understanding that your pc doesn't.

Strangely, a lot of people do have trouble with this, with many players explicitly never using really stupid characters because they do have intense difficulty RPing catastrophically low mental stats. Low mental stats is one of the most common things people will mention in the thread of things they will never have on a character.

Objection
2011-08-18, 09:33 AM
Strangely, a lot of people do have trouble with this, with many players explicitly never using really stupid characters because they do have intense difficulty RPing catastrophically low mental stats. Low mental stats is one of the most common things people will mention in the thread of things they will never have on a character.

OK, maybe that was a bad example. The point is, just because you as a player/DM have certain knowledge doesn't mean your character automatically has that knowledge.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 09:35 AM
Where did I say anything opposed to that? I notice you conveniently lopped off the very next sentence: " I give them plenty of opportunity to critique me." I am open to criticism and advice, and I'm always trying to improve myself. If my players choose not to take those opportunities, then it's not my fault if I continue something they don't enjoy - how am I meant to know if they don't tell me? And they've gone out of their way to tell me that my DMPC is something they do enjoy - and I've gone out of my way to confirm it.

Because I don't really view your character as a DMPC, since I have always viewed DMPC as the DM's PC, and you've said you'd alter it if it were your character in another campaign, so your example isn't really relevant to me.

Of course yeah, this means a ton of "NPCs" that get a bunch of absurd differences from any playable character irritate me more, but those are an entirely different problem.

In terms of just generally being open to criticism, my entire point is, that doesn't actually mean anything. Players don't really mention to the DM that something is bothering them, that's what I'm saying here. DMs shouldn't just go by player input, they should make a solid effort to figure out what parts of the game bog things down, are unenjoyable, are risky or just otherwise outright unecessary, whether the players mention it or not.


OK, maybe that was a bad example. The point is, just because you as a player/DM have certain knowledge doesn't mean your character automatically has that knowledge.

Yes, however as the example of in and out of character differences sort of indicates, it's a nice theory, but hard to put into practice. I mean, just to put this out there, character's don't actually have knowledge in any formal sense. They have numbers on a page, the actual knowledge comes from OOC books and the player themselves. Keeping one set of "in character" completely seperate from the "Out of character" is hard, and many people let info slip from one category to the other, even if they're trying not to. For DMs, the odds of something slipping out are multiplied, just because of how many out of character concerns he should be considering and worrying about, since he should be looking at events from an omnicient view most of the time, rather than an in character one.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 09:38 AM
Because I don't really view your character as a DMPC, since I have always viewed DMPC as the DM's PC, and you've said you'd alter it if it were your character in another campaign, so your example isn't really relevant to me.I would "alter it" in purely superficial ways almost entirely in terms of degree and proportion, which almost entirely come down to "as a DM I also have to do other things". Seriously, the fact you refuse to acknowledge my DMPC as a DMPC is... words like "ridiculous" and "absurd" and "mind-boggling" don't cover it. Aside from not being bad, it's pretty much the epitome of DMPCdom.

DMs shouldn't just go by player input, they should make a solid effort to figure out what parts of the game bog things down, are unenjoyable, are risky or just otherwise outright unecessary, whether the players mention it or not.Again: you outright disregard the entire experience of myself and my players.

Objection
2011-08-18, 09:41 AM
In terms of just generally being open to criticism, my entire point is, that doesn't actually mean anything. Players don't really mention to the DM that something is bothering them, that's what I'm saying here. DMs shouldn't just go by player input, they should make a solid effort to figure out what parts of the game bog things down, are unenjoyable, are risky or just otherwise outright unecessary, whether the players mention it or not.

Problem: DMs are not mindreaders or psychic in any way, shape or form. For all they know, the players might actually be enjoying the parts of the game that the DM thinks they aren't, and vice versa.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 09:46 AM
Again: you outright disregard the entire experience of myself and my players.

Of you. I haven't met any of your players, and again, DM's that don't recieve complaints are biased to believe they're right in my view.


Problem: DMs are not mindreaders or psychic in any way, shape or form. For all they know, the players might actually be enjoying the parts of the game that the DM thinks they aren't, and vice versa.

You don't have to be a mind reader, you just need to be paying attention. Reading faces, if there are a lot of electronics at the table, if there's a lot of chatter, if people are looking at you but are not enthusiastic, if they're trying to break their characters, if their characters are taking reckless actions etc. In the right context you can generally tell how invested a player is in playing the game. Edit: With the caveat that you get to know your players well enough to know what reads mean for each palyer.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 09:52 AM
Of you. I haven't met any of your players, and again, DM's that don't recieve complaints are biased to believe they're right in my view.I just passed this discussion over to two of my players, and... well, lets just say they agree with me in my assessment of your claims that my DMPC is not a DMPC.
You don't want to believe that I'm giving an honest description of the things going on in my game and my players' opinions as they've expressed them to me? Fine. That's your problem, not mine. But I, then, also fully have the right to completely disregard your entire experience in turn. And I find your entire experience narrow-minded, prone to No True Scotsmanship, and otherwise completely detrimental to reasonable and useful discussion on this topic.
Good day sir.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 09:55 AM
I think more so than any other thread, where the OP was explicitly stating they were making a DMPC as their PC because they wanted their own character, the "It's kind of sort of whatever I want to define a DMPC as" argument isn't really useful. Nor do I really think that bringing up something that you won't give me a clear definition to, and where you won't agree to mine is all that useful.

And again to the point, I'm talking about how players with 1 DM are a bunch of spineless yes men, and DMs love looking for evidence that they're awesome and completely ignore evidence to the contrary. Myself included as a player for about 2 years, before I realized A) I could mention why I'm leaving when I dump the group, never going to see them anyway, and B) I have no reason to be in a bad game. Players tend to not make these associations though.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 10:03 AM
I disagree, and think this pretty much describes Just Another NPC.
A DMPC (as a generalisation, but I think overall pretty accurate for the most part) is a character the DM considered their own personal character in the game, distinct from all the other NPCs.

I would agree. If the DM considers it just another NPC, then even if it happens to be with the party atm, it's not really a DMPC. I mean, cohorts and hirelings are not traditionally considered DMPCs, even though they are NPCs accompanying the party.

If everyone considers a character an NPC...it's an NPC.

I don't really want to reopen the definition discussion, but a DMPC basically has to be
A. run by the DM.
B. treated and played by them as if it were their PC.

If either component is gone, it can't possibly be a DMPC.


DM's opinion's of themselves and what they do is even worse when no one else will DM. I've joined groups where I had previously mentioned I was willing to DM, and later on called him out on something. The supposedly contented players just jumped the poor guy like vultures. I don't think players are willing enough to level valid criticisms against their DMs, and just try to keep the DM from dumping the campaign, so I think a lot of DMs, especially chronic DMs don't realize how bad they are at times.

This also happens. Sometimes nobody really want to DM, and someone gets shoved into the job who would really rather be playing. This is unfortunate, but I feel like this is a cause of many DMPC problems...and the root cause is really the social dynamics of DMing.

And a *lot* of gamers tend to avoid conflict whenever possible, or at least until it gets truly terrible.


If my players have problems they won't take up with me, that's their problem.

Well, for now, perhaps, if they exist. But speaking in more general terms(since, obviously, I can't know more about your specific players than you do)...player problems eventually tend to become everyone problems. If they don't get brought up...they're still problems. They may not cause the game to end, but they might make the game less awesome than it otherwise could be.

Now, is it easy to get players to speak out and give honest, complete feedback? Nah...that's a challenge in itself. But it's a very, very valuable thing to have.


This is kinda like saying it's impossible to play a dumb pc if you're intelligent irl, because you have knowledge and understanding that your pc doesn't.

EDIT: Or what Serpentine said just above me.

It *is* remarkably easier to play PCs with mental stats similar to your own. Look, I *love* power, and routinely make character building decisions based almost solely on optimization and what not. However, I never, ever make int a dump stat, and frequently pad mental stats even at the cost of perfect optimization. Sure, I can play joke dumb character well...but playing a realistic, actually dumb character...that's difficult and exhausting for me. It's very, very easy to accidentally slip up.


OK, maybe that was a bad example. The point is, just because you as a player/DM have certain knowledge doesn't mean your character automatically has that knowledge.

True, but it's good practice to limit this knowledge whenever possible. Avoids metagaming, even if it's accidental. After all, even the best players tend to act a lot differently when you draw out the entire map instead of just what they can see.


Problem: DMs are not mindreaders or psychic in any way, shape or form. For all they know, the players might actually be enjoying the parts of the game that the DM thinks they aren't, and vice versa.

This *is* a huge problem. Open feedback is huge...and in some groups, it never happens. In a great many, it takes a while for people to warm up to each other. I'll admit, there have been many a game in which I've made polite excuses for why I wasn't interested, or just said "yeah, it's fine" when asked about something.

In addition to feedback, you've got more indirect metrics. If players are constantly quitting your game...you almost certainly have problems, and of the quite severe type. Players not showing up, not being engaged, these are also huge warning signs. All manner of such indications, both great and small, exist.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 10:05 AM
I have repeatedly, in other threads, given you detailed definitions. I've even given a broad one in this one: It is the party member the DM considers their personal character in their game. It is this personal ownership that distinguishes them from NPCs, and which is one of the main sources of the common really big problems with many DMPCs.
Some people would expand this to include standard NPCs that are regular party members, usually via adoption by PCs or for plot reasons, such as various stories along the lines of "they travelled with this character for a while and then the PCs decided to bring him along with them". I would consider them NPCs with the potential to become full-blown DMPCs, but I don't know the details of their play as I've never played with one.

That you accuse me of "It's kind of sort of whatever I want to define a DMPC as" is laughable at best.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 10:13 AM
I have repeatedly, in other threads, given you detailed definitions. I've even given a broad one in this one: It is the party member the DM considers their personal character in their game. It is this personal ownership that distinguishes them from NPCs, and which is one of the main sources of the common really big problems with many DMPCs.

That you accuse me of "It's kind of sort of whatever I want to define a DMPC as" is laughable at best.

Actually that is your definition. Your definition reduces down to "if the DM identifies it as a DMPC, then it's a DMPC" which is at it's essence, anything the DM wants to identify as a DMPC. The only thing I forgot to include is "party member".

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 10:17 AM
It also happens to basically be the same definition used by Tyndmyr, in the post just above mine.
Considering the fact that most of the accusations leveled against DMPCs and DMPC-using DMs is that they treat their special character special, you'd think you'd agree that the self-identification is a key factor.
It's a character, played by the DM, in the party, as their personal character. That's it. Anything more than that is just casting your own biases and prejudices and assumptions over it.

This is just rehashing old, tired circles. The OP, I believe, has decided not to use a DMPC anyway - a decision, by the way, I wouldn't disagree with regardless, and go so far as to agree with in this case. Personally, I think this thread has long past run its course.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 10:19 AM
Tyndmyr actually just used 1: DM's and 2: played as a PC. The ambiguity hits when you ask what a PC is, but that's not really useful to the OP. The difference between yours and Tyndmyrs (and mine) is that it be played like a PC, not that it be viewed as one.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 10:22 AM
The difference is trivial. If it means so much to you, though, I agree with that particular part of Tyndmyr's definition too.

WildPyre
2011-08-18, 10:25 AM
The difference is trivial. If it means so much to you, though, I agree with that particular part of Tyndmyr's definition too.

*snickers* You know, if we continue to hold our own opinions while agreeing that other opinions are also valid they're going to kick us off the intrawbes.

Sipex
2011-08-18, 10:34 AM
Ignoring the endless definition debate which seems to plague this topic (and these forums, why are we always arguing about definitions?) I'll add in my experience with DMPCs, feedback and general opinion.

In my very first campaign (First played, first DMed) I ran a DMPC. I consider it a DMPC because I initially made it because I wanted a PC. Not the nobleist of reasons, I know but it's honest. There were other defining factors of course but it really boils down to "I wanted to play too". The character was created just as any other PC using the same stats, had his own goals and personality. Got a fair share of the loot and experience and even got his own side quests (hosted by my PCs, and no, this wasn't a round-robin DMing thing).

Due to the slanted advice of this forum (it's true, the forum in general is very anti-DMPC) I tried to terminate said DMPC because I was utterly convinced he was bad bad bad. If my PCs weren't saying anything bad it was because I wasn't getting the hint and should just terminate him anyways. What was I thinking? I was obviously a horrible person for even considering the idea of keeping him around.

When I attempted to terminate said DMPC my PCs all said "No", they insisted on keeping him around. When I insisted otherwise (due to the advise mentioned above) they all threatened to quit.

Therefore I must reason one of three things:
1) That my party is a pack of liars.
2) That my party is incredibly stupid and obviously can't tell that DMPCs are bad, no matter what.
3) That there are actually good ways to run a DMPC.

Considering my party, I'm going to maintain viewpoint #3.

From what I've heard however, DMPCs are extremely risky to run, it's something which needs to be done with utmost care and you need to consult your party before creating said character.

That said, with the right precautions I actually think a DMPC is fairly easy to play well. You just need to pass the prejudice barriers first (as I've come to learn some PCs will be utterly convinced your DMPC is horrible, no matter what).

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 10:42 AM
Yeah, that.
(more specifically: aside from the "threatening to quit" bit - I just let them vote - pretty much all that applies to my DMPC. Oh, also I didn't have to pass prejudice barriers - it'd just been standard practice in all the games I and my original players were in, and the later player who, when I asked, told me he preferred not to have DMPCs also said the one I was already running was fine, and then later was the one whose character brought her back to life when I tried to kill her off)

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 10:47 AM
It also happens to basically be the same definition used by Tyndmyr, in the post just above mine.
Considering the fact that most of the accusations leveled against DMPCs and DMPC-using DMs is that they treat their special character special, you'd think you'd agree that the self-identification is a key factor.
It's a character, played by the DM, in the party, as their personal character. That's it. Anything more than that is just casting your own biases and prejudices and assumptions over it.

It's pretty much the same as mine, yeah. Perception matters a lot. The "it's my character" viewpoint is relevant.

Regular ol' NPCs can be terrible too. Much less likely, in my opinion, but there's no rule preventing regular NPCs from being problematic in the case of some DMs.

Sure, I would say that it has to be played as a PC...but that is subjective, and varies from person to person a bit. But if you are playing that character in the manner you would like to play your PC...then yeah, I feel it counts.

I don't rule out the possibility that somewhere, there may be a DMPC that has not yet created problems. I just have never, ever seen such a thing, and I've seen at least a dozen DMPCs. Every one of which ranged from problematic but mostly tolerable to utterly, game destroyingly terrible. So...I'm pretty skeptical of the practice as a whole.

Sipex
2011-08-18, 10:56 AM
@Tynd

I think a lot of it is could be a cause of your own perception of DMPCs as well.

When your PC gets something nice usually you think "Awesome! I got a nice <sword/armor/bonus/whatever>!"

When another PC gets something nice it's, more often than not, seen as "Oh hey, nice <sword/armor/bonus/whatever> that'll really help the party!" unless the PC in question has been receiving a lot of bonuses lately in comparison to the rest of the party.

When another PC with leverage, say, the DM's SO, gets something nice it can more easily (compared to the examples above) seen as "OMFG, favouritism."

When a DMPC gets something nice it can easily be taken as "OMFG, the DM is favouring his DMPC."

This obviously would be closer to the 'Mostly Tolerable' DMPCs, but as a whole, it's a lot easier to apply a negative view to something you already see negatively.

