DMPCs - good for the game [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

kco_501

2012-03-08, 08:45 AM

I have seen that a lot of people in these threads have a reaction that I find very knee-jerk when DMPCs are concerned. While I have read about horrible stories with power tripping railroading DMs, I find it hard to believe that it is that prevalent an issue, just like the sociopathic kill-em-all PC is a species seldom making an appearance at the tables I frequent.

I wish to present some examples of ways I have used DMPCs in ways that I find add to the experience. First, I wish to define a DMPC: For me, a DMPC is any being that travels with the party for an extended period of time and is controlled by the DM. Since this has become much larger than originally expected, I will have to put some of the stuff in spoilers.

Type A: A NPC the players themselves like/romance/need and recruit/convince to come with them. This ends in one of 2 ways:
a. The NPCs is coopted as a de-facto cohort for the players with the greatest attachment to them Works especially well for love interests and NPCs weaker then PCs. Since most plots I DM include players travelling a lot, and the safest place from enemies being with the players themselves, it makes sense to travel with the party. In this case I allow the player to stat the NPC out as they see fit as long as it fits the NPC as described so far. Level is of course lower then the rest of the party, and the NPCs also rarely takes to the front lines unless the situation is really dire. The PC takes complete control of the character, so they stop being a DMPC altogether. I always reserved the right to interject if a decision or action was completely out of line for that character but so far I never had to go and exercise that right.

“Soldier” a veteran of the Great War in Eberron doesn’t really remember anything before a certain battle in the War. Campaign starts, stuff happens. He finds that he had a sweetheart, fiancée and that she thought he was lost in the war and greets him with love, hugs and kisses. She is a librarian at the University in Sharn and though he initially rejects her since he doesn’t remember anything, after some of the enemies kidnap and use her as leverage they start getting close again. Since the enemies are hidden they take her along for her own safety. They get close and she starts to train in the martial arts to better be able to defend herself. They have lots of adventures and retire together at the end of the campaign. The librarian only got into fights if “Soldier” got hurt and needed help, otherwise she kept back and a low profile.

b. The NPC parts ways with the party at the first logical point. Depending on the situation this can be amicable or not. This works well for NPCs stronger/ on par with the PCs. They are likely to have own goals, motivations and not be interested/ have the spare time to go on a merry chase with the PCs. Even works with friendly partings as the NPC can remain behind in their city/base because of duties/obligations even if in a close relationship with the PCs.

“Aa’lya and Ee’lya” Twins, sorcerer and rogue, daughters of the god-emperor of a tyrannical society worshipping a “Great Old One”. Stuff happens, the PCs infiltrate their country and the city and rescue the 2 from a plot of a relative to kill them and ascend higher on the succession list. Since the two are without the gear they should be <apparently> easy targets but the players though thoroughly evil themselves rescue them, and get along quite well. They cooperate to escape the immediate situation and as soon as they get the chance the 2 twins resume their positions of power in the palace. They part amicably and cooperate and help each other on numerous occasions through the campaign, 2 of the PCs even becoming romantically involved with them. The travel time with the party was 2 sessions.

“Sir Arthur, Sword of the Morning”. ;) Paladin. The party, again evil but masquerading as an order of Pelor, are lost in Ravenloft. The paladin, also of Pelor, meets them in a fight against mercenaries and they choose to travel together (The paladin out of trying to help them and himself find a way home, the PCs to try and keep their cover and unsure about what the paladin.). This works fine, up to the point where the players encounter a vampire in his castle and they would like to negotiate and the paladin goes for the kill. The paladin and the vampire die in the fight. Travel time with the party was 1 session.

“The other party” They liberate a group of 3 prisoners from a dungeon, a sorc, a wiz and a fighter, which express their desire to leave Ravenloft as well. They come with the party help them slightly but generally recognize that they are just tagging along and don’t try to do too much to help because that would tip their hand to what they can, and don’t try to do any funny business because they do not know what the PCs can do. They escape Ravenloft and their Planartravel Device (Think planar sphere from Baldur’s Gate) lands on Darksun. The rules are modified so arcane casting drains the CON of people in the area so the most of the party is useless so they decide to stay with the ship.<Before you worry, this nerf is mostly irrelevant to the PCs as none is a pure arcane caster>. The PCs see the other party as an ally out of need that is not to be trusted but also not to be feared as long as the goals (getting to a “normal” world) stay the same.

“The archmage” When actually leaving Ravenloft a obviously powerful Wizard is waiting near their ship. He politely offers them a huge reward for passage. From innuendo and subtle talking they realize that he is probably more powerful than they are but that he does not realize that, as he was unable to get through the protections of the ship and assumes the PCs are builders of the ship and that it is safer to just buy passage than fight them. They agree and he joins them. He is also useless on Darksun (see above) so is planning to stay at the ship to investigate it and maybe repair it. The PCs know that they will probably have to confront the guy at one point but are also thinking they should milk him for all he’s worth first.

Type 2:“The henchman/escort mission” This is the kind of DMPC that is not controlled by the players, but stays on for long periods of time. Basically it is useless in a fight and only there to be transported from point A to point B for whatever reason. Depending on player feedback to the character their role can be expanded to one of the above types, or just dropped of at one point when they arrive at the destination. A subtype of this is the “betrayer” that only seems to be useless but actually has power and nefarious plans. I only use this type for MacGuffin planting/extraction and introducing a new organization to the campaign or just comic relief and not for anything that would really destroy the PCs as that would promote a kind of paranoia at the table that would only make twists harder to accomplish.

“Halfling trouble. “ A Halfling asks the party to be allowed to join them as he is weak and as all his friends are dead and “sob story” and he can carry stuff for them. A month later he starts laughing maniacally telling them about how he is finally free to transform into his real form having served a good cleric faithfully for a month and ending the curse holding him in the Halfling form and how he will transform in the demon lord that he is and will kill all of them. Since the good cleric act was just a trick it fails and he is stuck… It does not end well for him. Laughs are had by all.

After presenting my examples, I would like to know your opinion if any of the cases above are damaging to the game, and if so how. I think that all the cases bring some more to the game, and make the experience better.

I believe the only rule that has to be followed when running DMPCs is “Thou shalt not steal your players thunder.” Do you have your own examples of DMPCs that added to the game? Please post them here!

dsmiles

2012-03-08, 08:53 AM

Well, there's a difference between a 'DMPC' and a 'NPC.' A 'DMPC' is a NPC that the DM treats as a PC with all the benefits, rights, and privileges thereof. Including all the 'screen time' and usually quite a bit more power than the actual PCs.

The Glyphstone

2012-03-08, 08:59 AM

Would you like a can opener for the can of worms you just opened?:smallbiggrin:

This has been discussed extensively in the past, and the first and biggest stumbling block is always, as dmsiles pointed out, agreeing what constitutes a DMPC and what doesn't.

Serpentine

2012-03-08, 09:06 AM

Oh boy, here we go again...

I think DMPCs can be tricky to use well, but there's nothing innately wrong with them - possibly there may be something wrong with the sort of DMs who are sometimes attracted to them.

I have a DMPC. She is built, run and played exactly the same as any other PC I use. It's her job to get hit so the other party members don't, and the other characters/players appreciate that. I worry about the "rolling against myself" issue, but my players don't seem to mind, and I'm working on speeding it up.
Finally, when I attempted to remove my DMPC from the game - in part because all the negativity thrown at them on this forum got me paranoid that my players secretly hate her - my players/characters went out of their way to make sure she would stay in the game. I even told them, "hey guys, this is actually my attempt to get rid of her. Are you absolutely sure you want her to stay in the game?" and they all said yes. Hell, the character who was the one who did the DMPC-saving deed was someone who had said "no" when I earlier asked him "are you okay with DMPCs?"

So, yeah. Based on my experience, I would throw in Type C:
The fair DM's personal character. A character owned by the DM, considered their own personal character, which is built in exactly the same way as all the other PCs, with all the same restrictions and options. It fills a role in the party that the party wants it to, and interacts with other characters in a way the players enjoy (this may, in done right, include conflict). It has no privileged status, no favouritism, and nothing else that gives it an advantage over nor indicates it's in any way more important than the other characters, but rather is always run fairly and with the aim of improving the game for the others.

This might be rare, but it's certainly not impossible.

kco_501

2012-03-08, 09:13 AM

@dsmiles: I am appalled at the idea of taking the time to COMPLETELY stat out a NPC just on the vague hope that my players would take him/her with them. Yes, I am that lazy. But yes, by your definition I can think of no positive use for a DMPC.

For the "screen time" thing. I freely and happily admit that I am a spotlight hog, that is why I enjoy DMing so much. But I honestly do not see the appeal of talking to myself :P. In character(s) or otherwise.

@Glyphstone: My apologies, maybe fish will come to eat the worms and then I can eat the fish. I love sushi.

I am aware that people have talked about this but all I have read(obviously not enough) was people telling how bad DMPCs are and how big of a no-no it is for a DM to have character traveling with the party. I would like to see and discuss the other side of the coin as well. Talk about the plusses, as maybe we can all find ways to do it in a good way and have fun. I believe it is easier to see a good example and follow it rather then knowing how not to do something and avoid it.

Edit:
@ Serpentine: Thanks for your addition, this is the kind of thing I was looking for. I actually contemplated doing this in a game where we did not have anyone wanting to tank, to have a DMPC "strong and silent type" be bodyguard but in the end it was not necessary so I do not know how that would have panned out.

I would love for more people to come up with examples like the one Serpentine brought, of positive interaction with DMPCs and how one can use them. I find they are useful as they can create deeper connection to the PCs than NPC living somewhere far away and getting a visit from PCs once per year.

navar100

2012-03-08, 09:24 AM

My group has NPC party members, a rogue and cleric. They are treated equally in all ways except on deciding what we do/where we go. They'll give opinions if asked, but they auto-agree on every decision the party makes. The cleric is a heal-bot. The rogue is a facilitator and comic-relief. They get equal share of treasure. All PCs would defend them to death in combat as they would for us.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-08, 09:34 AM

When one of my groups first got into 4th edition, we only had a DM and three players (a warlord, a swordmage, and a shifter-ranger-thing; I was never too clear on what that thing was or what it actually did). So our DM cooked up this awesome party-cohort wizard who also had a healing item or two, where all of his combat actions supported the other characters. The DM played him as this timid, frightful creature just experiencing his Very First Adventure. He was always trying to live up to the heroes he had read about, and his rational fear of the situations we kept finding ourselves in reminded us that we were heroes. As time went on he became one of the best elements of the game. We loved this guy. Everything about him was made to make the party better and more heroic.

Naturally, once we loved him, he ended up betraying the group, thus kicking off the Main Plot.

That was the best campaign of D&D I've ever had the pleasure of partaking in, and in no small part thanks to this more-than-an-NPC but less-than-a-DMPC. A "Demi-PC" if you will. I'm still heartbroken that, someday, I'm going to have to kill this guy.

valadil

2012-03-08, 09:45 AM

DMPCs are problematic when the DMPC shows up the PCs. The players should be the star of the show. The GM has enough to do already without already being a player. As long as the DMPC is a side character with less face time than the PCs and the PCs have the ability to fire the DMPC (without resorting to killing it) things usually work out okay.

prufock

2012-03-08, 10:21 AM

Yeah, as has been said, a DMPC as a pejorative is really just an NPC that is equal to or better than the party in all respects.

None of your examples in the OP are equal to the party. They are lower level, or less involved, or less important. I would call them NPCs.
Navar100's DMPCs have no power in the party's decisions. I call this an NPC.
Fatebreaker's DMPC (Demi-PC?) was entirely support and a wimp - at least in the beginning - then turned on the party. I would call this an NPC.

There are many problems with having an NPC that is equal to or better than the party. For instance, the DMPC has knowledge the players don't have. Does this bias allow him to avoid things that other PCs wouldn't - traps, monster's special attacks, etc? How does the DM make these decisions? Roll a die?
The DMPC also runs the risk of being a plot contrivance. If he has equal say in the party's decisions, he knows things that the other players don't. Arguing for a particular course of action is a bias - how does the DM separate this knowledge?

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it has to be done carefully. I've used them, though I prefer not to do so.

Serpentine

2012-03-08, 10:33 AM

There are many problems with having an NPC that is equal to or better than the party. For instance, the DMPC has knowledge the players don't have. Does this bias allow him to avoid things that other PCs wouldn't - traps, monster's special attacks, etc? How does the DM make these decisions? Roll a die?
The DMPC also runs the risk of being a plot contrivance. If he has equal say in the party's decisions, he knows things that the other players don't. Arguing for a particular course of action is a bias - how does the DM separate this knowledge?Pretty much all of this comes down to separation of in-character and out-of-character knowledge. I'm proud to say that both myself and all of my players are extremely good at this - almost to a fault.
For decision making, I have my DMPC say what my DMPC would say, based on what she knows. She's a bit of a follower anyway, by personality, but if asked for her opinion, she will give it - and it will be her opinion, not mine. The hard part is not making her seem like an idiot by underestimating the amount she would know out of excessive caution, but this is an issue I have with every character I play.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-08, 10:41 AM

The DMPC also runs the risk of being a plot contrivance. If he has equal say in the party's decisions, he knows things that the other players don't. Arguing for a particular course of action is a bias - how does the DM separate this knowledge?

If you deliberately have that NPC make both good and bad decisions, your players should rapidly learn to think for themselves.

Arbane

2012-03-08, 02:42 PM

Since by definition, ALL NPCs are DMPCs, I prefer the term "UberNPCs" to describe the fun-killing kind. (Well, ONE fun-killing kind: Massively overpowered, the plot centers around them, and they're either utterly unhelpful or doing everything instead of the PCs.)

Grod_The_Giant

2012-03-08, 04:10 PM

Early in my DMing career, I ran a DMPC because I wanted "a piece of the fun" too. I would use it to drop hints when the players were stuck, to fill an unfilled role in the party, and-- yes-- to fight my own monsters. Later, I focused more on the first two aspects and less on the combat side of things-- probably my longest-running DMPC was a warlock who helped burst the party out of prison and was their main contact with the local resistance groups.

But as I got more experienced, and started running more complex encounters, I discovered that running a full-fledged character just took too much time and effort when coupled with running everything else.

nedz

2012-03-08, 04:25 PM

I would like to propose a type M the Mary-Sue.

This is what players have a problem with, and quite rightly so IMHO.

I use many other kinds of DMPCs and they are all popular, though I normally let the players run them - if they are going to be around any length of time. These tend to be of the A.a type.

There is another kind - the travelling companion you meet on the road. These just happen to be going the same way and make for temporary fellow travellers. They will work with the party in dangerous country - simply for mutual protection. These are good for supplying background information. After a short while, they will say goodbye and leave.

Rain Dragon

2012-03-08, 04:49 PM

Well if you look at the manuals there are templates kicking around for NPCs and in the Monster Manual there are all the necessary things for those, but they never seem as rounded out as the players simply because there will be many, many NPCs in a campaign and the DM has to deal with all of this without accidentally giving away plot or making all of these characters seem the same. (I suppose my love for acting and writing helps...)

In fact, having to ask this question in the first place just says how cautious you are, which is good because you probably won't intentionally mess up the PCs. But as has been pointed out the DM's PC is only a PC if they are like the other PCs. Rounded out, similar power, their own mind and character and the like with the same 'spotlight' and importance. As the people who play with me would attest I have no qualms about talking to myself a little, but NPCs who just talk to each other all the time can also be a buzzkill so you just have to be very careful about everything, plan and experiment.

But remember if you have all your stats set out and your NPC (or PC if you plan on them being more I suppose) should not be able to do things in a manner which makes the PCs feel less important. They're heroes! Adventurers!

Also keeping summaries of sessions can be useful if you have the time. You can look at aspects of the play and figure out what worked well and what didn't. This can of worms is particularly difficult because there are so many different people with so many different opinions, you just need to find out what the players like and don't like even if it means some trial and error. What happens if your characters are popular? Well, by all means continue messing about with these possibilities. Surely it'll lead to something different, which just makes life less dull.

Best of luck with your game! My opinion? They can be good, but they can also be a disaster. 'Tis why it's so highly discussed. It often turns out to be a disaster because it really does require a lot of care. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr

2012-03-08, 05:15 PM

.... First, I wish to define a DMPC: For me, a DMPC is any being that travels with the party for an extended period of time and is controlled by the DM. Since this has become much larger than originally expected, I will have to put some of the stuff in spoilers.

And that's probably it for the thread.

Many people will define many of those as mere NPCs. The hireling that the PCs pay to carry loot for them, but that gets basically no actual screen time, and is not notably powerful, is not considered a DMPC by rather a lot of people, including me.

If you're not using the same definitions as those of us who dislike DMPCs wholesale, you're quite unlikely to convince us of anything.

Snowbluff

2012-03-08, 05:16 PM

nedz

2012-03-08, 05:45 PM

This. DMs, stay out of your players' games.
This is an oxymoron, but I know what you mean.
The important thing is to not make the players spectators. They are the protagonists.
A DM having 'their' player in the game is a very bad idea. I have seen it work, but you really have to know what you are doing.

kyoryu

2012-03-08, 05:51 PM

This is an oxymoron, but I know what you mean.
The important thing is to not make the players spectators. They are the protagonists.
A DM having 'their' player in the game is a very bad idea. I have seen it work, but you really have to know what you are doing.

Exactly this. It *can* work, but it's a very dangerous road, and the ways in which it will fail are often non-obvious to the DM.

That's why I recommend people *not* do this. Which takes nothing away from the folks that have made it work in their games.

MukkTB

2012-03-08, 06:59 PM

If the party encounters an NPC and it joins the party for whatever reason I will run it.
Maybe they hired a guard to keep watch, or a blacksmith to keep their gear in shape.
Maybe they allied with a wizard because hes blackmailing them, or a Paladin asked if he could help them slay the liche.
I will not decide that one of these guys is my avatar. I will not get too attached to them. I will not force feed the PC's their awesomeness although I'm willing to stick the PCs with a higher level NPC for a bit if its appropraite to the story. I will not fudge the dice to protect them or make up random things to do the same. They're just characters who aren't current enemies. Therefore they are not DMPCs.

The core problem I feel about DMPCs is collaboration. For a fantasy to have flesh requires the involvement of two people agreeing that it does. Even literature requires an author and a reader who is willing to keep reading. The 2cd mind keeps the first in check. If the author stops being entertaining the reader can put the book down. In D&D the DM creates the world. The Players create the main cast. The players give credence to the world. The DM gives credence to the main characters. The world runs on mutual agreement within a basic rules framework.

A DMPC breaks all of this. The DM makes the DMPC. The DM accepts the DMPC. Players get angry because there are no check and balances. The DMPC gets a privileged position above everyone else.

The secondary problem is about the game. A DMPC isn't that fun. If its badly run or the DM goes power tripping the players don't enjoy it. When the DM realizes they don't like his DMPC its not a positive experience. If the DMPC is well run the DM isn't going to be able to get his wish fulfillment. He might as well not have gone to the effort. Its not the same experience playing as a DMPC as a PC. You cannot segregate the knowledge you have as DM. There is no mystery, there is no exploration, there is no challenge in combat. You don't wonder if the Wizard is going to betray you because you KNOW. There is nothing you can do to capture that feeling other than asking someone else to DM.

Skyrunner

2012-03-08, 08:17 PM

I have quite a lot of PC-statted NPCs in my campaign... The non-antagonist ones are what I call DMPCs. They both stay with the party for at least 1 session, and have PC stats. I have the following types:

(A) Full support
Only one such character. The cleric is a fully statted DMPC. He is roughly the same level as the party. He has a full personality, a PC-worthy backstory (despite being rather short), and also doesn't spoil anything. He has as much screen time as everyone else, but doesn't ever make decisions unless I feel like the PCs need to be nudged. Having a DMPC helps in nudging the party, since you can do more than drop hints.

(B) Escort
The one in the OP. She was a 18th level (the party was all 11~12th) sorcerer. Again, she had a full personality, a backstory, and PC stats. She was only there for one escort mission. There was a story-reason she was not OP.

(C) Background
They are hired by the PCs for quite a sum of money. These DMPCs also have PC stats, just in case they need to be called into action. One has, in fact, accompanied the PCs in a dungeon. These again have backstories/personalities.

All in all, I feel like my party of players don't mind DMPCs, especially since they are not cut any slack in dice rolls. The cleric of type (A) has, in fact, nearly died three times, each time living by sheer luck and the availability of CLW potions.

((This might be just me, but I try to be slightly more brutal on my own characters...))

Uh, the most important part of this post, wherein I express my own stance:

My 'DMPCs' are not there to fulfill the wish to play as a PC. They are there strictly to fill in weak spots of my party, or do the boring stuff that my own player's don't feel like doing, such as being the party cleric. Healing feat, healing domain, the works. Other uses are for a better story. I personally feel more of a 'thrill' from telling a great story, or at least trying to, more than playing as a PC.

[/end rambling]

Shadowknight12

2012-03-08, 08:43 PM

Would you like a can opener for the can of worms you just opened?:smallbiggrin:

Oh boy, here we go again...

My thoughts exactly.

Other than that, I have to say this: I haven't had a player yet that hasn't got attached to an NPC I made and dragged them along their merry adventures. And they would reprimand me if any harm came upon them, so I had to make them somewhat combat-capable (not to mention a lot of them were already supposed to be warrior or spellcaster types).

The only exception to this are about 5 DMPCs I created for a party in one campaign, clearly labelled "DMPCs". The party had the option to bring them along or not, as they wished. Their purpose was to die at certain key moments of the plot so that I could give the story dramatic weight without forcing death on any of the players. The players got very attached to them. One of them even smuggled the frailest of them all on their adventures because she felt sorry for the DMPC, who wanted to help but had less HP than a thin, anaemic rat.

DMPCs are fine. The key is merely to put the transition from NPC to DMPC in the hands of the players. Or, as I did in my sole exception, have a very specific and unavoidable purpose for them that you wouldn't want to force on any of the players. And even then, don't force them upon your party. Come up with a plausible way to make them appear at the right place at the right time, and keep them in the background until their time comes.

Serpentine

2012-03-08, 08:49 PM

This:
I will not decide that one of these guys is my avatar. I will not get too attached to them.Does not necessitate nor lead inevitably to this:

I will not force feed the PC's their awesomeness although I'm willing to stick the PCs with a higher level NPC for a bit if its appropraite to the story. I will not fudge the dice to protect them or make up random things to do the same.
If its badly run or the DM goes power tripping the players don't enjoy it. When the DM realizes they don't like his DMPC its not a positive experience. If the DMPC is well run the DM isn't going to be able to get his wish fulfillment. He might as well not have gone to the effort.Mine is not badly run. I am not power tripping. My players do enjoy it. They like my DMPC. It is a positive experience. My "wish fulfillment", as you put it (rather, "the enjoyment I get from having a character of my own, interacting with other characters with her, and watching her develop") is intact. My experience is not in accord with your statement.

You cannot segregate the knowledge you have as DM.I can :smallsmile:

dsmiles

2012-03-08, 08:56 PM

Mine is not badly run. I am not power tripping. My players do enjoy it. They like my DMPC. It is a positive experience. My "wish fulfillment", as you put it (rather, "the enjoyment I get from having a character of my own, interacting with other characters with her, and watching her develop") is intact. My experience is not in accord with your statement.
I can :smallsmile:
I'd call that an NPC. I pretty much only use the term "DMPC" as a pejorative term.

Mystify

2012-03-08, 09:04 PM

As many people have mentioned, there is a big difference between an NPC that is with the party and a DMPC. A DMPC is essentially another player that happens to be the DM.

There are 3 ways I've seen that go down:

1. The spotlight hog
Since the DM is the player, the check and balance is removed, and they ue it as an excuse to pull whatever BS their DMs don't let them do, often for good reason. They give them selves every advantage, take control of the direction the group goes in, and basically overshadows everyone else. There are many degrees of this, but this is the typical DMPC that everyone is concerned about and hates.

2. The background character
This character does not do much plot significant. They are not a wizard solving problems, they are just another melee character rounding out the party. They could also be a dedicated healbot/buffer. This typically occurs as a response to a small party, and the DM things another body will help things go smoothly. They may serve as a voice for the DM to point things out and give the players nudges in the right direction, or otherwise dispense hints, and tell the players if their plan is blatantly flawed, but they don't push the issue and let the party still gets to make their choices. If he does solve an obstacle, it is because the party told him to. This can work if the party needs it, as it serves more as another body than another character.

3. The player proxy
This is a more unusual case, but I have run into it. Specifically, one member of the group was an artificer, and he wanted to make a chariot mounted cross bow turret and spend most of his effort enchanting and improving it. To aid him, I made a DMPC who served as the gunner for the turret, build to use it well. This character was a major factor in the battles, and dominated many of them. However, it was more the artificer being awesome by proxy, and everyone viewed it as an extension of the artificer, just as you would an artificer with an army of constructs.

prufock

2012-03-08, 09:30 PM

Maybe we're all asking the wrong questions. Instead of looking at what's wrong with DMPCs (and admittedly, there is plenty), what if we ask: What do they add to the game?

Skyrunner

2012-03-08, 09:59 PM

I think there are these three:

Round out parties
Nudge people in the right direction more than just hints
A more constant NPC to talk with

eggs

2012-03-08, 10:17 PM

Maybe we're all asking the wrong questions. Instead of looking at what's wrong with DMPCs (and admittedly, there is plenty), what if we ask: What do they add to the game?
That's basically what I've been wanting to ask throughout the thread.

I have never seen a DMPC that genuinely benefited a game.
I have seen dozens that have been detrimental.

...

Rounding out parties is a silly concept.

Eg. If the DM sticks in enough traps that the party needs a trap-killer to succeed, the DM has a few options:
A. Let the party experience the traps, along with their negative elements. If the traps were added to make the game fun, this includes trap-related fun in the players' experience. (A fun-positive option.)
B. Add a trap-killer DMPC to the party, taking the playtime from the players and wholly removing the traps from the players' experience. If the traps were added to make the game fun, this removes the trap-related fun from the player experience. (A fun-negative option.)
C. Don't add the traps. If experiencing the traps wasn't meant to be fun, this just removes that element of the game from player experience. (A fun-neutral option.)

Apply to healing, hacking, cartography, or whatever. At best, a DMPC just puts more of the talking and problem-solving on the DM's head, which is precisely the opposite of where the DM should be pushing it.

Tengu_temp

2012-03-08, 11:32 PM

Mystify

2012-03-08, 11:33 PM

MukkTB

2012-03-09, 01:55 AM

On the flip side this is the best example of a 'DMPC to round out the party' that I can think of.
http://www.urealms.com/content.php?150
2 player D&D is a bit different than 3+.

eggs

2012-03-09, 03:18 AM

horngeek

2012-03-09, 03:56 AM

That's basically what I've been wanting to ask throughout the thread.

I have never seen a DMPC that genuinely benefited a game.
I have seen dozens that have been detrimental.

...

Rounding out parties is a silly concept.

Eg. If the DM sticks in enough traps that the party needs a trap-killer to succeed, the DM has a few options:
A. Let the party experience the traps, along with their negative elements. If the traps were added to make the game fun, this includes trap-related fun in the players' experience. (A fun-positive option.)
B. Add a trap-killer DMPC to the party, taking the playtime from the players and wholly removing the traps from the players' experience. If the traps were added to make the game fun, this removes the trap-related fun from the player experience. (A fun-negative option.)
C. Don't add the traps. If experiencing the traps wasn't meant to be fun, this just removes that element of the game from player experience. (A fun-neutral option.)

Apply to healing, hacking, cartography, or whatever. At best, a DMPC just puts more of the talking and problem-solving on the DM's head, which is precisely the opposite of where the DM should be pushing it.

Except 4e specifically has four roles, and if you don't have one of them filled, there is a tactical gap.

kco_501

2012-03-09, 05:02 AM

I must say, this is a can of worms indeed!

But, not to make this thread into a battleground, I think I can safely summarize that opinions are divided (which is ok), but that in a story driven game that is not "players vs. environment" but rather "players and DM are creating a compelling story together" a DM can use them to good effect. Care is required of course and the DM must not see them as anything more than other NPCs. Also, all of us seem to agree that a NPC traveling with the party should at most voice opinion but never command/steer the PCs.

What I would like to hear more of, if more such examples exist than the one I have thankfully seen and read so far, is examples of such NPC traveling with the party that make a good story/addition to the world/memorable friend.

I conclude with stressing the point that I find such an NPC to have much more potential for a deeper characterization and the creation of personal relationships with the PCs and as such improving immersion and the emotional investment of players in the game. This is in my mind the best reason to use them.

Reluctance

2012-03-09, 05:16 AM

I'm going to point out P. 104 in the 3.5 DMG. There's a brief mention of adventurers who happen to not be player controlled. In the NPC chapter.

In practice, there are two drawbacks with DM controlled characters of PC complexity. The first is entirely prosaic; players can devote all their mental energies to one character, while the DM has to keep track of the entire world. Simplicity and streamlining are good things.

The second, bigger point is that the PCs are the heroes and protagonists. The term "support ally" helps drive home that while this character receives a full share of treasure and XP, they shouldn't get anywhere near the spotlight time. (This is also the reason metaplot, favoritism, and extreme power imbalances are best given a wide berth. Nobody wants to show up only to find out that they've been relegated to a secondary role.) Not to mention how boring it is to watch the DM play both the focal character and the rest of the world they're interacting with.

Terminology-wise, I dislike the term because it implies a similar narrative role. Plot-wise, the most important thing is that they don't get in the way of the proper PCs shining. Realistically, I have better things to do than dig in over the semantic difference between "supportive ally" and "DMPC".

Acanous

2012-03-09, 06:40 AM

I generally dislike DMPCs as a crutch. When I build PCs, I generally pay for a hireling or two for things like carrying messages driving a cart, reading and writing (In the case of my barbarians :D) or other tasks that aren't combat-centric or covered by class features. Bards usually fit as very good hirelings. I bring 'em around and outfit them with a wand of CLW for after-combat healing.

If a DM wants to play an NPC that interacts with the party, there's plenty of opportunity playing one of the support NPCs I've paid for. If there's some plot-relevant reason why we need to travel with another adventurer, I will work with it until I have a means to work without/around it. (They take a share of my loot, while paid hirelings only demand danger pay if I put them in danger)

Basically how I term DMPC is an NPC which adventures with the party, is higher level than a cohort, controlled by the DM, and not hired by the PCs.

That's a pretty decent definition, methinks.

dsmiles

2012-03-09, 06:41 AM

Except 4e specifically has four roles, and if you don't have one of them filled, there is a tactical gap.

Not really, no. You can get by with just three of the roles. Rather successfully, too, as each class also has a secondary role. Take the Paladin: a Defender with a secondary Leader role. Or the Warlock: a Striker with a secondary Controller role. All of the classes have a secondary role. They're not as effective as a class with that as a primary role, but it's not neccessary to have all four roles in a party.

Killer Angel

2012-03-09, 07:04 AM

kco_501

2012-03-09, 07:23 AM

The idea of using old Pc characters of the DM, or old characters of his players is awesome! I have used it with great success in the past, and will do so again.

The only trick is to remember that they are effectively NPCs and nothing more than that and the players might not (or even cannot) even recognize the link. So as long as they are used as a base for characterization and for additional flavor it is awesome. One shouldn't expect the players to offer these NPCs any special treatment, or even anything more than "we kill the weird looking tiefling that is trying to follow us".

I think I should add that as a DM I am quite far in the improvisational end of the spectrum and tend to put the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun before the rules, so many NPCs don't even get to be completely statted out unless really important.

dsmiles

2012-03-09, 07:42 AM

The idea of using old Pc characters of the DM, or old characters of his players is awesome! I have used it with great success in the past, and will do so again.I have no problem with this, as long as they don't take spotlight time away from the players. I've dropped in old PCs of mine (and my old players) as minor characters, from time to time, but they'll never, ever, take center stage. And they have to have done something to significantly alter the campaign world, when they were a PC, in order to even get a mention.
(One of my old players had a PC that bought an inn, and managed to set up multiple permanent planar gates. He even convinced The Lady of Pain to let him set up one to Sigil. That inn and that character have become staples of my campaign settings. But in the end, it's just an inn with it's innkeeper. An innkeeper who may sometimes give quests, but an innkeeper just the same.)

Tengu_temp

2012-03-09, 09:05 AM

You're couching the question in rhetoric that will make stances against DMPCs offend players who've used them. That doesn't mean that stances against DMPCs are aggressive or invalid.

Actually, no. If someone is having fun doing X in their game, then saying "X is never a good thing, it is The Wrong Way To Have Fun" is invalid.

Probably it's a matter of definitions.
The way I see it: The DMPC is the PC of the DM, that goes in adventure alongside with the group... the DM is personally involved in the character and so said PC got advantages that the players won't have. (I really doubt I'll ever see a DMPC die during combat by DM's hands).
The NPC (that goes with the group) is a character created by the DM, that merely fills a necessary role, which is secondary to the players' PCs and often the players themselves "suggest" the actions to the NPC.

So a character like the one Serpentine has in her game is what? Because it is the PC of the DM, pretty much, but it doesn't get any advantages the players won't have. This fits neither of your definitions.

caden_varn

2012-03-09, 09:35 AM

As a number of posters have said, it's down to definition. When we talk about AC or HP, everyone knows exactly what we are talking about as regards D&D they have a standard definition.

DMPC does not, so everyone has their own definition, and these don't necessarily match. And when we are discussing whether things are good or bad, it is important that we are using the same definition in order to have any kind of constructive debate.

Based on what I have read, there seems to be wide agreement that overpowered PCs played by the DM which overshadow the PCs are bad. And I don't think anyone has suggested that what Serpentine is doing is wrong. The only thing really being debated related to that is whether Serpentine's character should be defined as a DMPC or an NPC. Which is a fairly pointless debate IMO as these are not and are never likely to defined in a standard way, but hey.

Tengu_temp

2012-03-09, 10:26 AM

Eric Tolle

2012-03-09, 10:28 AM

They aren't "doing it wrong", they simply aren't playing DMPCs. As DMPCs are abuses of GM power, characters that the GM doesn't self-identify with are simply NPCs, not DMPCs.