Ekul
2011-08-18, 11:04 AM
There's too many ways to run a "tag-along NPC" for there to be one term.
There can be...
1) Role-filler (Meaningless to the story)
2) Walking Magic Item Shop
3) Mr. Exposition
4) Cohort
5) Story Centric NPC
6) Tag-along quest-giver (Distinct from the above and below in that they are usually temporary and deal with side missions. My DM calls these "Heroic NPCs")
7) Railroader (Only around to keep the PCs on their track)
8) DM as a PC (Actual original definition of DMPC: Behaves exactly the same as a PC, but run as a DM- thus this character will simultaneously have to pretend as though he knows nothing of the plot or the monster's weaknesses- but then try to "guess" these things to the best of his abilities.)

The problem with 8 is that the DM cannot come up with clever solutions to his own problems because he's the one who decides how viable the solutions are- and always knows how difficult every task will be unless he's literally written the entire thing down to a script, and then forgot everything and followed prearranged cue-cards. And then if they railjump, the entire campaign is screwed.

I believe any dissent here is due to a communication issue- not everyone has defined the term similarly. Some humor was derived earlier because somebody incorrectly paraphrased me as saying 'that if it's good, it's not a DMPC'. That's not true. What I meant was, they didn't behave as if the person was actually playing a player character, merely a squadmate.
Good DMPCs are not allowed to come up with any ideas because they know the exact difficulty of every task. And thus, they stop behaving like PCs in at least one respect. They can only give hints.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 11:12 AM
I'll discuss the last DMPC I had to deal with(I was in this campaign for all of a session). You can tell me how much of this is perception.

d20m Session starts. We are told all of our characters are in a bank. We ask why we're there, and are given no answer. Flashbags roll in. Two of us pass the (fort!) saves, the others fail the saves, and all unconscious. Those of us who pass get clubbed in the end and fall unconscious. Init, attack rolls, these thins do not happen. Wee.

We wake up in a cage and get told where to go and what to do. Two of us get guns, two of us get pointy sticks. This is going to be a great campaign. I'll skip over the rest of the railroading, but after running into a coupla zombies, we find a lovely house in the woods(note that we are in basically a nuclear wasteland). We are treated to lengthy detail about how awesome the house is, and how beautiful the place is. We cautiously creep in. Turns out the yard is filled with military grade landmines. Sad times for those of us who lack evasion. A rugged, handsome fellow appears in the window...tiring of his long description, I roll into the house, setting off a laundry list of increasingly improbable deathtraps that I survive purely by rolling well and having evasion.

Gunfight ensues, during which the fellow incapacitates us all, then heals us up, and invites us in for tea. Not that we have a choice in the matter. He regales us with tales of his awesomeness, and happily points out what wonderful friends we're all becoming. Plans are made, entirely by him, for what we're going to do. First, we must spend the night inside with him, while he tells us stories. I shoot him in the back of the head, twice. Woohoo, crit! The DM explains at length that hp really isn't damage, but is just tiredness, and therefore, he isn't ACTUALLY hit...he's just mildly bothered by the effort of dodging my shells. He then proceeds to punch me into the ground.

I wake up sometime later, when he merrily welcomes me back to the party. I shoot at him again. Rinse and repeat. I wake up unarmed, hung upside down. We have breakfast. He tells more stories. He guides us merrily along some wonderful woodland path while showing his supreme skill at everything, while I continue to hang from the back of his motorcycle. Session ends about the time he lets me down.

This is roughly average for DMPCs in my experience. I've definitely seen worse.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 11:33 AM
Yeah, never had a DM that bad personally, players in my group would have his head on a pike well before then. To be honest, I have only had a few experiences with DMPCs that ruined the campaign. 1 due to DM not seperating knowledge, another because the DM added over 900 HP to the guy, so he was overshadowing the tank, and another because the DM wouldn't let us know that he was a traitor, even though we all knew it.

Most DMPCs that I've dealt with were "meh" and the reason I dislike them so much, is that they could have been so much better executed if they had stayed out of the PC style role (those same DMs are brilliant at RPing fun and interesting NPCs, but the ones that stick to the party tend to bog down combat and become tiresome out of combat, or sort of get completely ignored). Less that DMPCs will be bad as Tyndmyr describes from my point of view, more that they are bad by comparison to an NPC, hireling or cohort. That and I know there's always a risk out there that it'll go from just "meh" to a full blown bad one.

Sipex
2011-08-18, 11:43 AM
Tynd, your example is of an obvious bad DMPC, I'm not going to question that one. Do you have any examples of the ones you classify as 'Mostly Tolerable' which I referred to in my previous post when originally making the perception point?

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 12:15 PM
Those were the "I'm gonna tag along with you, and point you at the plot randomly" variety. The last of these was roughly balanced from a level perspective, though it was somewhat annoying when he dominated combat occasionally, being built for the type of combat the DM preferred. More problematic was the fact that he became the driver for decisions. Not overtly, but things like "that's a bad idea" or "we should go this way" ended up in the party doing that because, well...it was pretty clear that we were meant to do so.

That was literally the best iteration of DMPC I've ever seen, and it resulted in half-serious, half-joking accusations of railroading from another player in the last session we played and the campaign being abandoned. It wasn't the only mismatch in player/DM expectations, but it was typical of them.

While I still play with the fellow who was DMing(and he's a great player), I'm quite certain he still doesn't realize that his DMPC was at all detrimental. *shrug* If a similar tactic gets used in the future, he'll probably just take a bullet/fireball to the face early on.

Sipex
2011-08-18, 12:29 PM
That's a tricky situation. Did any of you try to do what the DMPC advised against? The biggest discretion I can see there was if the DMPC didn't exist this would, instead, come down to the DM saying "Are you sure?" with that sort of tone that tells you that maybe it's a bad idea which some people who dislike the DMPC version might be 100% fine with.

With his mechanics you've presented an interesting pit fall not previously mentioned in DMPCing. It sounds like the DM's playstyle and DMing style are very similar. For example, he could really like building melee characters when he plays. As a result, he tends to like situations where melee characters get favoured and includes those in his DMing, therefore making a powerful DMPC. I could see anyone making this pitfall so it's definitely something to watch out for.

However, you state 'dominating combat occasionally' which illustrates my point perfectly. If the DM was simply a PC in that campaign and he dominated a combat occasionally I don't think you would mind nearly as much. Really, it's just a PC doing what he's good at.

That said, one of the cardinal rules to DMPCing is not to overshadow your players. If it starts happening you're basically playing against yourself and things can get awkward at the table.

Yukitsu
2011-08-18, 12:39 PM
Technically, a player shouldn't try to overshadow another player at their role either. I know in my current game, I was telling the table I was going to be the tech guy, so when "wasn't paying attention" guy built a half tech half pilot character, he was irritated that I invalidated half his class levels. (his fault in this case, because I had mentioned it before he started his character, but still, he is right to be irate.)

Edit: I constantly ignore DMPC advice, and I never listen to the DM when he says "are you sure?" as the latter is technically metagaming. That and every time I do something to prompt "are you sure" the DM goes through a funny progression of 1: smug satisfaction 2: confusion 3: dawning realization 4: complete horror and 5: panicked retconning. 1/4 to 1/3 of these are caused by me getting eaten. The remainder are me buying a stock of noodle implements that the DM couldn't figure out. Sadly, they've all stopped asking me if I'm sure.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 12:57 PM
That's a tricky situation. Did any of you try to do what the DMPC advised against? The biggest discretion I can see there was if the DMPC didn't exist this would, instead, come down to the DM saying "Are you sure?" with that sort of tone that tells you that maybe it's a bad idea which some people who dislike the DMPC version might be 100% fine with.

Did we ignore his advice? Absolutely. Not always, mind you, and he didn't outright force it on us...but it would get increasingly obvious that you were off the rails, and there was nothing for you here.

An "are you sure" would have been much preferable. It's OOC, it doesn't screw with the story, and I almost invariably know when I'm making an actually bad decision anyhow.


With his mechanics you've presented an interesting pit fall not previously mentioned in DMPCing. It sounds like the DM's playstyle and DMing style are very similar. For example, he could really like building melee characters when he plays. As a result, he tends to like situations where melee characters get favoured and includes those in his DMing, therefore making a powerful DMPC. I could see anyone making this pitfall so it's definitely something to watch out for.

He's remarkably talky and investigation oriented. The rest of the group is generally not. We talk and investigate exactly enough to figure out where to go and who to kill. Rolling twenty seven more checks(and specifying detailed locations for same for a bit of backstory is not considered worthwhile by the rest of us.

So, his plot and our actions frequently didn't match up well. The DMPC was a plot device that came up relatively early to point us along to the next bit in his plan.


However, you state 'dominating combat occasionally' which illustrates my point perfectly. If the DM was simply a PC in that campaign and he dominated a combat occasionally I don't think you would mind nearly as much. Really, it's just a PC doing what he's good at.

Yeah...but think about it. His character is tailored to the fight. Every fight ever was a close ranged battle, and he was a dual wielding handgun user prestige classed into gunslinger. There was no illegal hanky panky going on, but he did have the foreknowledge advantage.

Other characters were just flat out less effective across the board. Not because their characters were bad, per se, but because they were not very useful in the context of the campaign. The techie/linguist was a good example. Fine character concept, but when the campaign is "evil psionics means everything is terrible, and you can never shop anywhere", the character is only occasionally useful.

Other characters, such as mine, were not, because I happened to pick a similar style.


That said, one of the cardinal rules to DMPCing is not to overshadow your players. If it starts happening you're basically playing against yourself and things can get awkward at the table.

You're ALWAYS playing against yourself, no matter which one of you is winning.

What basically happened is that we didn't have a solid IC reason to get rid of him, fights were consistently close enough that we really couldn't afford to get rid of him, so players tolerated him IC, despite not really liking it at all.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 12:59 PM
My DMPC, upon being asked her advice on something, once gave the exact opposite advice to what I, as DM, wanted the party to do, because it's the sort of advice she would've given. I've made it clear to my group that anything coming from my character, is coming from my character. I've only very rarely used her as a "DM's Mouthpiece", and that's just as a poking-stick when the group starts to waffle - which is also in-character for her.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-18, 01:06 PM
Oh, it was in character for him to poke at us when we waffled too. It didn't make it any less transparent, though.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 01:11 PM
Eh, it's pretty much the same either way. It's either "Right, lets make a decision and get on with it!" in character, or "Come on guys, make a decision and get on with it." out of character. Same diff.
edit: For me and my group, specifically, I mean.

maximus25
2011-08-18, 02:56 PM
My group doesn't have a healer type, so I made them a cleric. The only thing on her list are healing spells, and she carries no weapons, only armor.

I think it worked out quite nicely, she doesn't talk about what the party should be doing, only contributes in roleplaying situations between characters, not NPC's though.

Rogue Shadows
2011-08-18, 04:00 PM
My group doesn't have a healer type, so I made them a cleric. The only thing on her list are healing spells, and she carries no weapons, only armor.

I think it worked out quite nicely, she doesn't talk about what the party should be doing, only contributes in roleplaying situations between characters, not NPC's though.

That's...really dull. Just give them a rechargeable staff of cure serious wounds or something, then.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-18, 08:30 PM
These sound like hirelings or cohorts. These are a reasonable option if the players have sought them out, and it makes sense in the context of the story. I would try to avoid getting the numbers too large, though. Armies of mooks are sometimes problematic.

Not hirelings per se, but what might be called requisitioned backup.


Might be decent for a night. I would not want to turn an entire campaign to "guard the squishy NPC" though. I wouldn't call this a DMPC problem necessarily, as this character does not sound particularly PC-like. Still, players tend to tire of escort quests after a while. Definitely best to avoid them becoming a current member of the party(which, tbh...isn't even a very realistic career choice for an aristocrat).

Assume 2 sessions of escort mission.


A bunch of people two levels below can easily show up the party, depending. More significantly, they can take up a bunch of time. This is only ok if they aren't really DMPCs and are more like people under the command of the PCs (and the PCs enjoy this).

Assume the PCs specifically requisitioned them.


DM's opinion's of themselves and what they do is even worse when no one else will DM. I've joined groups where I had previously mentioned I was willing to DM, and later on called him out on something. The supposedly contented players just jumped the poor guy like vultures. I don't think players are willing enough to level valid criticisms against their DMs, and just try to keep the DM from dumping the campaign, so I think a lot of DMs, especially chronic DMs don't realize how bad they are at times.

Well, I tend to have a very low opinion of my skills at DMing, but when I asked the players they think I'm good.


I'll discuss the last DMPC I had to deal with(I was in this campaign for all of a session). You can tell me how much of this is perception.

d20m Session starts. We are told all of our characters are in a bank. We ask why we're there, and are given no answer. Flashbags roll in. Two of us pass the (fort!) saves, the others fail the saves, and all unconscious. Those of us who pass get clubbed in the end and fall unconscious. Init, attack rolls, these thins do not happen. Wee.

We wake up in a cage and get told where to go and what to do. Two of us get guns, two of us get pointy sticks. This is going to be a great campaign. I'll skip over the rest of the railroading, but after running into a coupla zombies, we find a lovely house in the woods(note that we are in basically a nuclear wasteland). We are treated to lengthy detail about how awesome the house is, and how beautiful the place is. We cautiously creep in. Turns out the yard is filled with military grade landmines. Sad times for those of us who lack evasion. A rugged, handsome fellow appears in the window...tiring of his long description, I roll into the house, setting off a laundry list of increasingly improbable deathtraps that I survive purely by rolling well and having evasion.

Gunfight ensues, during which the fellow incapacitates us all, then heals us up, and invites us in for tea. Not that we have a choice in the matter. He regales us with tales of his awesomeness, and happily points out what wonderful friends we're all becoming. Plans are made, entirely by him, for what we're going to do. First, we must spend the night inside with him, while he tells us stories. I shoot him in the back of the head, twice. Woohoo, crit! The DM explains at length that hp really isn't damage, but is just tiredness, and therefore, he isn't ACTUALLY hit...he's just mildly bothered by the effort of dodging my shells. He then proceeds to punch me into the ground.

I wake up sometime later, when he merrily welcomes me back to the party. I shoot at him again. Rinse and repeat. I wake up unarmed, hung upside down. We have breakfast. He tells more stories. He guides us merrily along some wonderful woodland path while showing his supreme skill at everything, while I continue to hang from the back of his motorcycle. Session ends about the time he lets me down.

This is roughly average for DMPCs in my experience. I've definitely seen worse.

That's not a DMPC, that's a steam engine with legs. :smalltongue:

LansXero
2011-08-18, 11:05 PM
A DMPC (as a generalisation, but I think overall pretty accurate for the most part) is a character the DM considered their own personal character in the game, distinct from all the other NPCs. The important part of running a good DMPC is that although it's more important to the DM than NPCs, it can never be as important as the PCs.

Sorry, but what? Why? Whatever a DMPC (as is understood in this quote) may add to a game can equally be added by one or several NPCs (likeable personality, nice roleplaying, useful abilities, great anecdotes, etc.) without the DM ever making that separation. Why would one feel the need to single them out and outloud proclaim THIS IS MY CHARACTER? What does THAT add?

Im sure the players can like a certain character and have fun alongside it and prevent it from being killed and say it adds a lot to the game. Sure, Ive had several NPCs to whom thats happened. But what does the separation from the rest of the NPCs in the world add? What improvement does saying THAT one is YOUR character bring to the game specifically? Im not being hyperbolic, Im honestly curious. Before reading some horror stories in this board it wouldve never ocurred to me a DMPC was something that could happen. And the only ways Ive seen them appear until this thread have been as causes for horror stories in a few threads. So, why risk it? What do they add that another NPC doesnt add? Please, help me understand, maybe Im missing something but I honestly cant see what do they do for the game or the players' enjoyment that a similar NPC wouldnt do.