You aren't doing it wrong, just using the term wrong.

killem2

2012-03-09, 10:29 AM

You have my support OP. DMPC are seriously overrated.

Mine has been great and my group loves my DMPC. I certainly don't metagame the group either.

. As DMPCs are abuses of GM power

This is:

1. A lie.
2. Stereotypical
3. Ignorant
4. Wrong.

caden_varn

2012-03-09, 10:53 AM

If your definition of a DMPC includes phrases such as "overpowered" or "steals the spotlight", then it's obviously a negative definition by default, and there's no point in arguing whether DMPCs can be good under it. It's also the definition most people don't use, especially those who say that DMPCs can be done well.

A DMPC is the DM's PC, simple as that. What Serpentine has in her game is a DMPC. Saying "it's not a DMPC because it's done well, it's an NPC" defeats the purpose.

A DM's PC and a DMPC are not necessarily the same thing. It depends on the definition, and as I said there is no commonly accepted definition of what a DMPC is. I personally don't much care - your definition of a DMPC seems as good as any to me, but you need to understand that not everyone has that definition. If you don't then you are liable to misinterpret people with a different definition of what consistutes a DMPC. Then you basically end up having two separate arguments, as you don't have a common basis to argue about.

As several earlier posters have said a lot of these threads come up. In all the ones I've read, the definition of DMPC is very different between those who say they are fine and those who say they are always bad. Reading between the lines I generally get the idea that poeple's views on what is good and what is bad are fairly similar, but they are just talking about different things without realising that they are doing so. And that way misunderstanding lies.

My personal opinion on DM run characters as part of the group is to be a bit cautious, but I don't think they are always bad by any means. I use them from time to time myself when the need arises (mainly when I have a small group doing a prepublished adventure). I can see that they could be done very badly, but I have been fortunate enough to avoid this personally.

eggs

2012-03-09, 11:27 AM

Actually, no. If someone is having fun doing X in their game, then saying "X is never a good thing, it is The Wrong Way To Have Fun" is invalid.
The only posts to either promote or retaliate against that position are your own. This is not a position anyone has taken. I previously thought you were using this language as a rhetorically sleazy shorthand for posters who disagree with DMPC use; now it is clear that you are using the terms as a misrepresentation of their stances.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret this to mean you skimmed, were distracted or otherwise misunderstood the posts you've responded to, rather than posting them with a malicious attempt to trivialize an opposing viewpoint through misrepresentation.

For a summary on what was actually contained in the arguments you're responding to, the closest posts to a blanket anti-DMPC stance have pushed these arguments:
DMPCs degrade the collaborative interaction element between the DM and the players by displacing elements from the collaborative process into extra internal decisions on the part of the DM.
A gameplay style founded on a DM v. PC social model (this is a term that has a specific connotation I do not wish to evoke; rather I want to point out the social dynamic underlying the PCs v. environment game model) is contorted, both undermining expected social dynamics and permitting DM knowledge to permeate the opposite side of the model.
Any extra time spent with the DMPC is time spent away from PCs - who are the narrative focus of traditional D&D-modeled games. This applies to both the "spotlight" of exciting achievements and the routine mechanics of die rolls, social interactions and narrative obligations that the DM is obligated to resolve for an additional character without a player to benefit from the actions.
There is the possibility of DM judgment being skewed by self-interest - creating the possibility (though not the necessity) of Mary Sue-types.
Maybe this will help.

Tengu_temp

2012-03-09, 11:58 AM

The only posts to either promote or retaliate against that position are your own. This is not a position anyone has taken. I previously thought you were using this language as a rhetorically sleazy shorthand for posters who disagree with DMPC use; now it is clear that you are using the terms as a misrepresentation of their stances.

Some people are saying that DMPCs are always bad. Not "I haven't seen a good DMPC in action, but it might've worked in other people's games", but that they're always a bad thing and should be avoided. I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Talakeal

2012-03-09, 12:37 PM

I am going to be brief here, in my experience this topic has more potential for strong words and opinions than any other, including the one about whether 4E or 3.5 better resolves whether or not a paladin falls for taking psion levels in a ToB banned game in response to an overpowered magical character dominating a melee character using self resetting magical traps.

The following are all facts that I use as evidence not to use a DMPC in my game or to be very wary about joining one:

1: I have never seen a game where the players didn't outright hate the DMPC, let alone actually liked one.

2: Players like spotlight time. The DMPC takes away spotlight time from the players.

3: Playing against oneself is no fun. The DMPC cannot have a conversation with an npc, solve a puzzle, come even come up with a strategy in combat. If they do they are not only taking time away from the players, but initiative as well, and they are removing the challenge from the situation from them self as they already know how well it will work out.

4: DMing is a huge job, far more than being a player, and few DMs have enough time and energy to do everything they need. Adding the responsibilities of running a player on top of that will detract from the time and energy spent DMing.

Personally I don't see a need for a DMPC except possibly to fill out a missing party role. In that situation I simply suggest someone take the leadership feat or spend the gold to hire a mercenary and let the player who fronted the cost control the character in combat and decision making, and only RP the NPC in face to face conversation.

Tyndmyr

2012-03-09, 01:00 PM

I think there are these three:

Round out parties
Nudge people in the right direction more than just hints
A more constant NPC to talk with

Those are the usual reasons, yes. That said, I must point out that every one of those things can be handled by normal NPCs at least as well as by a DMPC. Some things, like rounded parties, I don't consider to be necessary, either. I LIKE seeing untraditional parties deal with things in new and unique ways. There's nothing wrong with a traditional party if the group desires it, but if they want to play five graduates from wizard school, I see no reason to include a healbot with them.

To all the "DMPCs are always bad" people: several people in this thread have already said that they've seen/were in groups where a DMPC worked well, nobody minded the fact that there is one, and everyone had fun. Are you saying that these groups were Doing It Wrong?

Strictly speaking, sometimes players are wrong about what makes a game enjoyable. An example of this is the game Monopoly, which is subject to many popular house rules, such as putting tax money on free parking, which has been demonstrated to add to the length and detract from the strategy of the game. Yet, many people still happily advocate the house rule...yet also criticize the game for being too long and/or random.

People are not always perfectly rational, and your average game player may not consider game design deeply.

In the same way, a player might wish that combat in D&D took somewhat less time, yet not connect this with the number of NPCs with the party. A game I left last year had 9 PCs and 3 NPCs in a party(all DM controlled). Combats were...ridiculously slow. I literally took breaks to go get food at another location between init counts. Were these NPCs DMPCs? Meh. Arguing over definitions is usually not productive. But if they were gone, we certainly would have progressed at a less glacial pace.

PersonMan

2012-03-09, 01:33 PM

2: Players like spotlight time. The DMPC takes away spotlight time from the players.

The reason I dislike absolute statements is because people like me will say 'you mean, some players like spotlight time'. Also, liking something =/= wanting all of it. I play in a game with a horde of NPCs and a DMPC and have never had any problems with not being in the spotlight enough (although this might be a playstyle thing).

3: Playing against oneself is no fun. The DMPC cannot have a conversation with an npc, solve a puzzle, come even come up with a strategy in combat. If they do they are not only taking time away from the players, but initiative as well, and they are removing the challenge from the situation from them self as they already know how well it will work out.

While I agree that talking to yourself is odd, one can usually sidestep that with 'X haggles with Y' rather than spelling out exactly what the say and do.

It might be my laziness or method of preparation, but I never actually come up with 'ways out' for my players when I DM. I make the situation, check to make sure they won't just be massacred and then watch to see how they get out of whatever trap/bad situation/apocalypse they got themselves into. As such, if I were to run a DMPC I'd have no special advantage in that regard, as there is no 'perfect strategy' for the situation - at least, not one that I built in.

4: DMing is a huge job, far more than being a player, and few DMs have enough time and energy to do everything they need. Adding the responsibilities of running a player on top of that will detract from the time and energy spent DMing.

This depends on the DM and party - I, for example, actually spend very little time preparing things. In my RL games this works fairly well but in the now more common (for me) PBPs it's amazingly easy, since you don't have to worry about having to come up with something in a few moments if the PCs turn down the 'wrong' path.

I do agree, however, that adding a DMPC to a campaign in which you are already too busy is a bad idea.

Personally I don't see a need for a DMPC except possibly to fill out a missing party role. In that situation I simply suggest someone take the leadership feat or spend the gold to hire a mercenary and let the player who fronted the cost control the character in combat and decision making, and only RP the NPC in face to face conversation.

It's a personal thing, I guess - I've never really seen the reason (apart from 'because it's fun') for my DM to use his DMPC (the horde of NPCs are due to the kinds of plots he uses). In my experience, all of the the 'DMPC issue' threads I've read always come down to 'anti DMPC vs anti-anti DMPC', although the entire discussion of definitions is a constant, too.

Killer Angel

2012-03-09, 01:50 PM

So a character like the one Serpentine has in her game is what? Because it is the PC of the DM, pretty much, but it doesn't get any advantages the players won't have. This fits neither of your definitions.

It's a fortunate exception that proves the rule (in the rhetorical sense that Serp's case draws the attention to the rarity of such an even, 'cause the norm is very different).
Tha fact that Horzon Tripper exists, doesn't mean that the norm for core only melee builds is versatility.

Talakeal

2012-03-09, 01:52 PM

The reason I dislike absolute statements is because people like me will say 'you mean, some players like spotlight time'. Also, liking something =/= wanting all of it. I play in a game with a horde of NPCs and a DMPC and have never had any problems with not being in the spotlight enough (although this might be a playstyle thing).

While I agree that talking to yourself is odd, one can usually sidestep that with 'X haggles with Y' rather than spelling out exactly what the say and do.

It might be my laziness or method of preparation, but I never actually come up with 'ways out' for my players when I DM. I make the situation, check to make sure they won't just be massacred and then watch to see how they get out of whatever trap/bad situation/apocalypse they got themselves into. As such, if I were to run a DMPC I'd have no special advantage in that regard, as there is no 'perfect strategy' for the situation - at least, not one that I built in.

This depends on the DM and party - I, for example, actually spend very little time preparing things. In my RL games this works fairly well but in the now more common (for me) PBPs it's amazingly easy, since you don't have to worry about having to come up with something in a few moments if the PCs turn down the 'wrong' path.

I do agree, however, that adding a DMPC to a campaign in which you are already too busy is a bad idea.

It's a personal thing, I guess - I've never really seen the reason (apart from 'because it's fun') for my DM to use his DMPC (the horde of NPCs are due to the kinds of plots he uses). In my experience, all of the the 'DMPC issue' threads I've read always come down to 'anti DMPC vs anti-anti DMPC', although the entire discussion of definitions is a constant, too.

I didn't say all players like the spotlight, I just said "players" as a general term, I suppose a qualifier like "most" or "many" would have made it more clear.

Even if you don't come up with a single answer before hand, it is still very hard to be unbiased with your own ideas, or to think out how the opponent would best react to those ideas. It is very hard to play both sides of a conflict properly, just like it is very hard to play chess against yourself and come out with a challenging and satisfying game.

Fallbot

2012-03-09, 02:03 PM

(I really doubt I'll ever see a DMPC die during combat by DM's hands).

Oooh this has happened to us! DMPC rogue was dropped to negatives by an area effect while hanging over a 60ft drop, and proceeded to...drop.

I think the potential pitfalls far outweigh the benefits of using DMPCs. Buuuut I'm in a game where at one point they made up a third of the party, and I'm actually ok with it. The DM has been relatively good at keeping them from hogging the spotlight (Relatively. A unicorn out of nowhere that only the DMPC can ride? Really?), but the sad truth is that the other players in the game aren't all that interested in roleplay or character development, and I'd rather my PCs be able to have meaningful interactions with their traveling companions than not. I consider the occasional unicorn a small price to pay.

Serpentine

2012-03-10, 09:07 AM

I'd call that an NPC. I pretty much only use the term "DMPC" as a pejorative term.She was built exactly the same way I'd build any other of my characters. She's a full party member. I could, and would, play her exactly as-is in any game in which I wasn't DM. She has a fleshed-out background. I care about her as much as any PC I have run, and about as much as any of my players care about theirs. She has an equal share of experience and treasure She is the same level and built for the same approximate power level. She is in every way exactly the same as any PC, except that she is played by the DM.
In other words, whatever she is, she is not an NPC.
Personally, I like to think that DMPC stands for "Dungeon Master's Personal Character".

(I really doubt I'll ever see a DMPC die during combat by DM's hands).Mine has died twice: the first was because I screwed up as both DM (not checking how much of a ship would be taken up by a Drowned's aura) and as a player/owner of a character (forgot to give her a ranged weapon); the second time she was split vertically by a particularly nasty critical hit by an axe which was, in part, designed to do extra damage to a creature of her alignment. And I thought it was awesome.
Technically she died 3 times, but the third was deliberate on my part and my party made a concious decision that they didn't want her to go.

shadow_archmagi

2012-03-10, 09:18 AM

(I really doubt I'll ever see a DMPC die during combat by DM's hands)

A DM that wasn't a completely terrible person would actually probably be more willing to throw their PC away, since they can continue, you know, running the game if their PC dies, whereas a player would be more inconvenienced.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-10, 09:36 AM

(I really doubt I'll ever see a DMPC die during combat by DM's hands).

So if I create DMPCs with the exact purpose of dying instead of a PC... then what? Reality implodes?

Skyrunner

2012-03-10, 09:54 AM

I've been trying to kill my DMPC subtly*, but every time the PCs revived him.

*Based on DM's own definition of subtle, which may or may not include targeting AoE spells near the cleric if possible.

The Glyphstone

2012-03-10, 10:04 AM

Shadowknight12

2012-03-10, 10:10 AM

I think the logic then would be that it was never a DMPC in the first place, just an NPC.

Divide By Zero.

Ohhhh, so THAT's why this debate never has an end. I get it now. People will be like "DMPCs can be used well!" "Nope, if they're used well they're not DMPCs!" "But they are, because of this definition!" "No, they aren't, because of this other definition!" and so on.

That explains a lot, really.

The Glyphstone

2012-03-10, 10:32 AM

pres_man

2012-03-10, 11:42 AM

That's basically what I've been wanting to ask throughout the thread.

I have never seen a DMPC that genuinely benefited a game.
I have seen dozens that have been detrimental.

As DM, I want my players to play whatever they want to and not feel like they have to fill in some missing gap in the group. While I understand your point about: why put in details for missing character roles if the character roles are missing? I think there are some reasons why. Consistency is probably the biggest. Why is it when the party is missing a healer that they find tons of healing potions and such, but when the party has a healer that those all dry up? I do agree that traps are probably the easiest to do without, especially when a lot of traps don't really make logical sense and are only placed there to give the rogue something to do.

Another reason is because in many groups there tends to be at least one person that is ..."bossy"... and at least one person that is more laid back. The bossy player tends to "force" the more laid back player to play a character they don't really want to, "You need to play the healbot damn it, I am doing my part by playing the overlord arcane caster, you need to do your part." I dislike creating a gaming situation where this occurs so as a DM I tell my groups that if there is a role that is missing, I will make a character to take it if the group wishes, but they should all play the character they want to and not feel pressured to play anything else.

Tyndmyr

2012-03-10, 11:49 AM

Another reason is because in many groups there tends to be at least one person that is ..."bossy"... and at least one person that is more laid back. The bossy player tends to "force" the more laid back player to play a character they don't really want to, "You need to play the healbot damn it, I am doing my part by playing the overlord arcane caster, you need to do your part." I dislike creating a gaming situation where this occurs so as a DM I tell my groups that if there is a role that is missing, I will make a character to take it if the group wishes, but they should all play the character they want to and not feel pressured to play anything else.

In that situation, Id rather just explicitly deal with the bossy player by stating that nobody need to play any given char, and advise him that if he really wants X played, he should shut up and play it himself.

pres_man

2012-03-10, 12:05 PM

In that situation, Id rather just explicitly deal with the bossy player by stating that nobody need to play any given char, and advise him that if he really wants X played, he should shut up and play it himself.

True, if it was as obvious as I stated it in my post, but we all know it rarely is that obvious. In which case, you, the DM, come across as the arse. As I said, I tell my players to play what they want and if they would like, I can make a character to fill a gap. Obviously if they don't want me to do, I don't, that is why I put in the "...if you like..." part.

JadedDM

2012-03-11, 08:44 AM

Ohhhh, so THAT's why this debate never has an end. I get it now. People will be like "DMPCs can be used well!" "Nope, if they're used well they're not DMPCs!" "But they are, because of this definition!" "No, they aren't, because of this other definition!" and so on.

That explains a lot, really.

Basically, yeah. Every time this conversation is brought up, it goes the same way.

Imagine me starting a thread about how munchkins are actually good for games. I then proceed to define a munchkin as someone who optimizes their character.

Except that's not what a munchkin is. That's what an optimizer is. A munchkin is, by definition, bad. It is disruptive and ruins the game. It is a derogatory term. In this hypothetical thread, I am trying to defend the idea of optimizers, but I insist on calling them munchkins, which just confuses everybody.

So in other words, if people quit insisting on stretching the derogatory term of DMPC to include all NPCs, cohorts, henchmen, hirelings, companions, etc., we wouldn't have these endless discussions cropping up every couple of weeks or so.

dsmiles

2012-03-11, 09:00 AM

So in other words, if people quit insisting on stretching the derogatory term of DMPC to include all NPCs, cohorts, henchmen, hirelings, companions, etc., we wouldn't have these endless discussions cropping up every couple of weeks or so.Sure we wouldn't. Just like someone doesn't come along and insist that Monk is a good class every couple of weeks, or so. :smalltongue:

joe

2012-03-11, 09:02 AM

I'm not completely opposed to the use of DMPCs. The problem lies when the DM uses the DMPC as the protagonist or as a super character designed entirely to upstage the party. Unfortunately, as the DM has infinite power at their disposal, this happens far too often.

As a DM, I have used PCs from when I was a player as NPCs, but I never allow them to join up with the party for a serious length of time and I always make certain that they are never a higher level than the PCs if I do. (I frequently use other players characters as NPCs also with permission... it really helps me to flesh out NPCs met in my campaign world).

The closest thing I think I've ever had to a DMPC in the group was a 2nd level character in a group of level 7 characters who existed pretty much entirely for exposition of that portion of my campaign world. (He did attempt to help in combat, but was considerably out of his league, so he was more humorous than effective in that regard.)

It takes a considerably good DM to pull off the DMPC without it being a problem, and most of the DMs I've played under that have tried have not been able to pull it off. The most recent DMPC example was a paladin that tried to police the party, (and prevent them from looting a bad guy's lair). Needless to say, that didn't go over very well.

shadow_archmagi

2012-03-11, 09:28 AM

So in other words, if people quit insisting on stretching the derogatory term of DMPC to include all NPCs, cohorts, henchmen, hirelings, companions, etc.

I feel like forcing DMPC to refer exclusively to characters that receive unfair treatment isn't really intuitive. As everyone has attested, many DMs run a character in the group that isn't overpowered or unfairly favored at all- they're capable to splitting their mind and fully enjoying playing a PC and DMing at the same time.

TuggyNE

2012-03-11, 11:31 AM

I feel like forcing DMPC to refer exclusively to characters that receive unfair treatment isn't really intuitive. As everyone has attested, many DMs run a character in the group that isn't overpowered or unfairly favored at all- they're capable to splitting their mind and fully enjoying playing a PC and DMing at the same time.

The point I believe Jaded is making is that "DMPC" is so frequently used as a pejorative that it simply has too much baggage for proper discussion. Its use, therefore, should be entirely avoided on all sides. Instead, come up with different terms for "NPC that travels with the party", "DM's PC that dies all the time and has the least loot", "DM's pet PC that is totally awesome and steals all the kills", and so forth.

Perhaps, respectively, "Party-PC", "DM-played PC", and "Uber-NPC"?

Beowulf DW

2012-03-11, 01:15 PM

In a Pathfinder game that I'm playing with some friends, we're actually escorting a DMPC around. She's a cleric of our world's Pelor/Sarenae equivalent and she's also the god's newest prophet. This cleric is also a bit of a prodigy. Although she's the same level as the party, she's not much more than 12. However, thus far, most of what she's done is deliver prophecies, heal, and have a genuinely good effect on the party. Our misanthropic halfling ranger has become her best friend, our elven necromancer has been holding back on the crazy because she's so cute, and my mercenary magus is starting to genuinely care about her even though he claims that it's just part of his job.

So yes, this DMPC is influencing the party. But it's being done in such a way that the PCs still make the decisions and still have the spot light. It's amazing what a kid can do for a party of adventurers.

valadil

2012-03-11, 01:31 PM

... missing character roles ...

I understand this argument, but I don't agree with it. I've played tank, blaster, healer, skillmonkey D&D before. I've played it a lot in fact. But I've never played tank, tank, tank, blaster. I don't know what that type of party is like. If I was put in a party I'd be really interested in seeing how it played out and I'd greatly resent any player or GM who took that away from me in favor of a more traditional party.

Mystify

2012-03-11, 01:36 PM

I understand this argument, but I don't agree with it. I've played tank, blaster, healer, skillmonkey D&D before. I've played it a lot in fact. But I've never played tank, tank, tank, blaster. I don't know what that type of party is like. If I was put in a party I'd be really interested in seeing how it played out and I'd greatly resent any player or GM who took that away from me in favor of a more traditional party.

I've seen groups specifically request an extra body to fill in missing roles. Esp when they start playing, and realize they can't deal with basic obstacles. Like locked doors. Yes, I literally had a group who had to leave the dungeon and trek a week back to town across the glass sea to hire a rogue sothey could get through doors.

Talakeal

2012-03-11, 01:59 PM

I've seen groups specifically request an extra body to fill in missing roles. Esp when they start playing, and realize they can't deal with basic obstacles. Like locked doors. Yes, I literally had a group who had to leave the dungeon and trek a week back to town across the glass sea to hire a rogue sothey could get through doors.

Lucky. My PCs refuse to acknowledge rogue skills, and simply bash or magic their way through and locks or traps they might find, and as a DM it is very hard to keep coming up with reasons why they can't do this, and when I do come up with something like that they just grumble about unfair DMing and ignore whatever it was beyond the thing they can't bypass.

pres_man

2012-03-11, 04:13 PM

I understand this argument, but I don't agree with it. I've played tank, blaster, healer, skillmonkey D&D before. I've played it a lot in fact. But I've never played tank, tank, tank, blaster. I don't know what that type of party is like. If I was put in a party I'd be really interested in seeing how it played out and I'd greatly resent any player or GM who took that away from me in favor of a more traditional party.

That is why I said that if the group wants a DM run character, I will provide it. If they do not, I don't force it on them. So if they want to play a party of tanks only, so be it, that is their choice.

Coidzor

2012-03-11, 04:21 PM

Hmm. I must admit, the thought of a party-wide cohort hadn't occurred to me until just now after reading over this thread.

Sure we wouldn't. Just like someone doesn't come along and insist that Monk is a good class every couple of weeks, or so. :smalltongue:

They're not the problem, it's the people who agree with them and encourage them to persist in ignorance and misinformation who are the problem. Generally because without encouragement they either learn or leave. With encouragement they have huge threads. If they learn or leave, the threads can become far more amusing.

dsmiles

2012-03-11, 05:25 PM

Hmm. I must admit, the thought of a party-wide cohort hadn't occurred to me until just now after reading over this thread.Yeah, hirelings are a common occurrence in games. Especially for parties that go long periods without finding civilization. Wagons, drivers, farriers, weaponsmiths, armorers, etc. I've seen many a party turn into a small mercenary company just from hiring people for labor. (Though I've never been in, or GMd for, a party that hired someone to "round out the party," as it were.)

shadow_archmagi

2012-03-11, 11:26 PM

Lucky. My PCs refuse to acknowledge rogue skills, and simply bash or magic their way through and locks or traps they might find, and as a DM it is very hard to keep coming up with reasons why they can't do this, and when I do come up with something like that they just grumble about unfair DMing and ignore whatever it was beyond the thing they can't bypass.

Well, why SHOULDN'T they be able to bash locked doors down? Sounds fair to me.

Mystify

2012-03-11, 11:41 PM

Well, why SHOULDN'T they be able to bash locked doors down? Sounds fair to me.
That was the really sad part of that group. They couldn't bash the doors down. Well, technically they could, but it took forever, since they a could only scratch it on a good hit. Granted, they were stone doors, but thats not uncommon.

Coidzor

2012-03-11, 11:52 PM

That was the really sad part of that group. They couldn't bash the doors down. Well, technically they could, but it took forever, since they a could only scratch it on a good hit. Granted, they were stone doors, but thats not uncommon.

Yeah, need an adamantine dagger or hammer or mace ASAP for that route.

Mystify

2012-03-11, 11:59 PM

Yeah, need an adamantine dagger or hammer or mace ASAP for that route.
This was level 2ish, so that was a bit out of their price range. The real problem was the lack of power attack.

Talakeal

2012-03-12, 12:16 AM

Well, why SHOULDN'T they be able to bash locked doors down? Sounds fair to me.

I can think of no practical reasons, only thematic or gamist ones besides the thief is a common fantasy archetype and there should be a reward to including on in the party.

Coidzor

2012-03-12, 12:33 AM

This was level 2ish, so that was a bit out of their price range. The real problem was the lack of power attack.

oof. Yeah, at that level you're either carrying around a porable ram and a team of crowbarerers or you're power attacking...

Killer Angel

2012-03-12, 07:21 AM

So if I create DMPCs with the exact purpose of dying instead of a PC... then what? Reality implodes?

I think the logic then would be that it was never a DMPC in the first place, just an NPC.

Divide By Zero.

Seriously?
THe DMPC is a PC, first of all. It's your PC. Are you telling me that you're creating a PC that you want to let die asap? :smallconfused:
(unless you're playing CoC...)
I'm sorry but yes, a character created for the purpose of "being disposal" is not a PC.

She was built exactly the same way I'd build any other of my characters. She's a full party member. I could, and would, play her exactly as-is in any game in which I wasn't DM.

(snip)

Mine has died twice:

As already said, your is a fortunate exception.
But don't tell me that you play exactly as if you weren't the GM, 'cause the players face mistery, your PC don't.
The magical door is closed and can be opened only by answering the riddle (or by resolving the puzzle). So what?

edit: when the result of your actions is based on die rolls, it's OK, but when it's time to take decisions based only on what you think is right and you (as character) don't have a sufficient amount of elements, you (as DM controlling a PC) should make a step aside and let the players decide.

navar100

2012-03-12, 08:08 AM

Sure we wouldn't. Just like someone doesn't come along and insist that Monk is a good class every couple of weeks, or so. :smalltongue:

Just this past game session the monk in our Pathfinder game had a great moment in the sun rescuing a prisoner and she even said afterwards: "This is why monks rock!". You'd never convince her monks suck. :smallbiggrin:

Serpentine

2012-03-12, 10:19 PM

So in other words, if people quit insisting on stretching the derogatory term of DMPC to include all NPCs, cohorts, henchmen, hirelings, companions, etc., we wouldn't have these endless discussions cropping up every couple of weeks or so.
And what about a character which is exactly the same as a PC in every way except that they happen to be run by the DM, and/or which is exactly the same as a "DMPC" in every say except that it isn't detrimental to the game? What do you propose you call such a character? Because, as I said, it's definitely not an NPC.
I still like making the P mean Personal...

But don't tell me that you play exactly as if you weren't the GM, 'cause the players face mistery, your PC don't.
The magical door is closed and can be opened only by answering the riddle (or by resolving the puzzle). So what?

edit: when the result of your actions is based on die rolls, it's OK, but when it's time to take decisions based only on what you think is right and you (as character) don't have a sufficient amount of elements, you (as DM controlling a PC) should make a step aside and let the players decide.I do play exactly as if I weren't the GM. The only difference is that as GM I have substantially more OOC knowledge to keep apart from my character - the difference is in degree, not kind. And this particular character isn't the sort to be all that interested in mystery anyway. The magical door is closed and can be opened only by answering the riddle? Whatever, that's the Warlock or Cleric of Garl Glittergold's problem.
The result of actions is based on die rolls as much as any character's. When it comes to making decisions, this character is a follower (and would be even if I weren't DM), and is happy to leave it to the others. If asked for her opinion (as has happened), I will give it according to her information, opinions and personality, regardless of my opinions as DM - that most memorable time it happened, her opinion was in fact exactly opposite to what I as DM wanted. I gave it just so nonetheless.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only DM in existance who is capable of doing this :smallconfused: I'm not that amazing and unique, surely.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-12, 10:38 PM

Seriously?
THe DMPC is a PC, first of all. It's your PC. Are you telling me that you're creating a PC that you want to let die asap? :smallconfused:
(unless you're playing CoC...)
I'm sorry but yes, a character created for the purpose of "being disposal" is not a PC.

In the campaign I ran, it was an unfortunate plot necessity that some PCs had to die to advance the plot (and hey, bonus dramatic tension). I did not want to force that on the players, so obviously, Occam's Razor told me to create a PC to die instead. She was a young, fragile, buff-oriented wizard who willingly jumped into the sacrificial pit as her kitten familiar leapt right off one of the PC's arms to go after her. Saddest scene ever.

Also I was a bit of a sadist towards characters I created, so I indeed derived pleasure from making them suffer horribly. I got better, though.

Coidzor

2012-03-12, 11:20 PM

And what about a character which is exactly the same as a PC in every way except that they happen to be run by the DM

Yes, that's the DMPC, which is generally a bad idea if not outright impossible, even if the DM thinks such is the case, the odds are very heavily in favor of their vision being clouded for reasons too numerous to bother listing.

which is exactly the same as a "DMPC" in every say except that it isn't detrimental to the game?

I'd have to look askance at the person for trying to break my suspension of disbelief with regards to reality.

The sheer contrariness alone of someone setting out to try to do so would be pretty ballsy though, I have to admit.

Mystify

2012-03-12, 11:29 PM

I do play exactly as if I weren't the GM. The only difference is that as GM I have substantially more OOC knowledge to keep apart from my character - the difference is in degree, not kind. And this particular character isn't the sort to be all that interested in mystery anyway. The magical door is closed and can be opened only by answering the riddle? Whatever, that's the Warlock or Cleric of Garl Glittergold's problem.
The result of actions is based on die rolls as much as any character's. When it comes to making decisions, this character is a follower (and would be even if I weren't DM), and is happy to leave it to the others. If asked for her opinion (as has happened), I will give it according to her information, opinions and personality, regardless of my opinions as DM - that most memorable time it happened, her opinion was in fact exactly opposite to what I as DM wanted. I gave it just so nonetheless.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only DM in existance who is capable of doing this :smallconfused: I'm not that amazing and unique, surely.

Thats pretty much how they have been handled when I have done it, or when my DM did it. The ability of my first DM to do it is what led to me doing it on occasion. I thought it was odd at first, but its doable without causing issues.

JadedDM

2012-03-13, 12:14 AM

PersonMan

2012-03-13, 06:34 AM

Re: Serpentine

While this is the kind of thing she'll probably be answering, too, I've seen enough of these threads that I'm going to go into seer mode and predict her response, which will probably be based on the fact that she attempted to remove the character from the game. The players, however, took deliberate action to keep her in the game. Of course, as you've said that you believe she is deluded rather than lying, this will probably lead to one of three responses:

A. (I don't remember the situation precisely, so this might be actually not be an option) The players didn't expressly say they wanted the DMPC, you just interpreted their actions wrong.
B. They knew you liked having the DMPC(or thought you did), but thought you wanted to remove her because of them. They wanted to avoid ruining your fun. (Basically the 'huge miscommunication' option)
C. Your players are incapable of telling the truth in this situation.

Which she will, I presume, respond with something like:

Re: A. Here are more details from the precise situation, showing that they specifically acted to save her, knowing what they were doing.
Re: B. (I don't know exactly, probably a combination of more information and something about the communication of Serp's group.)
Re: C. Probably something like 'well, if you think my players are incapable of communicating with me truthfully in this situation, we can't really continue this discussion'.

Did I just steal the thunder of each of you, or am I way off mark?

EDIT: I assumed that, due to the way you worded your post, you're in the 'DMPCs are always bad' camp, in which case every individual case must be adressed or the argument falls apart. For the 'DMPCs are usually a bad idea' people, it's not a problem, as they can just list some of the potential problems and say 'think about if it's worth it and if it'll work before using a DMPC', and Serp can say 'well, here is my DMPC [and maybe some advice, probably, but I don't really know], so it can work'.

Serpentine

2012-03-13, 06:45 AM

Re: Serpentine

Listen, I don't want to get into an argument over it or anything, but if I'm perfectly honest with you...I don't believe you.

You claim your DMPC is in no way detrimental to your game, nor has it ever been. But all we have to verify that is your word. And as an anonymous person on the internet, that means nothing to me.

No offense. I know it sounds bad, but I'm really not looking to pick a fight or anything. I just don't believe you, which is why I don't bother addressing your unique situation. I'm not accusing you of lying, either. I just think you are probably not aware of any problems. I did the exact same thing when I was younger. "But everybody loves my DMPC!" I would once say. Turns out, no...no they did not. They just didn't have the guts to be honest with me.And I have absolutely no reason to believe you when you say every DMPC you've ever come into contact with is terrible. All we have is anecdotal evidence; if we're not going to believe anyone else's, there's no point having this discussion at all.
As PersonMan said, I deliberately attempted to remove my character from the game via death - I even preceded it with a valid in-character reason why Raise Dead wouldn't work on her. The entire party went out of their way to resurrect her. I paused the game to tell them my plan, and left the matter up to them. They all said they wanted her to stay in the game, because they wanted her there. I saw no reason to deny them their wishes, just to satisfy a bunch of critical strangers on the internet. And so she remained, according to the wishes of my players. Your opinion means far less to me than that of my players.
My original discussion of it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176851)
If you won't believe me, well, most of my players have now joined the forum, so you can ask them (I really need to wrangle that game properly...).

dsmiles

2012-03-13, 07:29 AM

Stuff.

Serp, I don't want to sound like a jerkass, but let's face it: If you're DMPC is in no way inhibiting/eclipsing the players and isn't being used to keep the players on the rails, it's the exception that proves the rule.

I've been doing this for over 28 years, and haven't seen a DMPC yet that hasn't either used GM knowledge to keep the players firmly on the rails, stolen spotlight time away from the PCs, or totally eclipsed the PCs in power level.