Serpentine
2011-08-18, 11:49 PM
Sorry, but what? Why? Whatever a DMPC (as is understood in this quote) may add to a game can equally be added by one or several NPCs (likeable personality, nice roleplaying, useful abilities, great anecdotes, etc.) without the DM ever making that separation. Why would one feel the need to single them out and outloud proclaim THIS IS MY CHARACTER? What does THAT add?...because that's my definition of a DMPC? :smallconfused: The "whys" of it don't come into it, not the definition. That's a completely different issue.

As for the whys... Well, that's been covered numerous times over the course of this and other threads. In my case, she was originally created for the game because it was standard practice up 'til then. Not a good reason, perhaps, but my reason nonetheless. She's stayed in the game because my players decided she should.

Rogue Shadows
2011-08-19, 12:34 AM
Sorry, but what? Why? Whatever a DMPC (as is understood in this quote) may add to a game can equally be added by one or several NPCs (likeable personality, nice roleplaying, useful abilities, great anecdotes, etc.) without the DM ever making that separation. Why would one feel the need to single them out and outloud proclaim THIS IS MY CHARACTER? What does THAT add?

A character for the DM to play? That seems to be the most likely thing that gets added.

Let's be honest here; if you as a DM spend dozens of hours crafting an adventure or even a campaign setting, and you want to actually play as well as run the setting, that's not unreasonable. The trick is simply in making sure that the DMPC is treated no differently from PCs.

As long as the DM does that, then the problem is with the players, not the DM.

LansXero
2011-08-19, 03:13 AM
A character for the DM to play? That seems to be the most likely thing that gets added.


I dont really see that, as the DM gets to play everyone else but the PCs. He can try any template, class, background or role he wants, however much he wants. But Ill grant that just because I dont see it it doesnt mean it cant be important to others.

So... is that all? Solely for the benefit of the DM? What does it add for the game or the players (beyond a happier DM) that a simple NPC doesnt?

Serpentine
2011-08-19, 04:02 AM
Filling in gaps in party capabilities is another commonly cited reason. Yes, there are other ways of doing this, but some people prefer it in character form.

LansXero
2011-08-19, 04:16 AM
Filling in gaps in party capabilities is another commonly cited reason. Yes, there are other ways of doing this, but some people prefer it in character form.

Of course, but both NPCs and DMPCs do it in character form. Not trying to nitpick, just want to clarify what makes a DMPC preferable to an NPC.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-19, 04:21 AM
A character for the DM to play? That seems to be the most likely thing that gets added.

Let's be honest here; if you as a DM spend dozens of hours crafting an adventure or even a campaign setting, and you want to actually play as well as run the setting, that's not unreasonable. The trick is simply in making sure that the DMPC is treated no differently from PCs.

As long as the DM does that, then the problem is with the players, not the DM.

The issue is that a DM won't get the same enjoyment out of playing their own setting as someone else will, just as an author gets little enjoyment from reading his own book. :smallfrown:

Hence, DMPCs should really only be used when there's a need for them, IMO.

Knaight
2011-08-19, 05:00 AM
I said, "It may feel like you're playing the game, but you aren't. You aren't using all your knowledge and abilities to solve puzzles and learn about the world." There are no evaluative words here at all. It is a simple description of what playing the game means, for every player, but not for the DM.
Its a simple description of one way to play the game. "Solving puzzles and learning about the world" sounds like a profoundly boring way to play for me, "controlling at least one character in a collaborative narrative in which I influence the plot" much more fun. The GM doesn't know exactly what is going to happen in any campaign that isn't heavily scripted, which is usually viewed as a bad thing, though there are players who appreciate that style.


I do not belive that it is possible to play a gmpc as if you do not know whats going to happen. Because you are the gm, you always know whats coming next.
If the GM always knows what is coming next, the players are either extremely predictable, or have no influence in what is coming next.


Technically, a player shouldn't try to overshadow another player at their role either. I know in my current game, I was telling the table I was going to be the tech guy, so when "wasn't paying attention" guy built a half tech half pilot character, he was irritated that I invalidated half his class levels. (his fault in this case, because I had mentioned it before he started his character, but still, he is right to be irate.)
"Their role?" The only time this is even relevant is if what the character can do mechanically is what makes them interesting, or if being far better than others is part of the schtick. Sure, deliberately trying to outdo someone else is rude, but if two characters have a similar basic schtick (e.g. swordsman) and one is better than the other at that, there isn't necessarily a problem. The knight and squire, for instance, can be fun to play. So can the mage and apprentice. So can two people who happen to both be swordsmen, one of whom is better at that than the other. Now, if that is all they are, and there is nothing more to the character, the power difference is a problem. So is the fact that the character is boring and 2d.

flumphy
2011-08-19, 05:28 AM
Its a simple description of one way to play the game. "Solving puzzles and learning about the world" sounds like a profoundly boring way to play for me, "controlling at least one character in a collaborative narrative in which I influence the plot" much more fun. The GM doesn't know exactly what is going to happen in any campaign that isn't heavily scripted, which is usually viewed as a bad thing, though there are players who appreciate that style.


If the GM always knows what is coming next, the players are either extremely predictable, or have no influence in what is coming next.


"Their role?" The only time this is even relevant is if what the character can do mechanically is what makes them interesting, or if being far better than others is part of the schtick. Sure, deliberately trying to outdo someone else is rude, but if two characters have a similar basic schtick (e.g. swordsman) and one is better than the other at that, there isn't necessarily a problem. The knight and squire, for instance, can be fun to play. So can the mage and apprentice. So can two people who happen to both be swordsmen, one of whom is better at that than the other. Now, if that is all they are, and there is nothing more to the character, the power difference is a problem. So is the fact that the character is boring and 2d.

I see where you're coming from. I even agree with you that purely in the context of a collaborative narrative that many common pitfalls of a GMPC disappear. However, there are some systems *cough*D&D*cough* that are designed to be more of a game than a narrative. A game where players really are out to prove their mechanical superiority. To be clear, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that or that you can't have a game with narrative. Just that the game is very much there, and those only interested in the narrative aspects would be using a system other than 3.X, if they used a system at all.

So no, GMPCs need not make the narrative unfair. However, they inherently make the game unfair.

Knaight
2011-08-19, 05:35 AM
I see where you're coming from. I even agree with you that purely in the context of a collaborative narrative that many common pitfalls of a GMPC disappear. However, there are some systems *cough*D&D*cough* that are designed to be more of a game than a narrative. A game where players really are out to prove their mechanical superiority. To be clear, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that or that you can't have a game with narrative. Just that the game is very much there, and those only interested in the narrative aspects would be using a system other than 3.X, if they used a system at all.

So no, GMPCs need not make the narrative unfair. However, they inherently make the game unfair.

The game and the narrative aren't necessarily all that split apart. Moreover, my point was not in defense of the GMPC, but merely pointing out that even if one assumes a game with a GM -which isn't guaranteed- one can't simply assume that the sum total of what the game is is a pre-established plot, or puzzles and exploration, or any of a bunch of other things.

LansXero
2011-08-19, 05:36 AM
"controlling at least one character in a collaborative narrative in which I influence the plot" much more fun.

How about controlling several characters and every event in a collaborative narrative in which you influence the Plot, which you already do by merit of being the DM? And what can you narratively contribute by having a DMPC that you couldnt with one or several NPCs?


The GM doesn't know exactly what is going to happen in any campaign that isn't heavily scripted, which is usually viewed as a bad thing, though there are players who appreciate that style.

Really, now. The DM doesnt know how the DM will decide the NPCs will react, he doesnt know what he chose for the NPCs motivations to be, he doesnt know that those reinforcements he planned to be joining midfight will be joining midfight, he doesnt know that the secret villain he infiltrated is secretly a villain, etc,etc. ? That he chooses to not act on this knowledge is one thing, to pretend he doesnt know it is accusing the DM of multiple personality disorder. And as much as he could tag along with the party without acting on it with a DMPC, he could with an NPC without the extra attachment.


If the GM always knows what is coming next, the players are either extremely predictable, or have no influence in what is coming next.

Unless the DM is very improv-heavy, he would at least more or less know who is after what and why are they doing what they do and how would they react to this and that. When he interacts with himself, as his DMPC talking to another NPC, he has to decide at some point if his actions will succeed or not, and then he knows whats coming next, by virtue of having just decided it.


"Their role?" The only time this is even relevant is if what the character can do mechanically is what makes them interesting, or if being far better than others is part of the schtick. .

So sitting there at the table just watching the others do all the rolling or the talking and being an spectator because of how severely you are outclassed is supposed to be fun now? Supposed three-dimensionality of characters aside is irrelevant, it can be achieved just as well without making players redundant, since the DM has much more leeway on choosing characters within his narrative to use than Players have. More so, by sticking to their one DMPC they rob themselves of the option of exploring the interactions of their party with more than just the one character, when they could be using a whole array of personalities and people as NPCs without all the extra attachment. Sure, you can have both, but then what purpose did the DMPC really serve that another similar NPC couldnt serve?

Knaight
2011-08-19, 05:59 AM
How about controlling several characters and every event in a collaborative narrative in which you influence the Plot, which you already do by merit of being the DM? And what can you narratively contribute by having a DMPC that you couldnt with one or several NPCs? I'm sorry, did I say a DMPC was necessary at any point? No, I didn't. I merely criticized a statement of what the entirety of the game was, when it encompassed only one play style. For that matter, a GM isn't always necessary, neither is the concept of the "player character".

Also, if you control every event, then the players clearly have no agency and are entirely reactive. This is merely one way to play, and not even the most common.




Really, now. The DM doesnt know how the DM will decide the NPCs will react, he doesnt know what he chose for the NPCs motivations to be, he doesnt know that those reinforcements he planned to be joining midfight will be joining midfight, he doesnt know that the secret villain he infiltrated is secretly a villain, etc,etc. ? That he chooses to not act on this knowledge is one thing, to pretend he doesnt know it is accusing the DM of multiple personality disorder. And as much as he could tag along with the party without acting on it with a DMPC, he could with an NPC without the extra attachment.
The GM doesn't know what the PCs are going to do. He doesn't know how the NPCs will react because he doesn't know what they will react to, he doesn't know what the reinforcements will do because for all he knows, they might be bribed, or the player characters might send out troops, or the player characters might prove that the person they are guarding is scum and get them to turn, or any number of other things. If the GM knows the whole path of the game, it is because the players don't actually have meaningful agency, though the PCs or other influences.



Unless the DM is very improv-heavy, he would at least more or less know who is after what and why are they doing what they do and how would they react to this and that. When he interacts with himself, as his DMPC talking to another NPC, he has to decide at some point if his actions will succeed or not, and then he knows whats coming next, by virtue of having just decided it.
Even if the GM is very improv-heavy, that much will be known. However, your example is founded on certain assumptions to be relevant.

1) The default interaction is PC-NPC. The DMPC will be interacting the the other NPCs more than with the PCs, to fit the default. This is a niche play style, if a large niche.

2) The GM has complete control of the NPC. There is no metagame currency in place that would tweak that, there is no system where NPCs are given to players briefly, nothing. This is fairly common, but still far from universal.

So no, even with the DMPC, you can't just assume that the GM has anywhere near perfect information. He can't have perfect information, because the game isn't entirely in his control in most situations.


So sitting there at the table just watching the others do all the rolling or the talking and being an spectator because of how severely you are outclassed is supposed to be fun now? Supposed three-dimensionality of characters aside is irrelevant, it can be achieved just as well without making players redundant, since the DM has much more leeway on choosing characters within his narrative to use than Players have. More so, by sticking to their one DMPC they rob themselves of the option of exploring the interactions of their party with more than just the one character, when they could be using a whole array of personalities and people as NPCs without all the extra attachment. Sure, you can have both, but then what purpose did the DMPC really serve that another similar NPC couldnt serve?
Because the existence of the level 7 Warblade invalidated the existence of the level 6 Warblade. Sure. Also, the DMPC was completely and utterly irrelevant to this point, as it was merely arguing that the implicit statement that one must have clear roles, with minimal overlap, and heavy niche protection was only valid sometimes.

Again, I'm not arguing for the DMPC. I'm merely arguing against arguments that assume that Roleplaying games are less than they are, that assume that they cover far less ground than they do. I'm trying to see that this conversation is held without trivializing the breadth of our hobby.

Serpentine
2011-08-19, 06:07 AM
Of course, but both NPCs and DMPCs do it in character form. Not trying to nitpick, just want to clarify what makes a DMPC preferable to an NPC.Thing is, that's purely down to taste. You could use a rechargable Staff of Healing, or you could use a DMPC (or you could use something else). Some people are happy with a handy item. Others want something with personality.
A DMPC is rarely, if ever, "preferable" in any objective way to any of the innumerable other options. But nonetheless, some prefer them for - for the most part - purely subjective reasons.

flumphy
2011-08-19, 06:21 AM
The game and the narrative aren't necessarily all that split apart. Moreover, my point was not in defense of the GMPC, but merely pointing out that even if one assumes a game with a GM -which isn't guaranteed- one can't simply assume that the sum total of what the game is is a pre-established plot, or puzzles and exploration, or any of a bunch of other things.

You have valid points, and I apologize for misunderstanding your motives. However, do keep in mind that the OP was discussing 3.P, where, if you run the four encounters per day the system is balanced around, mechanics are in fact a large part of what makes a character interesting. Where a well-built level 7 warblade CAN in fact invalidate an unoptimized level 6 one, as I unfortunately found out in actual play recently.

Now, I agree that trying to educate about other playstyles is a good thing. I've probably played more freeform in my life than everything else combined, and D&D is hardly the only system I've picked up. I love RPGs, period. I just think that a good, old-fashioned roguelike is as part of the genre as the most narrative-driven tabletop session. To deemphasize the mechanical aspect of gaming (which, intentionally or not, is how you have been coming across) neglects the breadth of our hobby as much as assuming any particular game structure does.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-19, 07:15 AM
The game and the narrative aren't necessarily all that split apart. Moreover, my point was not in defense of the GMPC, but merely pointing out that even if one assumes a game with a GM -which isn't guaranteed- one can't simply assume that the sum total of what the game is is a pre-established plot, or puzzles and exploration, or any of a bunch of other things.

Games without GMs don't really have DMPCs. So...no issue for those sorts of systems. The problem just doesn't exist.

A game DOES typically consist of at least some pre-established plot, puzzles, exploration, etc, though. You can assume that this is a significant factor in essentially any game. Even sandbox games, though they have a multitude of possible plot lines, have some pre-established plot and setting, much of which players are not privy to.



1) The default interaction is PC-NPC. The DMPC will be interacting the the other NPCs more than with the PCs, to fit the default. This is a niche play style, if a large niche.

That is extremely common. Pvp games do exist(though they are significantly less popular)...but in those, the danger of having the arbitrator also playing still exists. Certainly, the possibility for prejudice or the impression of favoritism exists in such a game..possibly even in a larger degree than in cooperative games, as the DM then IS guaranteed to be playing against the players.


2) The GM has complete control of the NPC. There is no metagame currency in place that would tweak that, there is no system where NPCs are given to players briefly, nothing. This is fairly common, but still far from universal.

It's essentially always the case. Systems which allow players to affect NPC actions(consider 7th Sea villian hubris activation) tend to do so in a way that relies on GM assent and strongly limits how/when players can do this.


So no, even with the DMPC, you can't just assume that the GM has anywhere near perfect information. He can't have perfect information, because the game isn't entirely in his control in most situations.

Perfect? No. But pretty good info. More than the players. Thus, from a game perspective, it is certainly unfair.


Thing is, that's purely down to taste. You could use a rechargable Staff of Healing, or you could use a DMPC (or you could use something else). Some people are happy with a handy item. Others want something with personality.
A DMPC is rarely, if ever, "preferable" in any objective way to any of the innumerable other options. But nonetheless, some prefer them for - for the most part - purely subjective reasons.

In the interest of being pedantic...both of those could technically be the same thing. =) I <3 intelligent items.

The lack of objective reasons to use a DMPC is the main point, really. Without those...there's little reason to recommend a DMPC as a solution to anything.

Serpentine
2011-08-19, 08:10 AM
There are actually few, if any, situations where I would actually recommend the use of a DMPC. I just believe there are plenty of circumstances where a DMPC can be useful, and that the default advice for "how do I run a good DM?" should not be "don't".

Gnaeus
2011-08-19, 08:23 AM
As long as the DM does that, then the problem is with the players, not the DM.

Who cares where the problem originates? When the players or the DM have a problem, it is everybody's problem.

I think that a lot of the defensiveness in the debate comes from pro-DMPC posters feeling like they are being personally attacked for cheating, metagaming, or otherwise improper play when the anti-dmpc side brings up common problems caused by DMPCs.

I have used DMPCs. They were not a railroad device. They were used to fill party holes. I am not proud of them, and wish that I hadn't used them, but they were no more based on improper motives on my part than were the TPKs that I ran before I understood how borked CR is. I could have, and should have, used less problematic methods to do the same job. I do not think that you or Serp are bad people or bad DMs for using DMPCs, but I do think it is a mistake, and if I were in your game I would say so.

Tyndmyr's example is a great example of a DMPC used really badly, but is almost off topic in the wider world of responsible DMs. On a more real-world level, I am more concerned with issues like (but not limited to):
My PC has good IC reason to act against another party member, or the DMPC, but I worry that the DMPC will stop me, and I can't sneak stuff past the DMPC because DM knows everything I am doing. This gets MUCH worse in a group predisposed to bias issues (such as if the DM's significant other is playing)
or
DM always rules against my character, but he always rules for DMPC. DMPC abilities seem to work, and mine never do. Monsters seem to attack me and not the DMPC (Note: This does not require actual DM wrongdoing. The DMPC may just roll better. It is the perception that is the problem.)
or
DMPC is taking away play time from the characters. The DM is already rolling for the entire opposing side, I want a bigger share of spotlight time for my PC.

It does not matter whose FAULT it is. If the DMPC is a cause of conflict, it doesn't matter which side of the DM's screen the error came from.

Serpentine
2011-08-19, 08:33 AM
I think that a lot of the defensiveness in the debate comes from pro-DMPC posters feeling like they are being personally attacked for cheating, metagaming, or otherwise improper play when the anti-dmpc side brings up common problems caused by DMPCs.When the anti-DMPC side lists those things as though they are inevitable and that every single DMPC-using DM is definitely guilty of it and that even if players think the DM is guilty of them without any cause at all it's still the DM's fault, I don't think a bit of "defensiveness" is terribly unreasonable.

Tiniere
2011-08-19, 08:34 AM
I've only been DMing for about a year now, but I have been running DMPCs in that time. At first I made the mistake of making a caster since the whole party was martial and I thought the utility would help. This was later remedied when the character was offered, willingly, as a sacrifice to appease an enraged god.

From then on, whenever I statted out characters to travel with the party they were more like NPCs than my personal character. This worked a lot better, sometimes they'd be enemies (one got thrown overboard and fed to a Kraken) other times old friends, (a pair of cloistered clerics that did research for the party). These characters, although they were statted like PCs and sometimes grew as such, were more like detached cohorts/NPCs.

Now, playing in fourth edition, the party's paladin wanted to take the Guardian theme (I don't remember the exact name) which required him to have a 'charge' or a character less adept in direct combat than him which he was charged with protecting. So the party (which also lacked a healer) is traveling with the orphaned cousin of one of the paladin's friends (a sorcerer from a former adventuring party). She's afraid of combat for the most part and will hide behind party members if she gets attacked. She sometimes throws tantrums or gets kidnapped, but as she grew more familiarised with the party and the life of adventure has started trying to be more helpful ex. healing/combat.

This last model has worked pretty well. Most of the party sees her as an annoying brat or as someone to be protected, she doesn't shine much in social events as noone really listens to the kid, though she'll shout rude things at times. Overall noone has really complained, but this is in a party where several people enjoy having minion followers etc so it may not work the same way in your group.

TL;DR
1) Like any NPC a DMPC should play second fiddle to the actual players
2) It can be party of the plot eg. save the princess, but shouldn't be the plot central player (the DMPC can be Princess Peach but not Mario, as for zelda... maybe?)
3) All NPCs are your characters, if you want to try out a class or design, you can make a villain or neutral encounter character that's built like the character you want to play. Then it's the players choice to fight, befriend, or ignore

Gnaeus
2011-08-19, 08:55 AM
When the anti-DMPC side lists those things as though they are inevitable and that every single DMPC-using DM is definitely guilty of it and that even if players think the DM is guilty of them without any cause at all it's still the DM's fault, I don't think a bit of "defensiveness" is terribly unreasonable.

Personally, I only think it is inevitable in a mathematical sense. I think that DMPCs are always risky, and therefore that the longer they run, the more the overall probability of a major problem emerging approaches 100%. I do not think it is inevitable in any particular campaign.

It is the DMs fault in a sense. He introduced the DMPC after all. I do not think that it requires DM wrongdoing, or sinister motives. If I throw wild parties with 160 proof punch, and someone else gets alcohol poisoning or gets in a car wreck, I didn't cause their bad behavior, but I set up the conditions that made it dangerous. The one way to insure that DMPCs are problem free is not to use them.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-19, 09:17 AM
There are actually few, if any, situations where I would actually recommend the use of a DMPC. I just believe there are plenty of circumstances where a DMPC can be useful, and that the default advice for "how do I run a good DM?" should not be "don't".

Why not?

If there's few or any situations where it's the ideal solution, shouldn't other solutions be recommended first?

It's a bit like monk threads. If someone asks how to play monk 20...some of the advice is going to be "don't. Play this instead, it will get you where you want to go more efficiently". I think that's reasonable advice.


Personally, I only think it is inevitable in a mathematical sense. I think that DMPCs are always risky, and therefore that the longer they run, the more the overall probability of a major problem emerging approaches 100%. I do not think it is inevitable in any particular campaign.

Correct. There's always risk(though it's hard to quantify the risk, since it depends on many other variables as well) introduced by it. I would argue that it's always a significant risk, though. Few other practices generate such wide-spread ill will and examples of misuse. So...it's clear that it's exceptionally likely to lead to problems. Such things are generally best avoided as policy.


It is the DMs fault in a sense. He introduced the DMPC after all. I do not think that it requires DM wrongdoing, or sinister motives. If I throw wild parties with 160 proof punch, and someone else gets alcohol poisoning or gets in a car wreck, I didn't cause their bad behavior, but I set up the conditions that made it dangerous. The one way to insure that DMPCs are problem free is not to use them.

This is true. Problems are problems, and one of the DMs roles in most groups is as organizer/problem solver.

Consider if the DM says "you may roll any alignment, and engage in pvp at any time for any reason". Then, some players love stabbing others in their sleep. It's a problem...and I certainly wouldn't say the DM is 100% at fault...but it does generally fall to the DM do do something to fix it.

Yukitsu
2011-08-19, 09:53 AM
"Their role?" The only time this is even relevant is if what the character can do mechanically is what makes them interesting, or if being far better than others is part of the schtick. Sure, deliberately trying to outdo someone else is rude, but if two characters have a similar basic schtick (e.g. swordsman) and one is better than the other at that, there isn't necessarily a problem. The knight and squire, for instance, can be fun to play. So can the mage and apprentice. So can two people who happen to both be swordsmen, one of whom is better at that than the other. Now, if that is all they are, and there is nothing more to the character, the power difference is a problem. So is the fact that the character is boring and 2d.

It'll depend on the role. When it's "I fight stuff" and "I also fight stuff", it's less binary state than "I use craft checks to build party stuff and fabricate to do it fast" as compared to "I can make inferior stuff more slowly". The only roles with significant, acceptable overlap are "I have actions in combat" which is 90% of the overlap in your examples anyway.

You're talking about "interesting" in the overall story sense, but I'm talking about how much fun it is to play in the game. It's ideal if you can focus on both of those, and for that you don't end up with 3 lock pickers and a guy who casts knock.

LansXero
2011-08-19, 12:50 PM
A DMPC is rarely, if ever, "preferable" in any objective way to any of the innumerable other options. But nonetheless, some prefer them for - for the most part - purely subjective reasons.

Thanks for enlightening me. I can understand risky or problematic choices being validly chosen for subjective reasons; however most of the thread seemed to imply there were possible (even if unlikely) objective advantages to bringing a DMPC into the party. As anything else, its within the purview of the DM as master of the game, but as was said before me, if there are no real objective benefits of its inclusion, then perhaps the default advice should be: dont do it.

It then wouldnt be much different from fumble rules, pvp or called shots: flavorful, and entirely within your right to allow, but more often than not problematic and a source of complication, so best avoided unless very experienced with it.

Rogue Shadows
2011-08-19, 02:29 PM
The issue is that a DM won't get the same enjoyment out of playing their own setting as someone else will, just as an author gets little enjoyment from reading his own book. :smallfrown:

I get immense enjoyment out of reading my own books, thank you very much. A little arrogant of me, perhaps, but it's true.


So... is that all? Solely for the benefit of the DM? What does it add for the game or the players (beyond a happier DM) that a simple NPC doesnt?

I would think that a happy DM should be reason enough to allow a DMPC.

Put another way - as long as the DM is treating the DMPC no differently from any other PC, what reasonable cause do the players have to complain?

Knaight
2011-08-19, 02:56 PM
Games without GMs don't really have DMPCs. So...no issue for those sorts of systems. The problem just doesn't exist.
Yes, which is what that was mentioned in passing.


A game DOES typically consist of at least some pre-established plot, puzzles, exploration, etc, though. You can assume that this is a significant factor in essentially any game. Even sandbox games, though they have a multitude of possible plot lines, have some pre-established plot and setting, much of which players are not privy to.
Plot and exploration maybe. Puzzles though, that seems to be a D&D tendency which hasn't spread past D&D much at all. Plus, coming back to exploration, games in a small part of a setting without major travel are reasonably common - see the default assumption of WoD.

Moreover, my point was not that these elements were not in the game, they often are. My point is that "solving puzzles and exploring" is not a fair description of what playing is for many people. For many players it is a matter of "developing a character" or "collaborative storytelling" or "playing with mechanics" or any combination thereof. Not one of these describes all play styles. Even the combinations miss a fair few play styles.



That is extremely common. Pvp games do exist(though they are significantly less popular)...but in those, the danger of having the arbitrator also playing still exists. Certainly, the possibility for prejudice or the impression of favoritism exists in such a game..possibly even in a larger degree than in cooperative games, as the DM then IS guaranteed to be playing against the players.
Interaction between PCs as a default does not mean PvP. It merely means that inter-party interaction is at least as important as party-setting interaction. This can mean character conflict, but even that isn't PvP until the mechanics start breaking out, which usually means some variety of violence. As such, many of the problems of the DMPC that relate to superior information go away in the inter-party focus, mostly because the difference between the GM with a DMPC and a player is much more minimal.



It's essentially always the case. Systems which allow players to affect NPC actions(consider 7th Sea villian hubris activation) tend to do so in a way that relies on GM assent and strongly limits how/when players can do this.
Sure, at the systemic level. At the group-playstyle level though, handing off NPCs to players who's characters aren't in a scene is incredibly common. Which, in the case of the DMPC, means that the GM has only a vague idea of what is going on, as the players are effectively a temporary GM.



Perfect? No. But pretty good info. More than the players. Thus, from a game perspective, it is certainly unfair.
Oh, this I agree with. I'm simply saying that the claim of perfect information is wrong in cases where the players -or, for that matter, the dice- have influence. Still, I think you overestimate the amount of information that one can expect a GM to have beyond the players, though that forms a lower limit, with the upper being the GM with near perfect information and no player agency.

LansXero
2011-08-19, 03:00 PM
I would think that a happy DM should be reason enough to allow a DMPC.

Put another way - as long as the DM is treating the DMPC no differently from any other PC, what reasonable cause do the players have to complain?

None, however if something adds 0 benefit and has the potential to add more than 0 drama/complains, then why add it? A subjective preference is fine as I stated before, but if the goal (as I understood it) was to find advice to fit most (since all is impossible) situations, then said advice should try to be as objective as possible, right?

Preventing GM burnout / keeping DMs happy would be an objective benefit, perhaps, but a DM would already know his own personal inclination on the subject better than anyone else, so its not really relevant to find standard advice.

Knaight
2011-08-19, 03:12 PM
You're talking about "interesting" in the overall story sense, but I'm talking about how much fun it is to play in the game. It's ideal if you can focus on both of those, and for that you don't end up with 3 lock pickers and a guy who casts knock.

You are talking about how much fun it is to play in the tactical minigame, and assuming that said tactical minigame is not being used as a vehicle for characterization and plot development more than being an end in itself. I'm assuming that said tactical minigame is just a small part of the game, that people stay in character in that minigame, and that said minigame is used for characterization and plot development. In short, that the real game doesn't pause and go into combat mode. Under such conditions, playing someone who's main combat schtick is the same as another persons, and they aren't as good can still be fun. Aragorn could outfight Boromir, that doesn't mean that playing Boromir would be boring*, as the player controlling Boromir can still influence things in combat.

*Now, Gandalf would cause problems in a game, but that's a different matter entirely.

Gnaeus
2011-08-19, 04:17 PM
Put another way - as long as the DM is treating the DMPC no differently from any other PC, what reasonable cause do the players have to complain?

1. There is a power imbalance. That PC's player has ooc knowledge of the entire universe. Also OOC knowledge of everything that every PC does. The DM may try not to abuse it, but it still a valid complaint. He usually plays either too smart, or too stupid in an attempt to compensate.

2. Face time. The DM is already playing the entire rest of the world. He shouldn't need an extra character to play to keep busy. In certain circumstances, if other PCs are incapacitated, the DM could be sitting at the table rolling dice against himself. I can tell you this is very frustrating.

3. Just because the DM doesn't think he is treating the DMPC differently, players might not (correctly or incorrectly) see it that way. If you are a dwarf fighter, and you randomly roll a +3 keen flaming dwarf waraxe, it isn't cheating, but it looks a lot like it from outside. Also, there is a certain perception bias when it is YOUR character, so just because DM is trying to be fair, doesn't mean that he always is.

4. Railroading, real or perceived.

5. Concerns about angering the DM if you want to negatively impact the DMPC. In the unfortunate event that the party gets into a PVP fight, does DMPC take sides?

I think all of those are very reasonable concerns. I'm sure there are others.

Knaight
2011-08-19, 04:29 PM
2. Face time. The DM is already playing the entire rest of the world. He shouldn't need an extra character to play to keep busy. In certain circumstances, if other PCs are incapacitated, the DM could be sitting at the table rolling dice against himself. I can tell you this is very frustrating.