Killer Angel

2012-03-13, 07:38 AM

I do play exactly as if I weren't the GM. The only difference is that as GM I have substantially more OOC knowledge to keep apart from my character - the difference is in degree, not kind.

To be fair, this is the (correct) behavior i expect also from player, facing a strange monster they know but their characters don't.

And this particular character isn't the sort to be all that interested in mystery anyway. The magical door is closed and can be opened only by answering the riddle? Whatever, that's the Warlock or Cleric of Garl Glittergold's problem.

You can justify the thing with role playing motivations, but the fact is that you, as a player, cannot "try" to solve a riddle if you know the answer.

The result of actions is based on die rolls as much as any character's. When it comes to making decisions, this character is a follower (and would be even if I weren't DM), and is happy to leave it to the others. If asked for her opinion (as has happened), I will give it according to her information, opinions and personality

Leaving decisions to players and giving opinions only when asked for, IMO is more the trait of a NPC. A PC played by a shy player, will act similarly, but the players usually try to partecipate to the process of decision in an active way, while you deliberately choose to leave the main decisions to your players.

I believe The Glyphstone hit the nail on this. You say that your character is a PC, I consider it more similar to a NPC.

PersonMan

2012-03-13, 09:08 AM

Serp, I don't want to sound like a jerkass, but let's face it: If you're DMPC is in no way inhibiting/eclipsing the players and isn't being used to keep the players on the rails, it's the exception that proves the rule.

First off, a grammar nitpick/pet peeve: It's your DMPC. You're is a contraction of 'you are'.

Second of all, well, as the discussions in DMPC threads often come down to 'they are always bad' vs 'they are not always bad', being an 'exception that proves the rule' (which rule, exactly?*) destroys the argument of one side. Either you change your argument to 'DMPCs are almost always bad, with very few exceptions', ignore the example or say that Serp's players are actually miserable (or similar).

*I'd imagine that the rules it could be used as proof for are that many people are against DMPCs (if you call them DMPCs) and that they can be done right. Any others are...eh. "I drove this car without a problem, therefore driving a car is incredibly dangerous/should not be done!"

Solaris

2012-03-13, 09:18 AM

There are many problems with having an NPC that is equal to or better than the party. For instance, the DMPC has knowledge the players don't have. Does this bias allow him to avoid things that other PCs wouldn't - traps, monster's special attacks, etc? How does the DM make these decisions? Roll a die?
The DMPC also runs the risk of being a plot contrivance. If he has equal say in the party's decisions, he knows things that the other players don't. Arguing for a particular course of action is a bias - how does the DM separate this knowledge?

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it has to be done carefully. I've used them, though I prefer not to do so.

My current group (who is somewhat lackluster in many regards) tried pulling this with the DMPCs/party NPCs/whateverthehellwewanttocallit running with them (one's basically the walking quest source, Int and Cha 18, Wis 7; the other's the half-celestial's romantic interest and only real tie to humanity). I simply pointed out the following:
1: One of those characters is not experienced in dungeon-crawling and is, in fact, a paladin who had spent her entire life above ground until that point.
2: The other character has a Wisdom of 7.
They stopped asking for metagamey advice after that.

EDIT: I'm deliberately ignoring the argument because, quite frankly, it's the third re-hash I've seen of it thus far and it is stupid.

Coidzor

2012-03-13, 09:32 AM

PersonMan

2012-03-13, 09:46 AM

Huh, I thought the thing was that people said they were always bad to discourage neophytes from trying it with disastrous results and really everyone knew that they were just a bad general practice to promulgate due to the ease of largesse.

Although, saying something is always bad is a bad way to go about teaching someone new a dangerous situation. I doubt that driving school instructors tell people that they should never, ever drive on a slippery road, just that it's quite dangerous to do so because [insert explanation here].

I'm not seeing what the second part has to do with the debate at all - as far as I've seen, it's never been 'pro' vs 'anti', but rather 'never use them' vs 'they can be done right', with the second often giving plenty of 'do this, but not this' advice, which is more useful than 'no, don't ever do this'. If I'm looking for advice, telling me never to do so because it will ruin my game probably won't work (especially if it's someone new to the forums it can provoke a 'these guys are crazy, they don't know me or my group, but I do! Why should I listen to them?' response). I believe the Abstinence Only vs This Is How You Use A Condom (& Co) sex-ed argument is of a similar type (although they don't have the definition sub-arguments).

Killer Angel

2012-03-13, 09:57 AM

Second of all, well, as the discussions in DMPC threads often come down to 'they are always bad' vs 'they are not always bad', being an 'exception that proves the rule' (which rule, exactly?*) destroys the argument of one side. Either you change your argument to 'DMPCs are almost always bad, with very few exceptions', ignore the example or say that Serp's players are actually miserable (or similar).

*I'd imagine that the rules it could be used as proof for are that many people are against DMPCs (if you call them DMPCs) and that they can be done right. Any others are...eh. "I drove this car without a problem, therefore driving a car is incredibly dangerous/should not be done!"

Don't know 'bout dsmiles, but here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12867485&postcount=52) there's the explanation of the way I use it.

Although, saying something is always bad is a bad way to go about teaching someone new a dangerous situation.

I concede that. Even if some situations are more potentially dangerous than others...

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-13, 09:59 AM

I've avoided saying anything due to the fact that I, as the GM, have a PC in the game I play - and thus can be called biased with good reason.
However, I am totally with Serpentine here - my PC is a PC in every regard, I role play them only with their knowledge and always to their personality, and they get an equal share of the limelight (actually slightly less than, as proven during a recent body swap adventure where one of the other players basically played my PC with the awesome dial cranked up to 11 and had a much larger share of the limelight than I've ever taken with that character).

I can't see how this is hard to believe at all, there are several frequently reoccurring NPCs in the game we play too, often key members of society (lord of the land, captain of the guard, head of the mercenary guild, local master smith, local eccentric genius artificer, plus many other potent "adventurers"). Each of these are big fish who can or do shape the plot, or are as potent/more potent than the players in certain things, or are often asked as friends or hired as mercs to go along with the players on various difficult quests should the players want to and be able to get them to. These are all played my the GM (me) too, and I'm sure similar "Non-player" characters exist in every other game out there, and are obviously also played by the GM - so what's the difference?

The only noteworthy difference between my PC and an NPC in the game I run is that every other player can see my PCs character sheet, and that my PC is more intertwined in the overall plot than the average NPC (although some NPCs are just as intertwined due to player desire to include them into it and the natural plot evolution from there).

I can accept that some (clearly bad) GMs might put the 'PC' label onto a character that they play in order to give them some sort of immunity so that they can power trip with them - but that is only one of the many reasons a GM might choose to identify a character as "theirs". Any half decent GM will clearly see the problems of power tripping in their games and thus not do this, unless they enjoy losing players.

If you can accept that an NPC can be played without utilising "player knowledge" and instead will make decisions and actions based on the personality and knowledge specific to that character, independent of GM whim and desire, then there should be no reason why one which happens to be called a PC instead can't do the same!

Now I know that some people have had bad experiences and can now never see anything called a PC that is played by their GM as being anything other than bad news, and thus they will refute this to their last breath, but I ask them to consider this. If my previous paragraph is wrong then what is the alternative?
If NPCs do act with GM knowledge, or do act 'out of character' in order to help steer the game in the direction the GM wants (which is a soft version of railroading), how is this any different from the actions that have been defined as bad for a "DMPC"?
The way I see it, you either accept that either all NPCs fall foul of every complaint and flaw of "the always bad for the game DMPC" or accept that if a GM can play NPCs in a non-disruptive way then they can equally play a DMPC in a non-disruptive way with that very same methods.

Calling something a PC just means it has a character sheet that everyone can see and is a core member of the team so is present for most of the game, if it doesn't fit that criteria then its an NPC (who the GM might be particularly fond of or has somehow gotten themselves wrapped up into the plot so that they're always around). Note: I'm assuming a gaming group where all players can see everyone else's character sheets as that's how I've always played, if you keep your character sheets hidden from the other players.... well that's odd :smalltongue:.

Tyndmyr

2012-03-13, 10:28 AM

Huh, I thought the thing was that people said they were always bad to discourage neophytes from trying it with disastrous results and really everyone knew that they were just a bad general practice to promulgate due to the ease of largesse.

Generally. The advice is generally, to new DMs, don't use them at all. It is perhaps the strongest of such advice I give, though things like "avoid time travel to minimize headaches" and "avoid even the appearance of favoritism" also apply pretty generally.

There's exceptions to ANY rule when based around such a human-centric practice as DMing. You can say things like "Players don't enjoy torture". What? Turns out...some people literally do. Meh. We routinely phrase general advice in universal language because adding caveats to literally everything we say to make it technically correct would be really, really tedious.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 01:32 PM

To Serpentine:

I really like you, and you seem to be one of the nicest posters on this board. I don't think you are a liar or a bad person. If you say your players like your game, I believe you.

However,

In my experience PCs have a hard time with:

Separating OOC and IC knowledge
Hogging the spotlight / being too passive
Being jealous of other characters

And DMs have problems with:

Playing favorites among PCs.
Giving special privileges to NPCs.
Being overwhelmed by having to focus on too many things at once.

All of these problems, and others, are ten times worse when the DM and PC are the same person.

I personally have never seen a DMPC done well or that the other players didn't hate with a passion. I would find it likely that your game is being hurt by the DMPC but is otherwise going so good that no one notices, but that may not be the case, you may have found the perfect group for DMPCs or you may be the perfect DM for it, in which case it genuinely makes your game better and all the more power to you. You just need to recognize that for most people this is an anomaly and people tend to disbelieve things that are out of sync with their experiences.

Also, I have to ask; are you normally so passive as a PC? You claim that your character has absolutely no interest in making decisions, talking to NPCs, or solving puzzles and is content to sit back and let the other people do it. If I tried that as a PC I would be bored out of my mind, and I can't help but think that the reason your DMPC works so well for you is because you are only playing half of a full character.

We routinely phrase general advice in universal language because adding caveats to literally everything we say to make it technically correct would be really, really tedious.

Seconded. I hate it when posters on this and other forums pick apart posts or game rules because they didn't bother putting a codifier on something that is usually true. Like that one guy last year who said because the PHB states "elves live in the forest" that any elf PC who leaves the forest is violating RAW.

Mystify

2012-03-13, 01:58 PM

But I love time travel!

[QUOTE=Talakeal;12889354]
In my experience PCs have a hard time with:

Separating OOC and IC knowledge
Hopping the spotlight / being too passive
Being jealous of other characters

And DMs have problems with:

Playing favorites among PCs.
Giving special privileges to NPCs.
Being overwhelmed by having to focus on too many things at once.

All of these problems, and others, are ten times worse when the DM and PC are the same person.

And Serpentine is not the only one with a successful DMPC. I've played in multiple campaigns with DMPCs. They worked perfectly fine. Sure, when it comes time to solve the puzzle, they don't contribute. But can you honestly say that every player in every game contributes equally to the puzzles? Their non-solving of the puzzles is not a real problem.
Yes, it does make all of the problems with being a PC and a DM more pronounced. That is why you need to be an experienced player and DM to pull it off.
If you are adept as a player at seperaing IC and OOC knowledge, have learned how to not hog the spotlight (being too passive isn't much of a problem in this case), and are not jealous of other characters, then being a DM will not suddenly cause a lapse in those traits.
Similarly, If you don't play favorites, give special privileges to NPCs, and can handle everything that goes on, its easy to not re-add those problems to the DMPC.
It can be done. It may be easy to mess up, and it may require an experienced and skilled person, as both a DM and player, to pull it off, but it can be done. It IS a potential pitfall, but it is one that can be avoided.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 04:36 PM

And Serpentine is not the only one with a successful DMPC. .

Depends on how you define "succsesful". If you mean doesn't destroy the game outright or doesn't make the game noticeably less fun, then I will agree with you. If you mean as fun as it would be without the pressence of / need for the DMPC I would be more skeptical.

Again, I really don't mean to belittle anyone or call them a liar, I just find it very hard to believe. It would be like if my employee told me that working a second full time job won't affect their performance. It is possible, but I would have a hard time believing someone could do it based on their testimony alone.

Mystify

2012-03-13, 04:59 PM

Depends on how you define "succsesful". If you mean doesn't destroy the game outright or doesn't make the game noticeably less fun, then I will agree with you. If you mean as fun as it would be without the pressence of / need for the DMPC I would be more skeptical.

Again, I really don't mean to belittle anyone or call them a liar, I just find it very hard to believe. It would be like if my employee told me that working a second full time job won't affect their performance. It is possible, but I would have a hard time believing someone could do it based on their testimony alone.

Is there anything, even in theory, that would convince you? I've played multiple games with that DM, with a variety of systems, with and without DMPCs, and the presence of the DMPC did not seem to hamper the game in the slightest. If actual cases of it happening well are not proof enough it can happen, I don't know what is.

Calzone

2012-03-13, 05:07 PM

Geez, if your argument boils down to "I'm sorry, but you must be lying or mistaken," then you must have a really weak argument. How many people must you accuse of lying before admitting you may be wrong in your declaration?

I DM for two friends, and have for some time. When we ran 4e, I occasionally ran a DMPC to flesh out the two-person group so they could take on stronger foes.

For instance, I once statted up a defender to give some depth to their striker/leader duo. I did not create the DMPC until we realized that the challenges I could throw at two low-level characters were not as interesting as we'd like, and the additional experience budget of a third character would make encounters a lot more fun. By group consent I came up with a character and we integrated her into the party, another henchman of the shadowy underworld boss they were working for.

She mostly took a back seat to the planning process, in character viewing them more as a babysitting gig to get back in the Boss's good graces than as comrades. She would offer insight into the seedy crime world if asked, but generally let the PCs do their own thing.

Did it work well? We had many fun sessions with that party, including a couple of times when the plans spawned ahead of time bombed rather horribly (never sneak a squishie into a heavily guarded location alone).

I never had an issue with OOC knowledge, as what the DMPC knew and didn't know was pretty well defined.
The DMPC's motivation was directly tied to the PC's success, but she didn't know their objectives, so there wasn't any reason for her to boss the party around.
The DMPC was built with the exact same restrictions as the PCs, so power creep wasn't an issue.
The DMPC was on the front lines of most of the battles, taking hits for the PCs. She was built very defensively, so most of her combat skills focused on allowing the other PCs to do stuff while she blocked the brunt of attacks.

We have since transitioned from D&D 4E to Strands of FATE, where it is much easier to run a two-person party at the power level we want. As a result, I haven't run any more DMPCs. Still, our group has both gamed with a DMPC, and had fun doing so. Blasphemy, I know.

TuggyNE

2012-03-13, 05:12 PM

Is there anything, even in theory, that would convince you? I've played multiple games with that DM, with a variety of systems, with and without DMPCs, and the presence of the DMPC did not seem to hamper the game in the slightest. If actual cases of it happening well are not proof enough it can happen, I don't know what is.

From what I've read, many people have been so badly burned by DMPCs that they find acceptance of them, even theoretical, to be almost impossible. This should serve as a good warning to inexperienced DMs of how badly they can turn out, but is not itself an adequate reason to claim that every DM-played PC everywhere under any circumstances whatsoever is guaranteed to ruin the entire game for all involved.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 06:02 PM

Is there anything, even in theory, that would convince you? I've played multiple games with that DM, with a variety of systems, with and without DMPCs, and the presence of the DMPC did not seem to hamper the game in the slightest. If actual cases of it happening well are not proof enough it can happen, I don't know what is.

If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it is, then I will say it looks like your group has found some way to pull it off. I don't understand how this is possible based on my understanding of human nature, but I will accept that it works for you, but it isn't my place to tell you that you are wrong, so you have my blessing to keep having fun.

Mystify

2012-03-13, 06:08 PM

If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it is, then I will say it looks like your group has found some way to pull it off. I don't understand how this is possible based on my understanding of human nature, but I will accept that it works for you, but it isn't my place to tell you that you are wrong, so you have my blessing to keep having fun.
You should give humans more credit. You take two different people, put them in the same situation, and you can get vastly different results. One person picks up the money on the ground and keeps it, another walks by without bothering with it, and another will actively seek out its rightful owner. Some people power game incessantly, others don't care at all about how effective their character is. Some people will use a DMPC to hog the spotlight and favor themselves in a shameless display of self pleasure, others can function as both PC and DM at the same time without problem. Doubly so if they are aware of the potential problems and specifically try to avoid them.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 06:19 PM

You should give humans more credit. You take two different people, put them in the same situation, and you can get vastly different results. One person picks up the money on the ground and keeps it, another walks by without bothering with it, and another will actively seek out its rightful owner. Some people power game incessantly, others don't care at all about how effective their character is. Some people will use a DMPC to hog the spotlight and favor themselves in a shameless display of self pleasure, others can function as both PC and DM at the same time without problem. Doubly so if they are aware of the potential problems and specifically try to avoid them.

When I say human nature I am not questioning anyone's ethics or motivation. I am speaking purely about logistics and the limits of the human mind. It is very hard for people to separate IC and OOC information, and to give their full attention to multiple things at once.
I don't think I could play to PCs at once and give it my all, and I don't think I could run to games at once and give them both my all.
I have a hard enough time just trying to remember all the details in one game and make sure to give plenty of attention to 4-6 players and make sure they are all getting equally fair attention and treatment, I can't imagine trying to PC at the same time.

Likewise, I have enough trouble trying to separate IC and OOC knowledge if I have read a module before or read the MM entry on the enemy we are fighting. I can't imagine how hard it would be to run both PCs and NPCs against one another and realistically decide their actions without using OOC knowledge.

If your DM can do all of these things, that is frankly amazing, as I have never met a single gamer, myself included, who could do even one of these things perfectly.

If you say it works for you, keep at it. I just have a really hard time understanding how you pull it off.

From what I've read, many people have been so badly burned by DMPCs that they find acceptance of them, even theoretical, to be almost impossible. This should serve as a good warning to inexperienced DMs of how badly they can turn out, but is not itself an adequate reason to claim that every DM-played PC everywhere under any circumstances whatsoever is guaranteed to ruin the entire game for all involved.

I have seen games break up over so simple a thing as dividing treasure when DMPCs are involved.
One game I saw the DM put a treasure in the adventure specifically for the DMPC. The rest of the party decided that someone else could use it better, and so the DM had his DMPC attack the party as a result. The PCs managed to win the encounter, and the DM quit the game in a rage.

I have also had a game where we did round robin DMing, and when it was my turn I gave every single party member an identical magic item, including my PC, who was at the time a DMPC. Six months later I had the rest of the group, who had since all gotten bored and switched characters, mad at me for "abusing my DM position to give my PC special loot", and the current DM told me I needed to either give up the magic item or retire the character.

Heatwizard

2012-03-13, 06:56 PM

Type A: ...

Type 2: ...

Hm.

I think DMPCs, regardless of how you want to play the semantics, are a bad idea, which is not to say that it can't be done competently. But what you need to make it work is a good DM; and when something would be bad news in the hands of everyone but a pro(I use the term loosely), I feel pretty comfortable just labelling it 'Bad Idea' and calling it a day.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 07:24 PM

I just thought of a good, non TOS violating analogy.

I have had players who spent the entire game texting or playing world of war craft at their laptop. They are very withdrawn from the game, slow to make decisions, and can be a distraction for everyone else at the table.

Would you want such a person at your table? Would you want such a person DMing the game while doing so?

If no, why not?

I find most of the same issues come up between this person and a well run DMPC, namely the person is too distracted to focus on their job. Throw in all the conflicts of interest and potential pitfalls of a poorly run DMPC, and you can see why I am skeptical about it.

Geez, if your argument boils down to "I'm sorry, but you must be lying or mistaken," then you must have a really weak argument. How many people must you accuse of lying before admitting you may be wrong in your declaration?

It is a very incredible claim that conflicts violently with most people's experiances. But people making incredible claims, and other people doubting them, are just part of the internet. Just look at how many people on this forum claim to be geniuses, or black belt martial artists, or sociopaths with no compassion for anyone but themselves. Sure, those people exist, but they exist in far greater numbers on internet forums than real life, and most people approach such claims with a pinch of salt.

The Glyphstone

2012-03-13, 07:31 PM

It is a very incredible claim that conflicts violently with most people's experiances. But people making incredible claims, and other people doubting them, are just part of the internet. Just look at how many people on this forum claim to be geniuses, or black belt martial artists, or sociopaths with no compassion for anyone but themselves. Sure, those people exist, but they exist in far greater numbers on internet forums than real life, and most people approach such claims with a pinch of salt.

Eh....none? I don't visit Friendly Banter, which is where that sort of thing would appear in all likelihood, but I've never seen a non-joking claim of any of those things as a basis for argument outside of FB.

Orsayan

2012-03-13, 07:32 PM

I will, as of the next weekend, run with two DMPCs. A rogue and a cleric. First time we try this in an official way, as I have used NPCs as partymembers before, but with loose restrictions.

Reason: We are only three players and a two-man campaign causes restrictions and lack of utility. A rogue and cleric was decided by my two players, they will make one of them each.

The rules:
* The players stat out the DMPCs as if they were their own.
* They will roll for the DMPC as if it were their own.
* We both will keep track of abilities and items (ect) and they might give hints to me: "Shoulndt the rogue do X now?" and I will decide if thats a logical course of action for the DMPC.
* I will carefully map out generic behaviour for the DMPCs so I have an easy fall-back if the DMPC ends up in a tricky situation.
* I will make it clear that the DMPCs might give good advice as well as bad advice. The adivce given will coorelate with the 'generic behaviour' point previous stated. The rogue might be very disintressted in politics and might give "bad" advice on how to treat a delicate political matter simply because he doesnt care. A chaotic cleric might reject authority and give "bad" advice as to follow an authority. The advices cannot be: "Oh the DM wants us to do this now.."
* The DMPCs will be as loyal to the party as they has to. Meaning, they're not automatic BFFs to the PCs and I will keep track of their feelings towards the PCs. Ignored or respected? This will obviously matter to the DMPCs loyalty.
* PC "bad interraction" will be penalized in loss of XP. An example of this is if a LG PC sacrifices a DMPC to be able to survive himself. Another is if the PC forgets them. The DMPCs will be treated as if the controller sat with them IRL in the room.

This isnt ideal. I would much rather have more actual players but what do you guys think of my rules? Anything I should tweak or add?

Serpentine

2012-03-13, 08:06 PM

To Serpentine:

I really like you, and you seem to be one of the nicest posters on this board. I don't think you are a liar or a bad person. If you say your players like your game, I believe you.Naaaaaaw :smallredface:

However,Always :smallsigh::smalltongue:

In my experience PCs have a hard time with:

Separating OOC and IC knowledge
Hogging the spotlight / being too passive
Being jealous of other characters

And DMs have problems with:

Playing favorites among PCs.
Giving special privileges to NPCs.
Being overwhelmed by having to focus on too many things at once.I can't help but think I must play with truly exceptional people, because (with the possible but managable issue of "focussing on too many things"), I have never had any problem with any of these - with myself as player and DM, with each of my friends as players and DMs.

Also, I have to ask; are you normally so passive as a PC?"Normally"? No, but nor do I "normally" play a 1/4 succubus with PTSD, or a stupid Rogue.
Conceivably? Yeah, sure, absolutely. I'd likely bump it up somewhat - there is the practical matter that when I'm DM, I can't spend as much time "acting her out" as when I'm player only - but the difference would be in degree, not in kind.

You claim that your character has absolutely no interest in making decisions, talking to NPCs, or solving puzzles and is content to sit back and let the other people do it. If I tried that as a PC I would be bored out of my mind, and I can't help but think that the reason your DMPC works so well for you is because you are only playing half of a full character.Not really. I did deliberately make my character more of a follower, simple in mechanics and in personality, not inclined to be chatty and not really the problem solving type. However, I would still play that very same character as a player, and I consider it no different to choosing to play a Cleric because the party needs a healer or arranging my character's backstory to entwine with another, less experienced players' to help guide them along.
I'm not very good at in-character conversation anyway (it's definitely one of my weak points as a DM, and I'm really quite terrible at Vampire), and when it comes to puzzle solving I might discuss it with my players out of character or simply "stumble" onto an answer.

Seconded. I hate it when posters on this and other forums pick apart posts or game rules because they didn't bother putting a codifier on something that is usually true. Like that one guy last year who said because the PHB states "elves live in the forest" that any elf PC who leaves the forest is violating RAW.Is it really so surprising that when someone says "DMPCs are always bad", someone who has had positive experiences with them will chime in with "this is clearly wrong, in my experience DMPCs are not always bad"? Speaking in absolutes is just begging to be proven wrong - and just one example is enough to do so.

Calzone

2012-03-13, 08:14 PM

I find most of the same issues come up between this person and a well run DMPC, namely the person is too distracted to focus on their job. Throw in all the conflicts of interest and potential pitfalls of a poorly run DMPC, and you can see why I am skeptical about it.

I don't see why you expect that a DMPC takes any more concentration to run than a well executed NPC. Personality and interactionwise, a DMPC isn't likely to have any more going on than a well-played NPC, say an important bad guy. Similarly, the DMPC is unlikely to have any more going on during combat than, say, an important bad guy. Heck, a guy running a single DMPC is likely to have less going on than one orchestrating an epic battle, conflict with multiple factions, convoluted political intrigues, or numerous other well-thought-of DM actions.

In fact, what is the difference between a big bad evil guy and a DMPC from the DM's perspective? Both have to deal with separation of OOC/IC knowledge (for instance, the BBEG isn't likely to know all of the PCs plotting). Both are often fully statted characters, often even built the same as a PC. Both participate in combat, and both have complex motivations and personalities. Really, the only difference is that the BBEG is opposing the party, while a DMPC is helping them.

It is a very incredible claim that conflicts violently with most people's experiances.

I am sorry that you have difficulty taking the experiences of many posters in this thread at face value. I will be the first to admit that DMPCs are not a panacea for tabletop games, and take a measure of care to be effective. However, I do not believe that this DM tool deserves the vehement hatred that has been shown in this discussion. If you've gotten burned by a DMPC, tell us your story, and what steps can be taken to avoid that particular problem. Telling posters who have successfully used DMPCs that they are wrong or don't know what they're talking about is rude and not productive to the topic proposed by the OP.

Coidzor

2012-03-13, 08:21 PM

I am sorry that you have difficulty taking the experiences of many posters in this thread at face value.

It's like someone coming on here and saying that they actually got to play a round with Vin Diesel. Sure, it could have happened, but it's far-fetched.

Except add in the usual definition problems, cultural barriers, bad experiences, and that it's considered to be outside the bounds of gaming best practices...

Gnaeus

2012-03-13, 08:33 PM

To all the "DMPCs are always bad" people: several people in this thread have already said that they've seen/were in groups where a DMPC worked well, nobody minded the fact that there is one, and everyone had fun. Are you saying that these groups were Doing It Wrong?

No. DMPCs aren't always bad. DMPCs are never worth the risk. Those two things are different.

There is never a circumstance where a DMPC helps which could not be better handled with other methods which are less problematic. I have watched DMPCs run by responsible DMs who were trying their best ruin games, and friendships.

In a party of mature players, with a good responsible DM, a DMPC may run for 100 games without causing a problem. But if I were in that group, I still would want it gone in game 101+.

The most important point for me is that it does not require a failure on the part of the DM to make an NPC problematic.

A DM may be perfect at separating IC and OOC Knowledge, but a perception of DM cheating is just as dangerous as DM cheating.

A DM may not use any of his OOC feelings to guide the NPC's actions, but a perception of bias is just as dangerous as bias.

A DM may be 100% fair with rules calls and rolls on the DMPC, but a perception of DM cheating is just as dangerous as DM cheating. If the players ever think "I really want to take x action, but I can't, because the DMPC will stop me and I don't think I can outthink/overcome the DMPC because it is a DMPC" it was already a massive failure with 0 error on part of the DM (other than including the DMPC in the first place).

A DM with the best intentions may still run near-tpks, which wind up with the DMPC duking it out with the bad guys. It is boring as heck to watch the DM sit at the table and roll dice AGAINST HIMSELF.

Yes, everyone knows that the powermad DM with his unkillable mary sue is a problem. A DMPC with a responsible, thoughtful DM is much, much, much less of a problem. But it will never not be a problem, and it is never necessary.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 08:58 PM

Eh....none? I don't visit Friendly Banter, which is where that sort of thing would appear in all likelihood, but I've never seen a non-joking claim of any of those things as a basis for argument outside of FB.

Really? None? I may have phrased it a little stronly, but virtually every time there is an alignment debate or a thread about realism in combat I notice at least something in the vein of the last two examples, and whenever there is a "stat yourself" thread the average Int score seems to be about 15.

Now, I am sure there are many people on the forums and in the wider world who meet these criteria, but they appear so common of the forums that I take most such claims with a grain of salt.

huttj509

2012-03-13, 09:03 PM

Eh....none? I don't visit Friendly Banter, which is where that sort of thing would appear in all likelihood, but I've never seen a non-joking claim of any of those things as a basis for argument outside of FB.

The real world weapons and armor thread might have a few exaggerated credentials. Haven't seen any that made me call shenanigans though.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 09:32 PM

Is it really so surprising that when someone says "DMPCs are always bad", someone who has had positive experiences with them will chime in with "this is clearly wrong, in my experience DMPCs are not always bad"? Speaking in absolutes is just begging to be proven wrong - and just one example is enough to do so.

The quote I was responding to was not "DMPCS are ALWAYS bad" just a more general "DMPCs are bad", and then people picking apart the statement by making a general into an absolute. It is the same problem I have with a lot of RAW vs. RAI arguments, words mean multiple things, people talk in generalizations, and people talk in metaphors. Applying a literal approach to anything written is a sure fire way to turn your opponent's arguments into strawmen.

stuff.

The difference between a fleshed out NPC and a PC is one of focus. When an NPC is present they are usually either inactive or the focus of the scene. If the players are talking to or fighting the NPC the DM (and the players) are focusing all their attention on the other side. In the case of a DMPC the DM is playing both sides, and dividing the scenes focus between a PC and an NPC. Obviously there are exceptions, but with a DMPC this is the norm.

I have actually never been burned by a DMPC, I don't think I have ever even played in a game with a DMPC. If someone I know wants to start a game with a DMPC I will typically volunteer to DM and let them just use the DMPC as a regular PC, but if I were to enter into a new group or an existing game with a DMPC I would approach it with an open mind.

What I have heard, however, are dozens of horror stories both in person and online about games that were destroyed by DMPCs. I have also run games with DMPCs or just NPCs whom the players were jealous of and have had player riots where everyone threatened to walk if I didn't kill the character of, or where everyone constantly made snide remarks and made my DMPC the butt of jokes behind my back.

On the other hand, I have never heard anyone in real life talk about a DMPC they liked, the closest I have heard is one they dislike but tolerated because the game was good for other reasons. Online I have heard people say they like DMPCs or don't mind them, but they are the minority.

Again, I am not saying DMPCs are always bad, or can't work, I am saying they are dangerous. What I am saying as an absolute is that it is a conflict of interests, and that metagaming and attention dividing issues exist within all human DM or PC's brains and keep the game from being all it can be, and I cannot see how doing both at the same time will not make them worse.

Honestly I would say the same thing about a player with two PCs, or a player who also wanted to control some of the monsters, or an NPC who was always around to solve whatever problems the players might ask him to or to railroad them when they were stuck.

JadedDM

2012-03-13, 10:47 PM

My observation is this:

As someone else said earlier, there are basically two camps here. Group A who says that all DMPCs are bad. And Group B, who insists that a good DMPC is possible, under the right circumstances.

I suspect that Group A is defining a DMPC as 'a character controlled by the DM that steals the spotlight, overshadows the PCs, and is generally bad for the game.'

And Group B is defining DMPC as 'an NPC that the DM controls who travels with the party.'

Hence...the debate. The two sides are arguing over completely different things. What Group B calls 'an example of a good DMPC' falls outside the criteria that Group A uses to define what a DMPC is. If a DMPC is not disruptive, is not stealing the spotlight, is not overshadowing the PCs, is not hijacking the game...then it is not, by definition, a DMPC.

Just like if I were to say I was a munchkin, but not all munchkins are bad if done right. I don't try and 'win' the game, I don't ruin everyone else's fun, I don't try and break the campaign with overpowered builds, etc. But if that's the case, I'm not a munchkin, am I?

Coidzor

2012-03-13, 11:09 PM

Just like if I were to say I was a munchkin, but not all munchkins are bad if done right. I don't try and 'win' the game, I don't ruin everyone else's fun, I don't try and break the campaign with overpowered builds, etc. But if that's the case, I'm not a munchkin, am I?

Certainly most of the replies to such a thread would be, and in my recollection of my experience have been, annoyed replies that one is using the word wrong or being deliberately offensive.

The Frank One

2012-03-13, 11:48 PM

Serp, I don't want to sound like a jerkass, but let's face it: If you're DMPC is in no way inhibiting/eclipsing the players and isn't being used to keep the players on the rails, it's the exception that proves the rule.

Please explain this, as far as I know exceptions do not prove rules, I have never understood this colloquialism and you seem to be saying "You're clearly providing me with an example to the contrary but it makes me right anyways"

eggs

2012-03-13, 11:53 PM

Second of all, well, as the discussions in DMPC threads often come down to 'they are always bad' vs 'they are not always bad', being an 'exception that proves the rule' (which rule, exactly?*) destroys the argument of one side.

The way I see it, you either accept that either all NPCs fall foul of every complaint and flaw of "the always bad for the game DMPC" or accept that if a GM can play NPCs in a non-disruptive way then they can equally play a DMPC in a non-disruptive way with that very same methods.

Still, our group has both gamed with a DMPC, and had fun doing so.
Is it really so surprising that when someone says "DMPCs are always bad", someone who has had positive experiences with them will chime in with "this is clearly wrong, in my experience DMPCs are not always bad"?
You know that argument that you're all contesting?
The one where somebody says "DMPCs are always bad, and they will destroy the game"?

That's not an argument anyone has actually made.

Talakeal

2012-03-13, 11:54 PM

Please explain this, as far as I know exceptions do not prove rules, I have never understood this colloquialism and you seem to be saying "You're clearly providing me with an example to the contrary but it makes me right anyways"

The original term is, iirc, a legal term which had nothing to do with the way it is commonly used.