There is also the matter of focus time. In the traditional powerful GM, character focused paradigm the GM already has to manage an entire world, while the players manage the protagonists from actor stance. This leads to both having a lot to manage, and splitting focus tends to be detrimental to the game. A DMPC splits the focus fairly heavily, and while there are certainly GMs that can manage that just fine, its usually a bad idea. The magnitude of the error only increases in a rules heavy system such as any edition of D&D, where, in addition to the setting and the character, the GM is now juggling two sets of complicated mechanics.

LovelyBlanch
2011-08-19, 06:18 PM
I believe DMPCs can be used to great effect as long as they don't overshadow the PCs. It helps new players learn the ropes if no experienced players are playing with them, and they can be a very interesting source of plot twists (A DMPC being a spy for a rival group). Their best use is taking care of roles like skillmonkey or healer if the party is small and none of the players want to play one.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-20, 09:32 AM
Plot and exploration maybe. Puzzles though, that seems to be a D&D tendency which hasn't spread past D&D much at all. Plus, coming back to exploration, games in a small part of a setting without major travel are reasonably common - see the default assumption of WoD.

They're quite common in other games as well. 7th Sea? The published modules almost invariably contain at least one puzzle in some form or another. Paranoia cetainly has puzzles, albeit not ones that may have a given correct answer. I have difficulty thinking of a game more rules heavy than Everyone is John that doesn't make some use of puzzles.


Interaction between PCs as a default does not mean PvP. It merely means that inter-party interaction is at least as important as party-setting interaction. This can mean character conflict, but even that isn't PvP until the mechanics start breaking out, which usually means some variety of violence. As such, many of the problems of the DMPC that relate to superior information go away in the inter-party focus, mostly because the difference between the GM with a DMPC and a player is much more minimal.

Nah. Superior information can pose a problem in any character conflict, or in striking deals, or in discussing possibilities for the future...nearly anything with an impact on the game.


Sure, at the systemic level. At the group-playstyle level though, handing off NPCs to players who's characters aren't in a scene is incredibly common. Which, in the case of the DMPC, means that the GM has only a vague idea of what is going on, as the players are effectively a temporary GM.

I would not call it "incredibly common". I would, at best, call it "rare". Most NPCs are run by the GM. Those few that are not(with the exception of cohorts, followers, hirelings, etc) the GM almost invariably has veto power over the actions of the NPCs. Hell, many GMs insist on that even for cohorts and the like. So clearly, there still isn't anything like equality in power and information.


Oh, this I agree with. I'm simply saying that the claim of perfect information is wrong in cases where the players -or, for that matter, the dice- have influence. Still, I think you overestimate the amount of information that one can expect a GM to have beyond the players, though that forms a lower limit, with the upper being the GM with near perfect information and no player agency.

Dice are just stats. If I know all the odds, I can predict the outcome with a pretty fair degree of certainty. Certainly with far, far more accuracy than someone who doesn't know what checks are coming up, let alone how difficult they will be.

The difference in information available to a GM and to a player is typically quite large indeed. Players are not typically expected to have access to such information as opponent statblocks, while GMs almost invariably are. Ditto for campaign notes and plans.

Yukitsu
2011-08-20, 12:47 PM
You are talking about how much fun it is to play in the tactical minigame, and assuming that said tactical minigame is not being used as a vehicle for characterization and plot development more than being an end in itself. I'm assuming that said tactical minigame is just a small part of the game, that people stay in character in that minigame, and that said minigame is used for characterization and plot development. In short, that the real game doesn't pause and go into combat mode. Under such conditions, playing someone who's main combat schtick is the same as another persons, and they aren't as good can still be fun. Aragorn could outfight Boromir, that doesn't mean that playing Boromir would be boring*, as the player controlling Boromir can still influence things in combat.

*Now, Gandalf would cause problems in a game, but that's a different matter entirely.

Mind that I generally view "is a better fighter" of any iterative as less relevant than any non-combat specific ability set, and that's still what you're focusing on as my assumed point of conflict here.

Knaight
2011-08-20, 03:00 PM
I would not call it "incredibly common". I would, at best, call it "rare". Most NPCs are run by the GM. Those few that are not(with the exception of cohorts, followers, hirelings, etc) the GM almost invariably has veto power over the actions of the NPCs. Hell, many GMs insist on that even for cohorts and the like. So clearly, there still isn't anything like equality in power and information.

Again, this is just the default D&D assumption. This isn't systemic, its a matter of play style, and stating that it doesn't happen just because the books don't state it does is like stating that D&D is only used for dungeon crawls, because the DMG only suggests their existence.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-20, 05:57 PM
Again, this is just the default D&D assumption. This isn't systemic, its a matter of play style, and stating that it doesn't happen just because the books don't state it does is like stating that D&D is only used for dungeon crawls, because the DMG only suggests their existence.

No, actually, it's part of the system. NPC = Non PLAYER character.

So...not really expected to be played by players. I already used non D&D examples to show this is systemic elsewhere, so merely reiterating your point without so much as an example proves nothing.

Knaight
2011-08-20, 06:17 PM
No, actually, it's part of the system. NPC = Non PLAYER character.

So...not really expected to be played by players. I already used non D&D examples to show this is systemic elsewhere, so merely reiterating your point without so much as an example proves nothing.
http://www.feartheboot.com/ftb/index.php/archives/2001
http://www.feartheboot.com/ftb/index.php/archives/2011

You might have heard of these guys. They have their own convention, a huge amount of listeners, and act as a pretty decent gauge of the times - particularly as they are all fairly traditional.

Rogue Shadows
2011-08-21, 02:32 AM
So...not really expected to be played by players.

But, wait...the DM is a player too. This is always heavily emphasized in any gaming system I've heard of.

Who runs the NPCs then?!

I think you've put the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAble there. Or word, as it were. It's not meant to be "Non-Player Character" as much as it is "Non-Player Character," which while two words, is just a single term. The NPC is any individual who is not a Player Character, whether the DM runs them or not.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-21, 10:29 AM
But, wait...the DM is a player too. This is always heavily emphasized in any gaming system I've heard of.

Who runs the NPCs then?!

I think you've put the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAble there. Or word, as it were. It's not meant to be "Non-Player Character" as much as it is "Non-Player Character," which while two words, is just a single term. The NPC is any individual who is not a Player Character, whether the DM runs them or not.

D&D and many other systems have a seperate "DM" role and "player" role, and the terminology used within the game system reflects that.

Yes, on a broader level, the DM is also playing the game, but to attempt to mash that meaning into the normal game terminology is a misuse of the term. Certainly, almost every system with a DM, GM, or ST will provide advice for how to things with regard to the players in such a context that it's clearly not about the DM talking to himself.

Sipex
2011-08-22, 02:46 PM
Out of all the grief expressed over the past few pages about DMPCs (since last I posted) there are two situations which I believe ring the loudest.

1) Loss of focus: This is one thing I found my DMPC did do and one of the reasons I wanted to lose him. He took a lot of focus to run correctly while running the game. I often found myself forgetting status effects and the like because my concentration was split too much.

2) Perception of the players: No matter how good a DMPC you run, if your players are dead set against it they're going to see your DMPC in the worst light possible.

Serpentine
2011-08-23, 01:48 AM
2) Perception of the players: No matter how good a DMPC you run, if your players are dead set against it they're going to see your DMPC in the worst light possible.The trouble with this argument is that it's such a double-edged sword that can go either way.
On the one hand, of course a DM shouldn't introduce a DMPC if they know the players absolutely despise them. That's just good manners and keeping in mind player preferences, and goes for all aspects of the game - you also wouldn't run an intense roleplay-heavy political campaign for a group of hack-and-slashers. If you do decide to add one to such a group, it should be for a very specific and probably temporary purpose which most likely results in the DMPC's death (and which would also probably result in my, personally, not considering it a true DMPC, more of a decoy DMPC).

On the other hand, first of all, a new player coming to a game that has a well-liked DMPC has no right to demand that the rest of the group bow to their preferences and have it removed. Check that the group actually does enjoy having it there, or at least not mind it? Okay. But make sure you don't - accidentally or not - convince them that something is a problem that isn't just because you don't like it.
Secondly, I at least demand some degree of trust from my players that I 1. am fair, and 2. have their best interests in mind. Question me, criticise me, whatever - I wish my players did that more so that I knew for sure that they would, y'know? But don't accuse me of doing something wrong, or more specifically to this case assume my DMPC is all sorts of terrible until you have actual evidence for it. That's as much good manners as not introducing a DMPC to players dead-set against them.

Gnaeus
2011-08-23, 08:05 AM
On the other hand, first of all, a new player coming to a game that has a well-liked DMPC has no right to demand that the rest of the group bow to their preferences and have it removed. Check that the group actually does enjoy having it there, or at least not mind it? Okay. But make sure you don't - accidentally or not - convince them that something is a problem that isn't just because you don't like it.
Secondly, I at least demand some degree of trust from my players that I 1. am fair, and 2. have their best interests in mind. Question me, criticise me, whatever - I wish my players did that more so that I knew for sure that they would, y'know? But don't accuse me of doing something wrong, or more specifically to this case assume my DMPC is all sorts of terrible until you have actual evidence for it. That's as much good manners as not introducing a DMPC to players dead-set against them.

You are absolutely right that a new player has no right to demand that his party do anything. The most he can say is "That rule/DMPC/setting/whatever is so objectionable to me that I will not play in a game using it."

On the other hand, a new player has EVERY right, when entering a new game, to express his opinions on how RPGs should be played, and to persuade fellow players. If I walk into a game that allows unnerfed druids but not ToB on grounds that it is overpowered, I won't leave, but I will certainly express my strong disagreement and explain why. If a new player disagrees with DMPCs, it is completely appropriate, even the mature thing to do, when entering a group, to explain why. If other players are persuaded, they are persuaded.

Again, I note that you are so defensive about your DMPCs that you seem to not even want players in YOUR GAME discussing it openly with each other. To me, that seems like a worse warning sign than the existance of the DMPC itself.

Volthawk
2011-08-23, 08:15 AM
Again, I note that you are so defensive about your DMPCs that you seem to not even want players in YOUR GAME discussing it openly. To me, that seems like a worse warning sign than the existance of the DMPC itself.

So all the times she'd said that she wishes that they'd tell her how they feel more is her wanting them to not talk about it? :smallconfused: Didn't realise it was Opposite Day...

Gnaeus
2011-08-23, 08:19 AM
So all the times she'd said that she wishes that they'd tell her how they feel more is her wanting them to not talk about it? :smallconfused: Didn't realise it was Opposite Day...

No, the part where she doesn't want new player to convince accidentally or otherwise the other players that DMPCs are dangerous sounds exactly like "if you come into my game, don't talk about it".

I don't see how I could discuss the reasons why I don't like DMPCs without running the risk of convincing someone "accidentally or otherwise". For that matter, I don't think that convincing other players regarding the way you prefer to play is a bad thing, at all.

Sipex
2011-08-23, 09:04 AM
First off this:

Again, I note that you are so defensive about your DMPCs that you seem to not even want players in YOUR GAME discussing it openly with each other. To me, that seems like a worse warning sign than the existance of the DMPC itself.
sounds like you're implying bad things about serp and makes you look bad since most of us know serp isn't like that. I assume this isn't what you intended so I thought you might appreciate the fair warning.

On topic, I see her point really, and it's not because I had a DMPC I liked. This works in a lot of situations, someone with a lot of opinions shows up and tries to change things just because their perception of the situation at hand is different than the rest. Even if the change isn't intentional they can cause change simply by making others see problems that aren't actually there.

Nerds are especially bad for this as we fanboy all over the place and with our general knowledge of what we love, we can take the flaws in something and make them seem really bad. It would really suck to have a group of any sort which works for the longest time only to have things turn upside down because a newcomer convinces your group that you've been playing the wrong way the entire time.

Gnaeus
2011-08-23, 09:54 AM
First off this:

sounds like you're implying bad things about serp and makes you look bad since most of us know serp isn't like that. I assume this isn't what you intended so I thought you might appreciate the fair warning.

Isn't like what? Serp could be a wonderful DM. Some of the comments she made in this thread set off warning bells and whistles, and if I were in her game I would be really concerned at this point that her DMPC was closer to the "train headed for a missing bridge" kind than the "Oh, well, its a distraction but I can live with it kind". I DO NOT feel that a player in her game could openly express his feelings about her NPC, but that is based on her statements in this thread, where she seems to take criticisms of DMPCs as a practice from total strangers as a personal attack, and seems to specify that she wouldn't want open discussion from a new player in her game. It could be due to the lack of clarity that comes with the written medium. I will be the first to agree that what comes across a typed format isn't always what we mean.



On topic, I see her point really, and it's not because I had a DMPC I liked. This works in a lot of situations, someone with a lot of opinions shows up and tries to change things just because their perception of the situation at hand is different than the rest. Even if the change isn't intentional they can cause change simply by making others see problems that aren't actually there.

Nerds are especially bad for this as we fanboy all over the place and with our general knowledge of what we love, we can take the flaws in something and make them seem really bad. It would really suck to have a group of any sort which works for the longest time only to have things turn upside down because a newcomer convinces your group that you've been playing the wrong way the entire time.

It could, and then you could change back. Or it could improve things. When you invite a new player into your game, his opinions are just as valid as everyone elses. Heck, maybe the existing players would convince him that HE was wrong, that everything was splendid and they shouldn't change a thing. Its a good conversation to have, though.

Serpentine
2011-08-23, 11:04 AM
Again, I note that you are so defensive about your DMPCs that you seem to not even want players in YOUR GAME discussing it openly with each other. To me, that seems like a worse warning sign than the existance of the DMPC itself.As others have pointed out, this is utter bullnuts.
I have said repeatedly that I am happy to have my players discuss DMPCs or any other part of my DMing with each other and with myself. And as I just said in that very same post, I am happy for a new player to ask questions or express concerns. What I was worried about in that one single sentence - as opposed to, you know, the entire post you quoted which contradicts your claim - is people such as people in threads like these steamrolling over my players with loud accusations like "DMPCs are always bad! They're cheating! You can't trust them!" and so on, and convincing my other players that they must be right because they're so loud and passionate about it rather than based on their own experiences. And from what I've seen here, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.
she seems to take criticisms of DMPCs as a practice from total strangers as a personal attackI have already explained here in detail why your "criticisms" as you have expressed them in this thread are attacks on any DM who has ever used or considered using a DMPC. Your insistance that my annoyance at your insulting myself and my preferences is proof that you're right is utterly nonsensical, and I suggest that you give up on it, because I don't think you're convincing anybody.

jidasfire
2011-08-23, 02:55 PM
One thing that can work is if you give them a role that keeps them out of the spotlight. In the game I ran where all the characters were part of a crime syndicate, I created an NPC Illusionist named Heinrich who served as the group's intelligence man. He spent a lot of his time invisible and off spying on enemies, which allowed me to use him to deliver plot info to the PCs. Occasionally they'd want him to go with them on missions, and if I didn't have an excuse for him not to, he would. I gave him a lot of personality and he turned into my character, though I made sure to keep him firmly planted in his role so he'd never solve the players' problems for them.

WildPyre
2011-08-26, 11:51 AM
Hmm I have a solo PF game to run coming up soon, the player will be running a 1st level gestalt Warlock/Urban Ranger Changeling (modified from 3.5 stats of them to better fit in with the power levels of other PF races), and I'll need to throw in a DMPC sidekick for them.

I'm thinking a bard, little bit of buffing, little bit of healing, and a little bit of telling everyone how awesome the PC is. Any thoughts/suggestions? I need a race for them too.

(And no, please don't say "I suggest you don't run a DMPC.")

Serpentine
2011-08-27, 01:56 AM
I think a Bard could work well. Keep it focussed on helping the PC be more awesome. Consider putting the DMPC in a position of subordination to the PC. And make sure you know everything the DMPC can and will do inside-out.

magic9mushroom
2011-08-27, 03:26 AM
But, wait...the DM is a player too. This is always heavily emphasized in any gaming system I've heard of.

Who runs the NPCs then?!

I think you've put the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAble there. Or word, as it were. It's not meant to be "Non-Player Character" as much as it is "Non-Player Character," which while two words, is just a single term. The NPC is any individual who is not a Player Character, whether the DM runs them or not.

I don't think of myself as a player.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:55 AM
I just wanted to say that Serpentine, from what I've read, seems like a good DM to me. She/he/it seems to be getting an extremely hard time for no good reason in this thread by some of the participants.

Serpentine
2011-08-27, 12:02 PM
Ha! See? He's on my side! :tongue:
I'm actually not. I just don't think it's my use of a DMPC that makes me a mediocre-at-best DM. My inability to plan properly, my overplanning, my accidental railroading, trouble improvising, poor roleplaying of NPCs and so on... They make me a mediocre-at-best DM. But the DMPC? Not one of my many flaws.

Katasi
2011-08-27, 06:57 PM
You will get mixed responses to this I am sure.

I use DMPC's frequently, because I often only have one player in a lot of my games. Since that's a bit of an un-usual situation it works in it's own way. Usually my friend makes whatever character he wants, and I make 1-2 DMPC's to support his class choices (like if he's a fighter, I make a cleric and a wizard or rogue).

Mostly, they just follow along, letting him make the larger decisions and only on occasion offering insight or guidance to help keep the plot moving along (which is the greatest advantage of a DMPC, and possibly one of it's greatest weaknesses).

Some general guidelines for a successful DMPC;

1. Never upstage the players. The DMPC should not have some insane backstory or other "fluff" characteristics that take the stage away from the PC's. Most of my DMPC's have simple backgrounds.

2. Similar to number 1, the DMPC should never have any "crunch" advantages over players. This means no crazy stats, wealth, magical gear, or insane powers that they shouldn't have.

3. Be mindful of the meta-game. Even if you follow rules #1 & 2 and make a simple, useful character that fills a needed role in the party it's tempting to use your DM knowledge to give that DMPC information that, as a character, it really shouldn't have. It's important to separate the fact that YOU know the BBEG is actually the old wizard that hired the party for the mission, but the CHARACTER wouldn't know that.

I would suggest, in a normal party (with say, 4+ REAL players), any DMPC's be limited in joining with the party for only part of the adventure, in fact this can lead to good role-play and returns of favorite DMPC's later as the players continue the campaign and enriches the world you are building.

So basically if you are making a overpowered, overgeared, min/maxed character with special powers that always seems to know when to stand behind the players because there is trouble around the corner...you're doing it wrong.

Like Gandalf in DM of the RIngs

Realistically DMPCs really should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and some types of characters are easier to run as DMPCs- example, if the group for some reason lacks a divine caster, it's entirely reasonable to have a genericish cleric that travels with them, which might in fact become more fleshed out as the players interact with him. For that matter even if the party has a divine caster few groups would pass up more healing and buffing so long as that's all the extra cleric does.

On the other hand a bard that's always trying to upstage everyone would be appreciated by very few groups. That said the DM of the main game I play runs a DMPC and he has been very helpful, for one thing the group always gets itself into trouble and one more person fighting on our side is good, on the other the DMPC is a connection with the faction we work for and thus actually very helpful from an RP perspective.

Yukitsu
2011-08-27, 10:46 PM
I just wanted to say that Serpentine, from what I've read, seems like a good DM to me. She/he/it seems to be getting an extremely hard time for no good reason in this thread by some of the participants.

Not that I doubt the general claim, but I can't honestly recall hearing about any spectacularly bad DMs on any forum, save for the ones where the players posted as well. There's an inherent reason many people don't just take her word at face value, but I won't accuse Serp of lying either, and I think that's the common attitude that one should adopt when talking to a DM who says their players love them etc.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:00 PM
Not that I doubt the general claim, but I can't honestly recall hearing about any spectacularly bad DMs on any forum, save for the ones where the players posted as well. There's an inherent reason many people don't just take her word at face value, but I won't accuse Serp of lying either, and I think that's the common attitude that one should adopt when talking to a DM who says their players love them etc.

I've seen plenty of DMs post on forums who were awful. I don't know what you are talking about. It isn't rare to find a DM talking about some massive problem in their game that they more or less caused. Bad players aren't hard to find either.

Generally it is poor form to assume someone is lying, and I think that applies here. Basing on the fact they have a DMPC, when people in this thread can't even decided on a proper definition, some DMPC haters accusing others that use them of not having a "real" DMPC? Well, that sort of jumping to conclusions is highly dubious. Even more highly dubious when people start foisting upon her problems she's supposedly having with her game, mistreatment of her players, etc, etc, all made up on the spot based on some bad experience in the foister's past (or perhaps imagination). That's the impression this thread gives me, at any rate. It's annoying.

I'd assume most GMs who have players that like them do know it. My players have liked me when I DM'd, even if I, like Serpentine, have felt like a poor DM lacking skills. I may wonder at their judgment, but that's how it goes. That said, I suppose it isn't hard to have one's players enjoy a game. Just find out what they like and give it to them. I guess I did an alright job at that.

Hmm, I guess I also find it annoying when someone says they won't accuse someone else of lying, but by having the audacity to say their players enjoy their games, one shouldn't believe what they say. I mean, wow. So basically you are accusing her of lying, but don't have the guts to be upfront about it. Not very classy.

How about this. You give me YOUR definition for a DMPC, and we'll see if there's a way to have one that doesn't lead to a problem.

Yukitsu
2011-08-27, 11:28 PM
I've seen plenty of DMs post on forums who were awful. I don't know what you are talking about. It isn't rare to find a DM talking about some massive problem in their game that they more or less caused. Bad players aren't hard to find either.

Most DM's end up leaking that it was their fault over numerous series of questions where the player is generally initially construed as at fault (and vice versa the players) mostly because the majority like to assume that A) the OP gave a complete account of the problem and B) that they are being completely accurate and honest. Only a handful of DMs, generally newer ones from the questions I've seen openly and immediately assume that they are at fault for something.


Generally it is poor form to assume someone is lying, and I think that applies here. Basing on the fact they have a DMPC, when people in this thread can't even decided on a proper definition, some DMPC haters accusing others that use them of not having a "real" DMPC? Well, that sort of jumping to conclusions is highly dubious. Even more highly dubious when people start foisting upon her problems she's supposedly having with her game, mistreatment of her players, etc, etc, all made up on the spot based on some bad experience in the foister's past (or perhaps imagination). That's the impression this thread gives me, at any rate. It's annoying.

She actually fully described hers, and that's what I contend isn't a real DMPC, because she would do things differently if it were a PC. She argues that the differences are superficial, which makes me wonder why there would be those superficial differences at all.

I don't disbelieve that specific account in particular, I just am not going to file her case as a definitive "this is proof that DMPCs can work" any more than all the examples of horrible DMPCs.


I'd assume most GMs who have players that like them do know it. My players have liked me when I DM'd, even if I, like Serpentine, have felt like a poor DM lacking skills. I may wonder at their judgment, but that's how it goes. That said, I suppose it isn't hard to have one's players enjoy a game. Just find out what they like and give it to them. I guess I did an alright job at that.

Some do, some do not. In many cases, a DM is "good" if he's doing enough good things to prevent someone else from getting fed up and running their own game instead. Not if they do everything in a way that pretty much constantly engages and interests their players without irritating them. Even more common, is that there are enough good elements that things like railroading, poor balance etc. are largely unnoticed because the focus is elsewhere. That's still a good or even a great DM, but that doesn't mean that the better DM wouldn't use those elements.


Hmm, I guess I also find it annoying when someone says they won't accuse someone else of lying, but by having the audacity to say their players enjoy their games, one shouldn't believe what they say. I mean, wow. So basically you are accusing her of lying, but don't have the guts to be upfront about it. Not very classy.

In sciences, which means I'm skeptical of all claims, but do test them. I basically just assume everything is in a strange state of limbo of "It could be, but it might not be" until you do enough tests to be 95% confident that the conclusion is right. The whole taking on faith absolutely everything people say to you is definitely true is a pretty definitive way to be misled. Like how if you believe the majority of people who call "straw man" on someone else, you're being misled, because most people misuse the word, be it as an honest misunderstanding, or because they are actively being dishonest.

And basically, you're doing the same here, without the added nicety of being indifferent to it. I don't take Serp's words as any sort of evidence that a DMPC is a positive addition to the game, just because she claims it was there, and was well received, any more than you would take my word at face value that they ruin games. Hence why my argument is that they provide no benefit over an NPC, not that it will definitely ruin your game 100% of the time, every session as soon as it is introduced.

And honestly, you're telling me I have to take everything she says at gospel just because she said it, and I have to take everything from their side at complete face value. That would be moronic of me.


How about this. You give me YOUR definition for a DMPC, and we'll see if there's a way to have one that doesn't lead to a problem.

The DM's PC.

Is it the DM's? Would the play it exactly as is if it were a PC? Then it's a DMPC, congrats.

And yes, this means many terrible examples of so called "DMPCs" that get added benefits aren't DMPCs, because they have abilities no PC could have. I'm fine with that difference.

Will this always automatically kill a game? No. Does it add anything a well fleshed out NPC could? No. Is it riskier? Yes. Is it a bad idea to add something risky for no benefit? Yes.

Serpentine
2011-08-27, 11:38 PM
There's an inherent reason many people don't just take her word at face value, but I won't accuse Serp of lying either, and I think that's the common attitude that one should adopt when talking to a DM who says their players love them etc.When did I ever say my players love me? Hell, I just gave a big list of reasons why they wouldn't.
I presume most of them are at least friendly towards me, what with them being my friends and all. My game is presumably enjoyable enough that a couple of them seemed genuinely excited when I said it was starting up again.
But all I've said here is that my players enjoy having my DMPC in the game, and provided evidence in the form of them going out of their way to keep her in the game even though I was deliberately trying to remove her. I cannot see how you could possibly deny that as evidence in favour of my DMPC unless you 1. assume I'm a liar, or 2. assume my players are pants-on-head retarded.
Incidentally, when I mentioned to a couple of my players that someone on here kept insisting that my DMPC isn't a DMPC, they laughed.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:59 PM
Most DM's end up leaking that it was their fault over numerous series of questions where the player is generally initially construed as at fault (and vice versa the players) mostly because the majority like to assume that A) the OP gave a complete account of the problem and B) that they are being completely accurate and honest. Only a handful of DMs, generally newer ones from the questions I've seen openly and immediately assume that they are at fault for something.

My point stands. It isn't rare to see a bad DM.

Of course, Serpentine can't be trusted because she says her players enjoyed her DMing and DMPC. Presumably her self-evaluation that she isn't even a good DM does nothing to her credit. I'd wager nothing she could say would be convincing.


She actually fully described hers, and that's what I contend isn't a real DMPC, because she would do things differently if it were a PC. She argues that the differences are superficial, which makes me wonder why there would be those superficial differences at all.

Because she's a DM and hence it is impossible to play any NPC the same way she'd play a PC? Looking below, you have an oddly precise definition for the term.


I don't disbelieve that specific account in particular, I just am not going to file her case as a definitive "this is proof that DMPCs can work" any more than all the examples of horrible DMPCs.

And hence you must believe she is not telling the truth, either willfully or in ignorance. I mean, you HAVE to disbelieve that account in particular and all other such accounts IN PARTICULAR, otherwise you'd have to accept evidence that in at least one (possibly more) cases, people have enjoyed a DMPC (as Serpentine defines it). You place it in your "not acceptable evidence" drawer, as I assume you must do with any experience anyone online relates, and hence refuse to believe it.


In sciences, which means I'm skeptical of all claims, but do test them. I basically just assume everything is in a strange state of limbo of "It could be, but it might not be" until you do enough tests to be 95% confident that the conclusion is right. The whole taking on faith absolutely everything people say to you is definitely true is a pretty definitive way to be misled. Like how if you believe the majority of people who call "straw man" on someone else, you're being misled, because most people misuse the word, be it as an honest misunderstanding, or because they are actively being dishonest.

Even if you do enough tests to be 95% confidant the conclusion is right, you'll be wrong 1 in every 20 times. (This doesn't relate much to the matter at hand, but I just thought I'd point that out).


And basically, you're doing the same here, without the added nicety of being indifferent to it. I don't take Serp's words as any sort of evidence that a DMPC is a positive addition to the game, just because she claims it was there, and was well received, any more than you would take my word at face value that they ruin games. Hence why my argument is that they provide no benefit over an NPC, not that it will definitely ruin your game 100% of the time, every session as soon as it is introduced.

You acted like you didn't call her a liar, then said people had very good reason to think she was one. I'm said your trying to both call her a liar and avoid responsibility for calling her one. I said you are doing this based on unsound reasoning. I AM saying you are wrong and I take full responsibility, but I am not saying you are lying. There's a difference. So I don't really see how I am doing the same thing.

You're also engaging in sophistry. You aren't going to EVER accept anything she says, because everything is suspect and she naturally can't prove it since this is a computer forum and she's talking about her game. If I am wrong in this, then tell me exactly what evidence you'd accept from her or anyone else that a DMPC (as she or they defines it) can provide a positive game experience.


And honestly, you're telling me I have to take everything she says at gospel just because she said it, and I have to take everything from their side at complete face value. That would be moronic of me.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying it doesn't hurt to give the benefit of the doubt, generally speaking. Yes, you'll get fooled by trolls and the like now and then on forums, but you'll actually be able to have meaningful discussions about experience people have. If you don't do that, you have to just not believe anything anyone ever says about their life.

Now, giving the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean believing everything that is said either. When someone says something that is impossible, has a story rife with contradictions, a remembrance too perfect (that's not how memory works), or a number of other things, it is only sensible to be skeptical. However, it is more than a little rude to say "we did this and we all had fun" and immediately jump to the idea that you can't trust them at all. If there is some particular reason why you think this is impossible, then say it, but if it is only because of your personal biases, then you ARE being irrational and close-minded.


The DM's PC.

Is it the DM's? Would the play it exactly as is if it were a PC? Then it's a DMPC, congrats.

And yes, this means many terrible examples of so called "DMPCs" that get added benefits aren't DMPCs, because they have abilities no PC could have. I'm fine with that difference.

Will this always automatically kill a game? No. Does it add anything a well fleshed out NPC could? No. Is it riskier? Yes. Is it a bad idea to add something risky for no benefit? Yes.

Oh, I see, so you believe that for most practical purposes, DMPCs don't exist, I take it?

It would be essentially impossible for anyone with the DM's knowledge to play a character just as if they were a player.

Now if this is possible, then how could it be impossible for it to provide a positive experience anymore than any other player? We've established its behavior would be IDENTICAL to that of a player's by your definition. Is it your contention that all groups of players that could possibly exist wouldn't be able to accept this?

Yukitsu
2011-08-28, 01:35 AM
My point stands. It isn't rare to see a bad DM.