In common parlance, it means that if there is a single exception which everyone can immediatly point to, it serves to reinforce how unusual a case it is, reinforcing the rule by contrast.

For example, when someone says "good drow" everyone thinks of Drizzt immediately because it is such a unique characteristic of the individual as opposed to every other drow. Drizzt is only remarkable in this regard because, as a rule, Drow are evil. If drow weren't usually evil, Drizzt wouldn't be known as the good drow, he would just be a drow.

Kallisti

2012-03-14, 02:16 AM

Basically, yeah. Every time this conversation is brought up, it goes the same way.

Imagine me starting a thread about how munchkins are actually good for games. I then proceed to define a munchkin as someone who optimizes their character.

Except that's not what a munchkin is. That's what an optimizer is. A munchkin is, by definition, bad. It is disruptive and ruins the game. It is a derogatory term. In this hypothetical thread, I am trying to defend the idea of optimizers, but I insist on calling them munchkins, which just confuses everybody.

So in other words, if people quit insisting on stretching the derogatory term of DMPC to include all NPCs, cohorts, henchmen, hirelings, companions, etc., we wouldn't have these endless discussions cropping up every couple of weeks or so.

(Emphasis mine)
Except that DMPC isn't a derogatory term as it's used by the people 'stretching' it--that's why this endless discussion can continue to crop up. You define it as a derogatory term, others don't, and since there are people who are very attached to their definitions on both sides--yet no substantive reason to prefer either, since there is no 'right' definition, and no real way to choose one that I can see--the debate goes on.

So to use your metaphor, it'd be like if you used the term 'powergamer', and then we had three potential definitions:
*A powergamer is anyone who optimizes their characters
*A powergamer is a munchkin
*A powergamer is either

Without the ability to disambiguate, we can't decide if 'powergamer' is always bad/potentially good.

We've got a similar thing going here:
*A DMPC is any non-PC who travels with the party, like an escorted character, a hireling, or a support character who has no spotlight time
*A DMPC is a PC-equivalent character with an agenda, a backstory, a share of loot and XP, and some spotlight time
* A DMPC is a "PC-equivalent" character who is actually a Mary Sue

The first sort of character is widely accepted; the second is generally accepted, but the argument has been made that even if there's no DM favoritism it still inherently detracts from the collaborative nature of the game, and the third is the reason a lot of experienced players immediately fireball any NPC who looks like he or she is about to become a DMPC.

Add in the fact that some people say if it's not a disaster, it's an NPC rather than a DMPC and the fact that some people say if it is a disaster it's a Mary Sue rather than a DMPC, and we can't achieve any sort of consensus.

I'd ask if we can all settle on the widest definition--including both disaster and non-disaster cases--and conclude 'Eh, sometimes it works, but be careful', but then we couldn't have these threads any more, and nobody wants that.

You know that argument that you're all contesting?
The one where somebody says "DMPCs are always bad, and they will destroy the game"?

That's not an argument anyone has actually made.

I beg to differ.

They aren't "doing it wrong", they simply aren't playing DMPCs. As DMPCs are abuses of GM power, characters that the GM doesn't self-identify with are simply NPCs, not DMPCs.

You aren't doing it wrong, just using the term wrong.

JadedDM

2012-03-14, 02:28 AM

We've got a similar thing going here:
*A DMPC is any non-PC who travels with the party, like an escorted character, a hireling, or a support character who has no spotlight time
*A DMPC is a PC-equivalent character with an agenda, a backstory, a share of loot and XP, and some spotlight time
* A DMPC is a "PC-equivalent" character who is actually a Mary Sue

The first sort of character is widely accepted; the second is generally accepted, but the argument has been made that even if there's no DM favoritism it still inherently detracts from the collaborative nature of the game, and the third is the reason a lot of experienced players immediately fireball any NPC who looks like he or she is about to become a DMPC.

(Emphasis added by me)

Widely/generally accepted where? Here? I've been DMing for over 15 years, and I never heard anyone describe a simple NPC as a DMPC until fairly recently, and only here at GitP. Everyone else I know, whether player or DM, do not refer to ordinary NPCs as DMPCs.

Mystify

2012-03-14, 02:44 AM

(Emphasis added by me)

Here's where I disagree. I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for over 15 years. I visit lots and lots of forums, blogs, etc., that are about D&D.

This is the only place where the first definition that I know of is ever used. Every place I've been to, everyone I've ever known in my history of gaming has always used the second and third definition for DMPC. (The first one on the list is called 'NPC'.) GitP is the only place I know of where people use 'DMPC' to describe one of those.
I agree, the first definition isn't a DMPC at all. And whether or not the player equivalent character is a mary sue is irrelevant to whether its a DMPC, but key to whether its a problem.

eggs

2012-03-14, 02:52 AM

I beg to differ.
There we are looking at the terminology argument, in which the contention is not a matter of content, but of terminology - a different argument than is being construed in the quoted posts.

Kallisti

2012-03-14, 04:01 AM

(Emphasis added by me)

Widely/generally accepted where? Here? I've been DMing for over 15 years, and I never heard anyone describe a simple NPC as a DMPC until fairly recently, and only here at GitP. Everyone else I know, whether player or DM, do not refer to ordinary NPCs as DMPCs.

I don't mean 'accepted as a definition'; I mean 'accepted as a type of character to use in a game.' I can't imagine a player who just won't accept a character who travels with the party, but I didn't want to claim those characters are universally accepted; I'm basing the claim that people will generally accept a PC-equivalent character on reactions to Serpentine's story.

My point is just that the distinction between 'a simple NPC' and 'a DMPC' is arbitrary; you draw it at Point X, which is fine, but other people draw it at point Y, which is equally valid, and then we all start arguing about cases where the two distinctions make a character's status ambiguous.

There we are looking at the terminology argument, in which the contention is not a matter of content, but of terminology - a different argument than is being construed in the quoted posts.

I'm not sure I agree--I think we're all agreed on the content: that some characters are fine, some are a matter of taste, and some definitely become full-on Mary Sues, which wrecks the game.

The problem comes from where we affix the label of 'DMPC': definitions such as Eric Tolle's in which a DMPC is by definition an abuse of DM power tell us that DMPCs are always bad, which people take issue with when their definition of DMPC includes characters that add to the game.

Mystify

2012-03-14, 05:02 AM

I think that if you are defining DMPCs as being bad all you are doing is creating circular reasoning without actually making any real statement about the issue at hand.

Killer Angel

2012-03-14, 05:10 AM

The original term is, iirc, a legal term which had nothing to do with the way it is commonly used.

In common parlance, it means that if there is a single exception which everyone can immediatly point to, it serves to reinforce how unusual a case it is, reinforcing the rule by contrast.

For example, when someone says "good drow" everyone thinks of Drizzt immediately because it is such a unique characteristic of the individual as opposed to every other drow. Drizzt is only remarkable in this regard because, as a rule, Drow are evil. If drow weren't usually evil, Drizzt wouldn't be known as the good drow, he would just be a drow.

Pretty much.
The original term derives from a concept firstly proposed by Cicero, and means that a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception.
for example: "Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m."; the exception proves the rule, means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men to be in earlier.

Serpentine

2012-03-14, 05:47 AM

The quote I was responding to was not "DMPCS are ALWAYS bad" just a more general "DMPCs are bad", and then people picking apart the statement by making a general into an absolute. It is the same problem I have with a lot of RAW vs. RAI arguments, words mean multiple things, people talk in generalizations, and people talk in metaphors. Applying a literal approach to anything written is a sure fire way to turn your opponent's arguments into strawmen.And when the main responses to my experience of having a beneficial DMPC are "you are wrong", "you are lying" or "well that just proves what I'm saying about them being bad"? Because going from "DMPCs are bad" to "your experience of having a non-bad DMPC is irrelevant and/or incorrect" seems pretty much equivalent to an absolutist statement that "DMPCs are always bad" to me.

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-14, 05:51 AM

{Snip}
but a perception of DM cheating is just as dangerous as DM cheating. {Snip}
but a perception of bias is just as dangerous as bias.{Snip}
but a perception of DM cheating is just as dangerous as DM cheating.{Snip}
I can't, because the DMPC will stop me and I don't think I can outthink/overcome the DMPC because it is a DMPC

Emphasis mine, and sorry I had to cut the rest down a little so my post didn't become monster length.
Right, so it seems that in your opinion its the risk and potential opportunity for GM abuse that causes the fear and perception that the GM might make this 'character' a platform to ruin the game. More so where I've bolded in the idea that this 'character' could be made so impassible on GM fiat alone that there is no way you could overcome it ingame should you want to.

Right, so here's my question. How does this 'character' differ from any other character under the GMs control? Which, may I point it out, is literally everyone else in the game world bar a very small handful.

I'm sorry, but to me this is basically you saying "I can't really trust my GM not to 'cheat'", which you've decided to place specific notation that anything that looks like cheating on the part of a 'chosen character' under the GMs part will spoil the game because it confirms this bias of thought. Except that the GM can cheat regardless of having their own 'pet character'! If they want to show off they just need a big villian show up, if they want to "stop" your characters from acting a certain way they can just have high level paladins come around and berate you... or even just make rocks fall that kill everyone.

If you cannot trust your GM to not cheat in every other part of the game then yes I can see them having an above average interest in a specific character they control as looking like a bad thing, but then, why are you playing with a GM you can't trust in the first place??

We've got a similar thing going here:
*A DMPC is any non-PC who travels with the party, like an escorted character, a hireling, or a support character who has no spotlight time
*A DMPC is a PC-equivalent character with an agenda, a backstory, a share of loot and XP, and some spotlight time
* A DMPC is a "PC-equivalent" character who is actually a Mary Sue

Well said, although it would've been a little clearer as "a DMPC can be taken as...". Either way I think if everyone took this and labelled their terms first this might go a long way to clear up confusion. I personally define as such:

A character with a visible character sheet, who is controlled by a player and spends almost all of their time travelling with the rest of the party, has a backstory, is central to the main plot of the game, and takes an even share of the limelight is a PC.
A character with a visible character sheet, who is controlled by a player and spends a lot of their time travelling with the rest of the party, has some level of backstory, and might be involved in some aspects of the plot is a secondary character PC (limelight time varies from even share to some).
A character without a visible character sheet, who is not controlled by a player who sometimes to occasionally travels with the party, (like an escorted character, a hireling, or a support character) who has little to no time in the limelight is an NPC.
A character with a visible character sheet, who is not controlled by a player, spends almost all of their time travelling with the rest of the party, has a backstory, is central to the main plot of the game, and takes an even share of the limelight is a GMPC
A character without a visible character sheet or with a visible character sheet but often performs tasks beyond its scope - who is not controlled by a player, spends any of their time travelling with the rest of the party, is central to the main plot of the game, and takes an above average share of the limelight is a bad 'DMPC'.

It seems to be that it is the subtle but distinct difference between the last two, with the occasional confusion of the third which is making this debate a stalemate of unresolvable viewpoints.

Either that or as I said in reply to Gnaeus that it generally seems that it isn't anything to do with how your particular GMPC acts but instead the fear that it might 'go bad' and spoil everything that is the main complaint.
This also explains the many arguments which are not "all DMPCs are bad, kill them with fire" but instead "just avoid DMPCs like the plague, they have been the doom of many", its not how well its done that the issue - infact it seems to be nothing to do with the GM at all! It's the players fear from either personal experience or retold horror stories of truly abysmal events with DMPCs that mean they'll never shake that doubt in the back of their mind that all DMPCs are ticking time bombs that will one day blow up and ruin the game.

The parallels between this evaluation that its the fear of what they might become rather than what they seem to be, and similar arguments I've heard from people who "would never play RPGs" in one medium or altogether due to the stories they've heard of 'Killer DMs' and games just boiling down to 'DM power fantasies' (sometimes full of Mary Sues/bad DMPCs) that is quite interesting.

Sadly the GM does have the ability to take complete control of the game and override player actions and railroad and otherwise make the players life a hell... so yes of cause there will be bad stories where this has happened. But when you have a good gaming group, and can trust your GM to not pull that kind of immature stunt, then these fears are often dispelled.
I hope that everyone who fears this legendary DMPC of doom will one day play with one and eventually get over their fears, or better yet, plays one themselves whilst GMing and learns how to dispel these fears from their players.

Saph

2012-03-14, 06:55 AM

Either that or as I said in reply to Gnaeus that it generally seems that it isn't anything to do with how your particular GMPC acts but instead the fear that it might 'go bad' and spoil everything that is the main complaint.

You're misinterpreting things a bit.

The issue isn't that a DMPC will inevitably ruin the game. The issue is that a DMPC will, on average, make a game less fun. And despite all my experience as a player and DM I have to agree that that statement is generally true. It's completely possible to have a good game with a DMPC, but in most of the parties I've seen, the game would be better without it.

Lots of good reasons have already been given for why it's usually a bad idea to add a DMPC to the party (attention split, appearance of favouritism, etc) but I'll add one that hasn't been mentioned as often: it takes the focus of the game away from the players. Basically, if I'm playing in a game, I want to do stuff. I do not want to watch the DM's NPCs doing stuff. So if you're adding a DMPC I think the question you should be asking yourself is: "Is whatever this DMPC adds to the party more valuable than the time and attention it'll take away from the players?"

If the answer is yes, this leads to another question: "Is there another way of accomplishing this that doesn't require a DMPC?"

If the answer to the second question is also yes, then I'd recommend that you should strongly consider doing that instead. All other things being equal, it's better to put the focus on the PCs than on NPCs wherever possible.

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-14, 07:23 AM

So if you're adding a DMPC I think the question you should be asking yourself is: "Is whatever this DMPC adds to the party more valuable than the time and attention it'll take away from the players?"
{snip}
All other things being equal, it's better to put the focus on the PCs than on NPCs wherever possible.

The first question here sadly leads us down the debate of "does the GM have a right to have fun too?" and all that it entails (afterall, it is still a hobby, and the GM is still meant to be playing, if it become a chore or a job then it is likely your GM will burn out and become an ex-GM). As often what the DM/GMPC adds is another core member of the team that the GM can have fun playing as their own rather than just another NPC, that character has all the same immunities and rights as a normal players character because it is in essence still a players character.

I agree that you should put more focus and time on the PCs than NPCs as the story and game is about the PCs - however a GMPC is a PC still. NPCs can still be sidelined and have minimal attention paid to them, but the GMPC still is 'allowed', by virtue of their status as a PC, a fair share of some of the focus of the game.

This indeed might be what the issue is about, a GMPC will take some of the focus away from the other players characters, and perhaps that is something that on average will make a game less fun for the actual players.

The idea of player jealousy has been fielded a few times previously in this debate already (something I can't quite wrap my head around even after talking to one of my players last night about it as they too couldn't ever see a cause for player jealousy to occur) but maybe that is what it comes down to. "The DM gets to be the DM and play as if they were a player, whilst the players only get to play their characters." But as I say, this just leads us to question what a DM is entitled to... but that is a whole other debate.

Saph

2012-03-14, 08:09 AM

The first question here sadly leads us down the debate of "does the GM have a right to have fun too?" and all that it entails

The majority of DMs don't need a DMPC to have fun. If you do . . . I'd have to say that's a bit of a bad sign. One of the qualities of a good DM is that they should be impartial: you don't play favourites with the PCs and you don't play favourites with the NPCs. If you're identifying with one of the NPCs and treating them as your personal player character that is a major conflict of interest.

I think if you want to play a PC that much, it's probably a good sign that you need to take a break as DM. DMing is supposed to be fun for itself - you do it because you enjoy the work. If you're not enjoying the work something's wrong.

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-14, 08:57 AM

The majority of DMs don't need a DMPC to have fun. If you do . . . I'd have to say that's a bit of a bad sign. One of the qualities of a good DM is that they should be impartial: you don't play favourites with the PCs and you don't play favourites with the NPCs. If you're identifying with one of the NPCs and treating them as your personal player character that is a major conflict of interest.

I think if you want to play a PC that much, it's probably a good sign that you need to take a break as DM. DMing is supposed to be fun for itself - you do it because you enjoy the work. If you're not enjoying the work something's wrong.

I'm not saying the majority, or even a minority, or DM's need a DMPC to have fun. In addition I never said anything about playing favourites, nor are you identifying an NPC as a PC, you're treating a clearly identified PC as a PC - it just so happens to be one that the GM plays.

As for "DMing is supposed to be fun for itself" well yes, in general it should (although I've seen more than enough people forced into the role simply because they want to play and noone else is willing to shoulder that role) - but even if it is suppose to be fun that doesn't mean you cant also have fun doing other things too.

I will disagree with "you do it because you enjoy the work" though, you do it because you enjoy building worlds or telling stories or playing with friends. But unfortunately there is often a lot more to it than that, and it is rare that a DM will be good at everything required of them as so there are things they have to work at to keep the game going. That is not fun, glance over any RPG forum and you can see piles of requests for advice or complaints over difficulties that fall under the burden of DMing. Those people often want to DM, and mostly enjoy it, but that doesn't mean there are sides of the hobby that aint fun for them.