Of course, Serpentine can't be trusted because she says her players enjoyed her DMing and DMPC. Presumably her self-evaluation that she isn't even a good DM does nothing to her credit. I'd wager nothing she could say would be convincing.

I take kindly to "this works because..." not "I did it and people liked it.", which is most of what Serpentine uses as evidence. I also dislike it when people are trying to say that things are certain things simply on virtue of people wanting them to fit in that category, or having definitions based on perception.


Because she's a DM and hence it is impossible to play any NPC the same way she'd play a PC? Looking below, you have an oddly precise definition for the term.

I'm not sure why that's impossible per se. And I'm also not sure why a precise definition would be bad, most dictionaries aim for a precise definition where they can.


And hence you must believe she is not telling the truth, either willfully or in ignorance. I mean, you HAVE to disbelieve that account in particular and all other such accounts IN PARTICULAR, otherwise you'd have to accept evidence that in at least one (possibly more) cases, people have enjoyed a DMPC (as Serpentine defines it). You place it in your "not acceptable evidence" drawer, as I assume you must do with any experience anyone online relates, and hence refuse to believe it.

No, I believe I don't know if she's telling the truth. There's a big difference between assuming someone is definitely lying and ignoring their evidence because they might be. It's the difference between perjury in court, and simply witness testimony. The former, you assume they're lying, the latter, you can't tell if they're telling the truth, if they're lying intentionally, or are honest but incorrect. Whether you choose to just take everything at face value, with skepticism or just assume they're lying is up to each individual, and I don't think you're going to convince me that the best option is to just take everything everyone says as automatically true.


Even if you do enough tests to be 95% confidant the conclusion is right, you'll be wrong 1 in every 20 times. (This doesn't relate much to the matter at hand, but I just thought I'd point that out).

Yes, but that's empiricism. Some people don't like it, but I'll prefer remaining a skeptic while you go ahead and believe it first glance next time someone tells you that apple juice causes depression.


You acted like you didn't call her a liar, then said people had very good reason to think she was one. I'm said your trying to both call her a liar and avoid responsibility for calling her one. I said you are doing this based on unsound reasoning. I AM saying you are wrong and I take full responsibility, but I am not saying you are lying. There's a difference. So I don't really see how I am doing the same thing.


You're also engaging in sophistry. You aren't going to EVER accept anything she says, because everything is suspect and she naturally can't prove it since this is a computer forum and she's talking about her game. If I am wrong in this, then tell me exactly what evidence you'd accept from her or anyone else that a DMPC (as she or they defines it) can provide a positive game experience.

What I do accept is any compelling reason to use a DMPC instead of other alternatives. Anecdotes are not evidence of that under any circumstance. Anecdotes aren't even evidence of anything, they simply aren't considered at all by rational people.


That's not what I am saying. I'm saying it doesn't hurt to give the benefit of the doubt, generally speaking. Yes, you'll get fooled by trolls and the like now and then on forums, but you'll actually be able to have meaningful discussions about experience people have. If you don't do that, you have to just not believe anything anyone ever says about their life.

Now, giving the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean believing everything that is said either. When someone says something that is impossible, has a story rife with contradictions, a remembrance too perfect (that's not how memory works), or a number of other things, it is only sensible to be skeptical. However, it is more than a little rude to say "we did this and we all had fun" and immediately jump to the idea that you can't trust them at all. If there is some particular reason why you think this is impossible, then say it, but if it is only because of your personal biases, then you ARE being irrational and close-minded.

What you're not getting, is that they're trying to use anecdotes that you confess yourself are flawed, as evidence of a concept or theory. That's just not kosher to anyone who happens to like reason or empiricism. If they were telling me a story, and it didn't have any point to it other than to say it happened, I have no reason to be skeptical, but they are trying to convince me and others that DMPCs are a good addition to games because they used one and their players thought they were great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

A real lazy, incomplete look at why I just don't look at an anecdote and view it as relevant, and will always be harsh on someone who relies almost or completely exclusively on them to try and convince someone of something. At best, an anecdote provides a direction to direct further efforts.


Oh, I see, so you believe that for most practical purposes, DMPCs don't exist, I take it?

It would be essentially impossible for anyone with the DM's knowledge to play a character just as if they were a player.

I'm not certain of that. There are more than a few times that I have had access to DM notes, on account of having read the module, which the DM knew I had (as I run some of them as well). Is a player with complete situational knowledge no longer a player? I can't really answer that, but in my view, the DM acting or not acting differently to metagame knowledge doesn't disqualify from him acting as a player, unless players that know the module are no longer players. (BTW, don't run a module that one of your players has run themselves, just run a different one instead.)


Now if this is possible, then how could it be impossible for it to provide a positive experience anymore than any other player? We've established its behavior would be IDENTICAL to that of a player's by your definition. Is it your contention that all groups of players that could possibly exist wouldn't be able to accept this?

A player who does know the material is as much a problem player as a DMPC is a problem to the campaign, except the player can be punished to stop them from metagaming. The DM is unlikely to punish himself for it, and the solution to the metagaming problem is an out of character one, not one resolved in the way the character is played.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 01:55 AM
What I do accept is any compelling reason to use a DMPC instead of other alternatives. Anecdotes are not evidence of that under any circumstance. Anecdotes aren't even evidence of anything, they simply aren't considered at all by rational people.

And yet what evidence would you possibly accept? Certainly a case study would be quite ridiculous. You seem to disregard the very reasonable assumption that such a character might simply be entertaining to the players.

Btw, anecdotes CAN suffice as evidence of existence. Of course, you'd have to be willing to believe what people say is mostly true. You are apparently unwilling to do this. Rational people don't accept anecdotes as representative evidence, but there's a big difference between that and not even considering them. It is, in fact, rather irrational to assume everything people say can't be trusted.

Also, no one is saying that a DMPC should be in every game. There's a huge difference between that and saying that they CAN have a positive effect. You seem to think a positive effect is completely impossible. I ask again, what evidence would you accept? What sort of reasoning might sway you?


I'm not certain of that. There are more than a few times that I have had access to DM notes, on account of having read the module, which the DM knew I had (as I run some of them as well). Is a player with complete situational knowledge no longer a player? I can't really answer that, but in my view, the DM acting or not acting differently to metagame knowledge doesn't disqualify from him acting as a player, unless players that know the module are no longer players. (BTW, don't run a module that one of your players has run themselves)

You aren't playing your PC exactly as if it were a normal PC, due to your knowledge. So you aren't like the other players in a very significant way. You have to hold yourself back, be careful about any advice or ideas you give, and act very, very differently than you normally would.

Or you could metagame and reap a lot of benefits.

So let's clarify your definition. What YOU (and possibly only you) consider a DMPC is someone that acts just like a player would if they knew everything the DM did.

So, a DMPC, played as a player would, could sit back, give very little to no advice or ideas, help the party as a participant, but avoid metagaming by avoiding the making of the majority decisions and generally being a pretty passive entity. Well, as far as group decision-making goes. They could be good for conversations, funny, or bring anything else that a normal player could. They could provide useful skills in combat, and generally take a cue from other players as any player avoiding the use of metagaming might do.

So is that problematic? Or is that just impossible according to you? Or is your definition faulty in some manner?


A player who does know the material is as much a problem player as a DMPC is a problem to the campaign, except the player can be punished to stop them from metagaming. The DM is unlikely to punish himself for it, and the solution to the metagaming problem is an out of character one, not one resolved in the way the character is played.

Eh, if the DM is like that, then he'll be like that with anything in the game he's attached to. Considering how much work a DM puts into the game, that's going to be quite a lot of things. That's a problematic DM...the DMPC would just be one example of it and decidedly not the cause.

Serpentine
2011-08-28, 02:13 AM
The following is all the ways I play my DMPC "differently" to if I were playing her as a PC:

1. I do not spend as much time roleplaying her or otherwise paying attention to her. If you really do count this, then by your definition it is physically impossible to have a DMPC, because a DM is incapable of inflating time itself. A DM who is paying exactly as much attention to their DMPC as they would their PC is not a DM, because they are physically incapable of doing any DMing.
2. I give her somewhat less leadership type initiative than I might otherwise. But then again, sometimes I feel like playing a fairly lazy, follower-type PC, so maybe not.
3. I optimise her slightly less than I might. But then, I don't usually optimise at all, so it's not really anything new, and she's no less optimised than I would have built her for a fairly low-op game - of which most of the RL games I partake in are.
4. I have tried less hard to replace her drowned mount. But, again, I might be feeling too lazy for working out mounted combat as a player anyway, and in any case in the area we are now in-game, even if I were trying as hard as I could as a player to find her a new mount, I wouldn't be likely to get it - we're in the Americas. The most common large domestic animal is an alpaca - not the noblest of steeds.
5. I take a significantly less active role in puzzle-solving than I would as a player. However, this character is hard-minded, unimaginative, not especially clever, and not great at abstract thinking. Even if I were playing her as a PC, the majority of my input in problem solving would be out of character anyway.

All these supposedly fatal differences are of degree, not kind. Your insistence that she is not a DMPC would be hilarious if it weren't so damn annoying and completely detrimental to reasonable discussion.

She is a DMPC because: I consider her my own, personal character, and I am the DM; I am as emotionally attached to her as I am any other of my characters; she is built with the same allowances and restrictions as PCs; she is a full member of the party, including XP and treasure - and also she signed the party contract, iirc; she is generally, except for the above differences of degree, exactly the same as any other PC I might play.

I included her in the game because: I was used to games having DMPCs as standard practice. Not a good reason, but my reason. Later, because my players wouldn't let me remove her.

This works because: she is built to support the other characters, not supercede them; she is no more powerful than any other character and less so than many; I am good at separating DM-knowledge from character knowledge; I do not use her for railroading; she advises the other characters if requested but usually does so as appropriate for her knowledge and personality rather than according to what I, as DM, want; her personality is that of a follower and defender, not as a leader; her personality and goals mesh well with those of the PCs; and I never give her any favouritism or protect her from death or anything of that sort.

As evidence of the fact she is a positive feature of my game, I submit: the fact that my players conciously, deliberately and vocally prevented me from removing her from the game.

You want me to post a copy of her character sheet? Testimonials from my players? I can do it if you really want me to, although they'll laugh at me for arguing about it on teh interwebs.

edit: I just showed this post to my housemate-player. He affirmed what I've said, and followed it up with "In our game, we need a front line sort of character. We don't have any really tanky sorts. We need something to take the blows. *lists off our mostly spellcaster PCs*"
I also read that out to him, and he agrees that that's representative of what he said.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-28, 08:46 AM
As others have pointed out, this is utter bullnuts.
I have said repeatedly that I am happy to have my players discuss DMPCs or any other part of my DMing with each other and with myself. And as I just said in that very same post, I am happy for a new player to ask questions or express concerns. What I was worried about in that one single sentence - as opposed to, you know, the entire post you quoted which contradicts your claim - is people such as people in threads like these steamrolling over my players with loud accusations like "DMPCs are always bad! They're cheating! You can't trust them!" and so on, and convincing my other players that they must be right because they're so loud and passionate about it rather than based on their own experiences. And from what I've seen here, I don't think that's an unreasonable concern.

Honestly, if that's a real problem, and your players bend to peer pressure so easily, a devil's advocate might argue that perhaps they have done the same to accommodate a DMPC.

Now, of course I don't know your players, so I can't honestly judge if that's the case, but sometimes players are passive and accepting of just about anything. It's especially common in newer players, who really have no idea what makes a good and bad game. A DM isn't the only one who can improve their skills with the game, after all.


Not that I doubt the general claim, but I can't honestly recall hearing about any spectacularly bad DMs on any forum, save for the ones where the players posted as well. There's an inherent reason many people don't just take her word at face value, but I won't accuse Serp of lying either, and I think that's the common attitude that one should adopt when talking to a DM who says their players love them etc.

It is extremely common for people to over-estimate their own abilities. I mean, DMs never post about how terrible their next campaign is going to be, and players never post about how they never show up on time or bother to call first.

It's not even lying...it's an inherent human trait. Judging what you're good and bad is actually fairly difficult without unbiased human feedback...and in some areas, that can be hard to come by. I know one guy who thought he was a terrible DM, and his only real problem was apologizing mid session for how bad everything was. I know other DMs that are routinely terrible for years, and have somehow failed to notice this. Now, I don't know if even misestimation is the case for Serp, but when players back a DM up...it is much harder to argue that they are all wrong. Def strengthens a position. It's certainly not a prerequisite to argument, but it helps.

Incidentally, I do believe that people can accept and even like a DMPC for a time. Hell, people can accept and like railroading for a time. This doesn't mean that railroading isn't a dangerous thing, and can't develop into a problem. There's a laundry list of possible dangers for a DM, really. I consider it much easier to be a bad DM than a bad player. I mean, I've tried to get everyone in my group to DM at least once, and while we now have several competent DMs, a few players either can't or won't DM. So, avoiding high risk factors is good general advice for DMs. The world ALWAYS needs more good DMs, and the easier we can make it for them, the better.

Now, on a more positive note, if you want to play and DM, one possible solution is to have two DMs. Each plays when the other is DMing. With cooperation, you can share a campaign between multiple DMs with ease. This isn't strictly a DMPC, since you're not acting in the DM role while you're playing the character, but it does allow you to get to play a bit, if that's something you like(and cmon, Im sure lots of us do).

Serpentine
2011-08-28, 09:21 AM
Honestly, if that's a real problem, and your players bend to peer pressure so easily, a devil's advocate might argue that perhaps they have done the same to accommodate a DMPC.

Now, of course I don't know your players, so I can't honestly judge if that's the case, but sometimes players are passive and accepting of just about anything. It's especially common in newer players, who really have no idea what makes a good and bad game. A DM isn't the only one who can improve their skills with the game, after all.This is something I was concerned about. Which is why I've asked them. And, you know, tried to remove her from my game. Seriously, they went out of their way to keep her. How many different ways can I say this? I tried to get rid of her - I told one of them ahead of time that I was going to remove her, and explained what I was doing when they decided to save her. They made a concious, vocal and deliberate decision to keep her in the game.
Yes, what I said about "peer pressure" as you put it could apply to keeping DMPCs as well. And, indeed, it's something I've been worried about with my players. But if that's the only reason they chose to go out of their way to keep her in my game... Well, that's their problem. I certainly can't keep on second guessing every single thing they do and say just in case they're not really saying what they really mean.

So like I said. It is something DMs need to be aware of. But that doesn't mean it's only DMs who need to be aware of it. Hell, I can say for a fact it's something the anti-DMPC folks need to be aware of: that's the main reason I decided to remove my DMPC, against - as they made clear to me - the wishes of my players. The only reason she's still in my game is because my players want her there.

Yukitsu
2011-08-28, 11:18 AM
And yet what evidence would you possibly accept? Certainly a case study would be quite ridiculous. You seem to disregard the very reasonable assumption that such a character might simply be entertaining to the players.

Btw, anecdotes CAN suffice as evidence of existence. Of course, you'd have to be willing to believe what people say is mostly true. You are apparently unwilling to do this. Rational people don't accept anecdotes as representative evidence, but there's a big difference between that and not even considering them. It is, in fact, rather irrational to assume everything people say can't be trusted.

Also, no one is saying that a DMPC should be in every game. There's a huge difference between that and saying that they CAN have a positive effect. You seem to think a positive effect is completely impossible. I ask again, what evidence would you accept? What sort of reasoning might sway you?

Actual benefits, why they apply exclusively, primarily or in the best combination to DMPCs rather than any other character type, and why that is true. "It didn't ruin my campaign" and "my players enjoyed it" are those sorts of things that aren't really exclusive to anything, and honestly, that's fewer positives than rule 0, which at least maintains that it can speed up play.

And anecdotal evidence is considered admissible when it is backed by tangible evidence. Notably when you have the tangible evidence? Yeah, the fact that you have a witness as well is usually irrelevant in terms of presenting facts, you just bring one to sway the people who didn't understand what that video tape meant.


You aren't playing your PC exactly as if it were a normal PC, due to your knowledge. So you aren't like the other players in a very significant way. You have to hold yourself back, be careful about any advice or ideas you give, and act very, very differently than you normally would.

Or you could metagame and reap a lot of benefits.

So let's clarify your definition. What YOU (and possibly only you) consider a DMPC is someone that acts just like a player would if they knew everything the DM did.

Well, no. I simply see no reason to keep complete campaign knowledge exclusive by definition to the DM. PCs acting with complete campaign knowledge still act like PCs.


So, a DMPC, played as a player would, could sit back, give very little to no advice or ideas, help the party as a participant, but avoid metagaming by avoiding the making of the majority decisions and generally being a pretty passive entity. Well, as far as group decision-making goes. They could be good for conversations, funny, or bring anything else that a normal player could. They could provide useful skills in combat, and generally take a cue from other players as any player avoiding the use of metagaming might do.

So is that problematic? Or is that just impossible according to you? Or is your definition faulty in some manner?

I generally view that entity skeptically in terms of people saying it's a PC rather than an NPC, even when it's theoretically a player's character. If they aren't active in the game, but rather could be playing a PSP instead of participating, I tend to view their characters as NPCs more than anything. Equivalent to NPCs that players "hijack" for certain RP with the DM so he's not talking to himself, I don't view as PCs.

And I don't believe it's impossible, but I do believe it's where the greatest risks come from. When I was that player, I didn't bother holding back completely on metagame knowledge, as in all honesty it's impossible for me to act and think in a manner completely segregated from what I know, and doing so was going to be way more effort than would be worth using for it.


Eh, if the DM is like that, then he'll be like that with anything in the game he's attached to. Considering how much work a DM puts into the game, that's going to be quite a lot of things. That's a problematic DM...the DMPC would just be one example of it and decidedly not the cause.

That's the thing, it's hard to avoid, and who's going to call him out on it? Otherwise good DMs are going to have a very hard time completely avoiding their knowledge influencing their decisions or lack of decisions, and even the best DMs aren't inclined to catch and punish their own mistakes. Why bother risking that with a DMPC, when you can just litter the place with NPCs?

WildPyre
2011-08-28, 12:52 PM
Really how is any argument for either side on a non-mathmatical construct within an RPG setting anything but anecdotal? Neither side has any proof of their stance aside from their own personal experiences.

The point has been made. DMPCs can go badly, neither side disputes this. Some people like them, some people don't, it's personal preference and execution. There is however a difference between saying you don't like something and saying nobody could possibly enjoy it.

The whole argument has gone on far enough and is now little more than attacks on Serp's character.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 01:35 PM
Actual benefits, why they apply exclusively, primarily or in the best combination to DMPCs rather than any other character type, and why that is true. "It didn't ruin my campaign" and "my players enjoyed it" are those sorts of things that aren't really exclusive to anything, and honestly, that's fewer positives than rule 0, which at least maintains that it can speed up play.

And anecdotal evidence is considered admissible when it is backed by tangible evidence. Notably when you have the tangible evidence? Yeah, the fact that you have a witness as well is usually irrelevant in terms of presenting facts, you just bring one to sway the people who didn't understand what that video tape meant.

So, in other words there is nothing anyone in this thread can say, no witnesses they can bring in to back them up, and generally nothing at all that will convince you that a DMPC can have a positive impact on the game. "Tangible" evidence like that is a complete impossibility for something like this.

In fact, no one on a forum can ever convince anything at all works (or doesn't work) in their game, because your requirements for evidence are impossibility high.

Like I said, you are engaging in sophistry by acting like you could be convinced when you demand something totally impossible. Buuut, poking holes at your reasoning is pretty fun, so let's keep doing that for a bit.


Well, no. I simply see no reason to keep complete campaign knowledge exclusive by definition to the DM. PCs acting with complete campaign knowledge still act like PCs.

Of course, the logical response here is to ask if PCs can every bring anything positive to the game. Your conclusion here seems to be "no." One wonders why you even would play an RPG at all. After all, you see no problem with a PC having exclusive campaign knowledge, as they still act like PCs. Then there'd be no reason why a DMPC couldn't act like a PC...yet somehow they can essentially bring nothing positive to the game. Ergo, PCs can essentially bring nothing positive to the game. Ergo, the only positive things in the game must essentially come the the DM. Ergo, best not to have any players at all.

Brilliant.


I generally view that entity skeptically in terms of people saying it's a PC rather than an NPC, even when it's theoretically a player's character. If they aren't active in the game, but rather could be playing a PSP instead of participating, I tend to view their characters as NPCs more than anything. Equivalent to NPCs that players "hijack" for certain RP with the DM so he's not talking to himself, I don't view as PCs.

There's a difference between not being active in certain areas of the game related to metagame knowledge and not being being active at all. Apparently, a player that isn't particularly creative is a worthless individual in a game to you. Their friendship, humor, roleplaying interactions, and combat assistance is also worthless. Interesting.

I don't see why this reasoning wouldn't apply to all NPCs too. How exactly in your mind does an NPC bring something positive to the game? How exactly is a DMPC barred from this sort of positive influence as well?

Then again, I guess if you have metagame knowledge, you must try to cheat and need a DM to stop you. That seems to be what you are implying here. You then think anyone in a similar situation would do the same thing, which is decidedly NOT the case.

Yukitsu
2011-08-28, 01:50 PM
So, in other words there is nothing anyone in this thread can say, no witnesses they can bring in to back them up, and generally nothing at all that will convince you that a DMPC can have a positive impact on the game. "Tangible" evidence like that is a complete impossibility for something like this.

In fact, no one on a forum can ever convince anything at all works (or doesn't work) in their game, because your requirements for evidence are impossibility high.

Like I said, you are engaging in sophistry by acting like you could be convinced when you demand something totally impossible. Buuut, poking holes at your reasoning is pretty fun, so let's keep doing that for a bit.

So I'm going to have to guess you have no reasons why one should bring a DMPC then, other than anecdotes. If it's true that you have no means by which you can argue for the benefits of one, other than to point at a handful of hear-say, then by all means it's impossible. But if you can point to something that it adds, that something else does not, then you'd have a point about the sophistry, as it stands, you're trying to sell me a tool on virtue that it won't destroy my house according to some users.


Of course, the logical response here is to ask if PCs can every bring anything positive to the game. Your conclusion here seems to be "no."

This you can test. Run like, 20 games by yourself, for yourself where you just sort of sit there and talk to yourself, roll some dice, and basically run a game without players. If it's less fun than running a game, spending time with people, and collaborating, then in your case, you should probably do that instead of playing table top RPGs. Players are kind of important to avoid sitting alone in a dank room sounding like some kind of psychotic.


One wonders why you even would play an RPG at all.

Because they're fun. Duh.


After all, you see no problem with a PC having exclusive campaign knowledge, as they still act like PCs.

Correction, (and this is where I could correctly call a straw man) I do see a problem with that, as I view them as PCs that have a high chance of ruining the game, or being miserable themselves.


Then there'd be no reason why a DMPC couldn't act like a PC...yet somehow they can essentially bring nothing positive to the game. Ergo, PCs can essentially bring nothing positive to the game. Ergo, the only positive things in the game must essentially come the the DM. Ergo, best not to have any players at all.

Brilliant.

Interesting theory, I suggest you test it.


There's a difference between not being active in certain areas of the game related to metagame knowledge and not being being active at all. Apparently, a player that isn't particularly creative is a worthless individual in a game to you. Their friendship, humor, roleplaying interactions, and combat assistance is also worthless. Interesting.

That's called being active. All of those are touched by metagame knowledge and considerations. Well, actually probably not humour.


I don't see why this reasoning wouldn't apply to all NPCs too. How exactly in your mind does an NPC bring something positive to the game? How exactly is a DMPC barred from this sort of positive influence as well?

This you can test. Run an empty world campaign. They can work, but are by far more challenging than ones with NPCs, far less engaging, and far less interesting unless very well done. Interactivity is an important aspect to games.


Then again, I guess if you have metagame knowledge, you must try to cheat and need a DM to stop you. That seems to be what you are implying here. You then think anyone in a similar situation would do the same thing, which is decidedly NOT the case.

It's not cheating, it's that metagame knowledge will influence your decisions, often in a negative way, even if you are actively trying to avoid using that knowledge to your benefit.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 01:57 PM
Well, that's the end of that. You won't even defend the logical conclusion of your own statements. You demand a level of evidence that's impossible to supply about personal lives on a forum. You refuse to reason when it is inconvenient to you being "correct."

On evidence, you are of course, correct in a very technical sense. Nothing anyone says on a forum about their person life can be proved (well, let's say 99.9% of the time). However, a higher level of reasoning tells us that communities without any sense of trust cannot function. By refusing to trust anyone on a forum, you essentially are refusing to function in the community. True, trust makes one foolish now and then, but without trust one is far worse off.

I don't see any reason why you are remaining in a thread arguing a point when you've established that it is impossible for anyone here or anyone else on these forums to convince you of anything regarding their game.


as it stands, you're trying to sell me a tool on virtue that it won't destroy my house according to some users.

One more thing. First, somehow those other users are trustworthy to you? How so? They can't back up their claims anymore than anyone else can. Second, no one is saying you should use this in your game. Nice Strawman there.

WildPyre
2011-08-28, 02:00 PM
So I'm going to have to guess you have no reasons why one should bring a DMPC then, other than anecdotes. If it's true that you have no means by which you can argue for the benefits of one, other than to point at a handful of hear-say, then by all means it's impossible.

Many of the games I run have 2 or 3 players... sometimes just one. I use a DMPC to fill roles that the group needs so that they can function properly. Using a DMPC in this regard keeps the player from having to play a second character as well, and thus lets them focus on their character.

This has been stated many many times before. DMPCs can have a viable role in a game.

Nobody is forcing you to include them in your game, and we understand that games can be run without them... personally I'd love to run a game where I have enough players to where I didn't feel a DMPC was needed.

DodgerH2O
2011-08-28, 03:51 PM
While the arguments over the last several pages have some instructing merit in showing the possible conflicts of opinion regarding DMPCs it seems (to me, and I may be in the minority) that they do little to contribute to an understanding of how exactly one should run a DMPC if one chooses to do so.

As much as I love reading arguments on the internet, I really feel like this particular one hasn't gone anywhere. Just saying.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 03:53 PM
While the arguments over the last several pages have some instructing merit in showing the possible conflicts of opinion regarding DMPCs it seems (to me, and I may be in the minority) that they do little to contribute to an understanding of how exactly one should run a DMPC if one chooses to do so.

As much as I love reading arguments on the internet, I really feel like this particular one hasn't gone anywhere. Just saying.

Agreed. I think the first many pages of the thread had a lot of helpful advice though. Probably the most important is that you shouldn't overshadow the PCs or make their decisions have no meaning.

Generally speaking, I don't think it is that hard to make a DMPC work.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-28, 04:46 PM
Really how is any argument for either side on a non-mathmatical construct within an RPG setting anything but anecdotal? Neither side has any proof of their stance aside from their own personal experiences.

Well, if you pool all the personal experiences together, there's quite a number there. And thus, in a significant proportion of cases, DMPCs are problematic. Particularly so. There's only a few topics that bring up so many tales of destroyed campaigns and player conflict.


The point has been made. DMPCs can go badly, neither side disputes this. Some people like them, some people don't, it's personal preference and execution. There is however a difference between saying you don't like something and saying nobody could possibly enjoy it.

If you think anyone's been saying that, you clearly haven't read all the posts. I and at least several others have explicitly said that in some cases, players may accept or even like DMPCs.

This does not mean they should be recomended as a reasonable tool in a DM's toolbox. The issues addressed by DMPCs are far better and safer addressed by other means. When someone asks how to fly to denver, appropriate advice consists of linking them to a good airline or two, not of suggesting they build an ornithopter.


The whole argument has gone on far enough and is now little more than attacks on Serp's character.

I don't believe it is, or needs to be.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 05:09 PM
Well, if you pool all the personal experiences together, there's quite a number there. And thus, in a significant proportion of cases, DMPCs are problematic. Particularly so. There's only a few topics that bring up so many tales of destroyed campaigns and player conflict.

Frankly, we have no idea of the statistical breakdown of DMPCs and how often they are problematic. We certainly don't even know enough to say "a significant proportion" have been a problem. We know enough to say there are cases when they are a problem. However, those cases the real problem is ALWAYS actually the DM and how he apparently feels the need to show up the other players or make his stuff more awesome. Edit: Or some of DM vs. Player debacle, or something else really dysfunctional. Near as I can tell, anyhow. Please correct me if I am wrong in this.

This is a problem with some DMs and it is not limited to DMPCs, NPCs, or anything else. There's no good reason to think it is a problem just because a DM used a DMPC. That's pure conjecture.


This does not mean they should be recomended as a reasonable tool in a DM's toolbox. The issues addressed by DMPCs are far better and safer addressed by other means. When someone asks how to fly to denver, appropriate advice consists of linking them to a good airline or two, not of suggesting they build an ornithopter.

A DMPC is essentially a member of the party, and if the party is having problems with being limited on something, they certainly can fill in a gap in capability much of the time (such as with healing). Are there other ways? Sure, but there's no reason to say a DMPC is a bad way. A talking, interactive NPC is generally more interesting than a stick with a bit of magic, and certainly brings something to the table the stick doesn't possess. It can be more fun for the DM too. Win-win.

I'm not saying this is always the way to go, nor is anyone else. It IS a reasonable option.

Again, don't overshadow the PCs and don't make their decisions meaningless. Do that and any DMPC is fine. If you think that is not sufficient advice, then tell me what behavior that doesn't violate those two rules is problematic.

WildPyre
2011-08-28, 05:23 PM
Well, if you pool all the personal experiences together, there's quite a number there. And thus, in a significant proportion of cases, DMPCs are problematic. Particularly so. There's only a few topics that bring up so many tales of destroyed campaigns and player conflict.

So your argument is... your own anecdotal from this board? Classy. In my experience here, there are a lot of threads detailing the implosion, explosion and melt down of games that have nothing to do with DMPCs.


If you think anyone's been saying that, you clearly haven't read all the posts. I and at least several others have explicitly said that in some cases, players may accept or even like DMPCs.

This does not mean they should be recomended as a reasonable tool in a DM's toolbox. The issues addressed by DMPCs are far better and safer addressed by other means. When someone asks how to fly to denver, appropriate advice consists of linking them to a good airline or two, not of suggesting they build an ornithopter.

And now you follow up a statement saying "Nobody is saying people shouldn't use DMPCs" by pretty much saying "Nobody should use DMPCs."? Do you not see the hypocrisy between these two statements?

DMPCs are fine for some people and some people like them... but you shouldn't suggest or use them because they're the worst solution.

Just because you're not explicitly stating "DMPCs shouldn't be used" doesn't mean your statements don't amount to such.


I don't believe it is, or needs to be.

Perhaps I'm misreading all of those posts questioning how Serp treats her players, the truthfulness of her statements etc.