But hey, as I said, this is quickly becoming an altogether different debate, although I guess it all comes down to a simple fact: RPGs are a hobby, one that has evolved over time, and one that plays very differently from one group to the next both in preferred system, genre, and subtleties of style and focus.
Every group is different because every group relies on the mutual agreement to all play the same game, a game derived from each group members personal preferences. As such, no two games will be the same and no immutable rules can be made to say what a GM or Player can or can't do, or is or isn't meant to do or where the 'fun' should and shouldn't happen when playing. Some groups clearly like DMPCs, some tolerate them, some loath them with a passion - each to their own really.

huttj509

2012-03-14, 02:38 PM

Pretty much.
The original term derives from a concept firstly proposed by Cicero, and means that a stated exception implies the existence of a rule to which it is the exception.
for example: "Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m."; the exception proves the rule, means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men to be in earlier.

Which also means Serpentine's comment was NOT an example of an exception that proves the rule.

If someone came on here unsolicited stating "holy cow, I was just in a group with a DMPC and it was AWESOME and unexpected," maybe. Bringing up a counterexample to a stated claim is not the same thing.

Serpentine's situation is closer to:

"Man, everyone here needs to be in barracks by 10:00, it sucks."
"Huh? We've been out until 12:00 plenty of times and nobody said a thing."
"Exception that proves the rule."
"What?"

Even using a more colloquial form, it doesn't fit, because the only reason the counterexample comes as a surprise is because of the initial commenter's assumptions. It might 'prove the rule' about the original commenter, but not in a broader sense (if I'm surprised thet your DMPC worked well, it implies that MY dmpcs do not, but it does not imply the general statement).

As another example, if I exclaimed with surprise that I enjoyed a particular horror movie, that would imply that in general I dislike horror movies. That the particular movie was a specific exception would 'prove' the general rule of my dislike for the genre.

If someone else said I dislike horror movies, and I reply that I liked ____, which is a horror movie, the situation would be different. I'd be providing a counterexample, and not stating it was the ONLY horror movie I liked.

Gnaeus

2012-03-14, 05:46 PM

Emphasis mine, and sorry I had to cut the rest down a little so my post didn't become monster length.

Right, so here's my question. How does this 'character' differ from any other character under the GMs control? Which, may I point it out, is literally everyone else in the game world bar a very small handful.

Because they aren't his character. No DM is going to be upset because you killed a shopkeeper, or kobold 72. Your argument is like saying, If you trust the referee in a sports match to be fair, why can't he be playing for one side or the other? Because an impartial referee has no reason to be biased towards one side. And therefore, not only is he less likely to be biased towards one side, he is also less likely to be perceived as biased towards one side.

I'm sorry, but to me this is basically you saying "I can't really trust my GM not to 'cheat'", which you've decided to place specific notation that anything that looks like cheating on the part of a 'chosen character' under the GMs part will spoil the game because it confirms this bias of thought. Except that the GM can cheat regardless of having their own 'pet character'! If they want to show off they just need a big villian show up, if they want to "stop" your characters from acting a certain way they can just have high level paladins come around and berate you... or even just make rocks fall that kill everyone.

If you cannot trust your GM to not cheat in every other part of the game then yes I can see them having an above average interest in a specific character they control as looking like a bad thing, but then, why are you playing with a GM you can't trust in the first place??

There are lots of reasons people play in games. Maybe I play because my friends do, even if I have my doubts about the DM. Maybe I am not worried about him cheating because I know that he has no reason to, but with his own PC suddenly he has a vested interest in the story going a certain way for his guy. Maybe I am playing with a group of people I barely know. Maybe I agree with the DMPC, and then, after playing, suddenly a conflict arises between my PC and others, or the DMPC. Maybe he makes a rules call (intentionally biased or not) that I find suspect, and then I am suspicious.

Most of the time, in most groups, it is really hard to approach the DM about these concerns, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS A WHOLE LOT LIKE YOU ARE ACCUSING HIM OF CHEATING. There is a TON of grey area between being a wholly unbiased referee, and cheating. If I am a DM, and I am split on how to make a rules call, and I decide in favor of my DMPC, did I cheat? Certainly not intentionally. Maybe I would have ruled the same way if I wasn't biased, but no one can say for sure, not even me. If my character is in conflict with a DMPC, and the DM knows it, it is an entirely different scenario than if my character is hostile to some random guy in the campaign. If I succeed, will he be angry? If I am plotting against him, will he be tempted to use ooc knowledge to stop me? Will other npcs intervene? If I think my DMPC would figure it out, am I really using only IC knowledge, or am I just using IC knowledge to justify the decision that I want to reach?

Talking to DMs about it is problematic. Being afraid to talk about it is more problematic. Unless the DM is psychic, he cannot know at any given point to what degree the players are supporting his actions, and to what degree they are avoiding conflict. Even an agreement with the players beforehand does not stop the problem, because when played responsibly, a DMPC is ok....until suddenly it isn't. Groups change, players change, and a DMPC that might be acceptable to a player on one night might not be OK if the same player is really really tired that day, or really stressed out from outside factors, or having a mental health or chemical abuse problem, or just in a bad mood.

I compare it with excessive speeding. You can drive really fast and not be a bad person. You can drive really fast and have good driving skills. You can drive really fast for a long time and not have a problem. But when a problem does arise, completely outside the control of the driver/DM, it is a lot more dangerous, and you can never remove the risks altogether. Best practice is to drive a safe speed. Best practice is to not use DMPCs.

Coidzor

2012-03-14, 06:01 PM

Except that DMPC isn't a derogatory term as it's used by the people 'stretching' it--that's why this endless discussion can continue to crop up.

Munchkin is sometimes like that, but we've managed to reach a fairly broad consensus about that term.

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 06:18 PM

Here is a simple litmus test:

When describing the potential DMPC's actions, does the DM use the term he/she or I?

Mystify

2012-03-14, 06:28 PM

Because they aren't his character. No DM is going to be upset because you killed a shopkeeper, or kobold 72. Your argument is like saying, If you trust the referee in a sports match to be fair, why can't he be playing for one side or the other? Because an impartial referee has no reason to be biased towards one side. And therefore, not only is he less likely to be biased towards one side, he is also less likely to be perceived as biased towards one side.

But the referee is already the other team. Not just on it, he is the team. So if he is also on the other team, then he should be even more impartial, as he has a stake in both sides.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 06:32 PM

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 06:54 PM

A litmus test that fails instantly with players/DMs like me who use the term he/she exclusively. If I, as a player, use the term he/she to describe my own character, using the same term to describe my DMPC as a DM would not be indicative of absolutely anything.

That's really wierd. Although I have heard about players who do such things, but I have never seen one in person.
I have heard of DMs who won't allow such players at their table outright because it is a sign they are either incapable of getting into character or simply don't take the game seriously.

Gnaeus

2012-03-14, 06:57 PM

But the referee is already the other team. Not just on it, he is the team. So if he is also on the other team, then he should be even more impartial, as he has a stake in both sides.

False. A PC is your character in the story. He is your guy, through which you experience the world. It is a fundamentally different thing than roleplaying the shopkeeper. A player really wants his PC to do well. He is invested in their success or failure. Most NPCs are either obstacles designed with the intention of having them be defeated, or scenery. I am excited when my PC does well. It gives my brain little rewards when he triumphs in a combat, succeeds in a goal or learns a new spell. As a DM, obviously, I have NPCs who are exactly as cool as I want them to be. It is no challenge for an NPC to do well. When the DM begins to look on an NPC as his PC, or when a player perceives that as happening, the DM acquires or perceptually acquires a vested interest in that character that he does not have with other NPCs.

And as with all balance discussions, there are two parts. Is it balanced vs. the world, and is it balanced vs the other PCs. Even if you were correct and the DM was equally biased towards the other npcs and the DMPC, it does not follow that he is equally biased towards the DMPC and the other PCs.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 07:00 PM

That's really wierd. Although I have heard about players who do such things, but I have never seen one in person.
I have heard of DMs who won't allow such players at their table outright because it is a sign they are either incapable of getting into character or simply don't take the game seriously.

I am "incapable" of getting into character (if you wish to put it like that) and I have no desire to do so. That does not stop me in the slightest from playing RPGs and I have never received any sort of complaints for that behaviour. That means I am just as valid a player/DM as anyone else in this thread.

EDIT:

A player really wants his PC to do well. He is invested in their success or failure.

This is patently not true for all players, so let's not take it as an axiom, but merely as (perhaps) something a lot of players do.

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 07:06 PM

[QUOTE=Shadowknight12;12897620]I am "incapable" of getting into character (if you wish to put it like that) and I have no desire to do so. That does not stop me in the slightest from playing RPGs and I have never received any sort of complaints for that behaviour. That means I am just as valid a player/DM as anyone else in this thread.

Of course you are welcome to do whatever you want, but the assumption in a "role playing" game is that you role play a character, and that is a major component of the game.

If you can't or won't do that it is fine, but you shouldn't use that as a basis for general arguments, it would be like coming into a discussion on soccer and assuming that players are going to be using only their head to hit the ball because they don't like kicking.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 07:10 PM

Of course you are welcome to do whatever you want, but the assumption in a "role playing" game is that you role play a character, and that is a major component of the game.

If you can't or won't do that it is fine, but you shouldn't use that as a basis for general arguments, it would be like coming into a discussion on soccer and assuming that players are going to be using only their head to hit the ball because they don't like kicking.

Why do you assume that not getting into character precludes the act of roleplaying? I do exactly what everyone else does, the only difference lies within my psyche (since we've already established that my particular choice of pronouns is also shared by other roleplayers). After all, if it quacks like a duck, moves like a duck and looks like a duck, why do you call it a swan?

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 07:13 PM

Why do you assume that not getting into character precludes the act of roleplaying? I do exactly what everyone else does, the only difference lies within my psyche (since we've already established that my particular choice of pronouns is also shared by other roleplayers). After all, if it quacks like a duck, moves like a duck and looks like a duck, why do you call it a swan?

That is just a very unusual level of dissasociation, one which I have never seen in person in 20 years of gaming with various groups, even amongst new players, and have only even heard of online a few times.

Even in a non roleplaying game that is a pretty unusual level of detachement. Normally people say something like "I landed on boardwalk" rather than "My little metal shoe landed on boardwalk" or "I jumped over the pit and smashed the goomba," rather than "I made Mario jump the pit and smash the goomba."

Also, I am pretty sure the definition of roleplaying is trying to get into someone else's head and think of things from their point of view:

The dictionary states:
Role-play: 1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction.

To me that implies getting into character.

Siosilvar

2012-03-14, 07:15 PM

Of course you are welcome to do whatever you want, but the assumption in a "role playing" game is that you role play a character, and that is a major component of the game.

If you can't or won't do that it is fine, but you shouldn't use that as a basis for general arguments, it would be like coming into a discussion on soccer and assuming that players are going to be using only their head to hit the ball because they don't like kicking.

No, it's like writing a novel in third person instead of first person. Either way, you've got characters, and you're controlling what they do.

One way takes the separation between character and player/writer at face value, trying to be believable regardless, and the other attempts to get "in the shoes" of the character more directly.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 07:16 PM

That is just a very unusual level of dissasociation, one which I have never seen in person in 20 years of gaming with various groups, even amongst new players, and have only even heard of online a few times.

Even in a non roleplaying game that is a pretty unusual level of detachement. Normally people say something like "I landed on boardwalk" rather than "My little metal shoe landed on boardwalk" or "I jumped over the pit and smashed the goomba," rather than "I made Mario jump the pit and smash the goomba."

I am a very detached person (a consequence of my field of work, perhaps). I also do all of my roleplaying via PbP, so it's not even noticeable. Where's the issue?

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 07:26 PM

I am a very detached person (a consequence of my field of work, perhaps). I also do all of my roleplaying via PbP, so it's not even noticeable. Where's the issue?

Its not an issue, its just a very unusual situation in my experiance. As I said you are free to do whatever you want.

The original point I was responding to was that you said my test was invalid because there were exceptions, and while I agree that a single question general test isn't an accurate scientific tool, it does work as a guideline, and shouldn't need endless annotations for unusual situations.

A simple test is never perfect. For example, when I was in Zoology I was keying out several animal species and found that Pangolins key as reptiles rather than mammals, even though this is cleary not true. That doesn't mean you throw out the entire key because one wierd ass mammal decided to grow scales, you just recognize it as an exception and move on.

Still, if you would prefer I can ammend the test to say " If you refer to the NPC in first person it is likely a DMPC"

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 07:42 PM

Its not an issue, its just a very unusual situation in my experiance. As I said you are free to do whatever you want.

The original point I was responding to was that you said my test was invalid because there were exceptions, and while I agree that a single question general test isn't an accurate scientific tool, it does work as a guideline, and shouldn't need endless annotations for unusual situations.

A simple test is never perfect. For example, when I was in Zoology I was keying out several animal species and found that Pangolins key as reptiles rather than mammals, even though this is cleary not true. That doesn't mean you throw out the entire key because one wierd ass mammal decided to grow scales, you just recognize it as an exception and move on.

Still, if you would prefer I can ammend the test to say " If you refer to the NPC in first person it is likely a DMPC"

The problem is that the test relies on outward symptoms, not underlying causes. There is no proven correlation between pronoun use and DMPCness. A DM that refers to ALL their NPCs with the "I" pronoun is just as much of an exception to your test as me. A table with players who use he/she and DMs who use I is an even more egregious exception. Pile up sufficient exceptions and the entire point of the litmus test (rule of thumb to spot a general trend) becomes self-defeating.

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 08:19 PM

The problem is that the test relies on outward symptoms, not underlying causes. There is no proven correlation between pronoun use and DMPCness. A DM that refers to ALL their NPCs with the "I" pronoun is just as much of an exception to your test as me. A table with players who use he/she and DMs who use I is an even more egregious exception. Pile up sufficient exceptions and the entire point of the litmus test (rule of thumb to spot a general trend) becomes self-defeating.

Every rule has exceptions. Even the basic laws of physics break down in some weird situations like black holes or distances on the quantum scale.

Just because a small percentage of situations don't fall into the norm, does not mean that the norm isn't correct in almost every circumstance.

There is an old saying: "When you hear hoof beats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra".

In 20 years of gaming and 10 years of lurking on gaming forums I can't recall ever having met, nor even heard of, a DM who refers to their NPCs as I.

I am sure they exist somewhere out there, but I am not going to tailor my statements for such an extreme minority, that is just ridiculous. That said, it is just a simple test and you are just picking at the wording to pull it apart.

I could rephrase it again to say "Assuming that you normally refer to your NPCs as He/She, and your PCs as I, but refer to one or more specific NPCs as I then you can be almost certain that those NPCs are DMPCs."

If I tried making every statement apply to every situation every post would turn into a ten page essay, and I would still probably still leave a few holes that could be nitpicked by someone truly determined to make a straw man argument.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 08:35 PM

EVERY RULE HAS EXCEPTIONS! Even the basic laws of physics break down in some weird situations like black holes or distances on the quantum scale.

Just because a small percentage of situations don't fall into the norm, does not mean that the norm isn't correct in almost every circumstance.

There is an old saying: "When you hear hoof beats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra".

In 20 years of gaming and 10 years of lurking on gaming forums I can't recall ever having met, nor even heard of, a DM who refers to their NPCs as I.

I am sure they exist somewhere out there, but I am not going to tailor my statements for such an extreme minority, that is just ridiculous. That said, it is just a simple test and you are just picking at the wording to pull it apart.

I could rephrase it again to say "Assuming that you normally refer to your NPCs as He/She, and your PCs as I, but refer to one or more specific NPCs as I then you can be almost certain that those NPCs are DMPCs."

If I tried making every statement apply to every situation every post would turn into a ten page essay, and I would still probably still leave a few holes that could be nitpicked by someone truly determined to make a straw man argument.

*shrug* I can't really find fault with your reasoning, so I suppose there's really nothing left to say. Some people are just determined to see demonise other people's playstyles, no matter how valid they are, so I can't really be surprised or moved to get in an argument about it.

Talakeal

2012-03-14, 08:48 PM

*shrug* I can't really find fault with your reasoning, so I suppose there's really nothing left to say. Some people are just determined to see demonise other people's playstyles, no matter how valid they are, so I can't really be surprised or moved to get in an argument about it.

Before I bow out of this thread I would like to make a quick follow up, and give a slightly longer apology to anyone I might have offended.

I didn't mean to "demonize" anyone's play style. If that is what you thought I was doing I am sorry. I was just giving anecdotal evidence that in my opinion it doesn't work out, and saying that running a DMPC has both a risk and a cost associated with it that in my experience outweigh the benefit.

If it works for your group, great. Hell, if you have one really great player who comes up with great PCs and great campaigns, maybe having DMPCs really is the best course of action, I can easily see this happening. Hell, if you have a good enough DM/PC I can even imagine joining a game just to play Watson / Robin to the DM's Homes / Batman.

I just get really frustrated when I try and explain myself and people get so busy nitpicking my wording that they lose sight of the forest for the trees. Especially in a gaming situation where the local munchkin rakes the RAW over the coals to come up with a clearly irrational meaning so they can ignore the RAI.

Again, I did not mean to demonize anyone's play style. I am sure there are a lot of people who use DMPCs who are great people and run great games. I was just sharing my experiences and opinions, and explaining that there is a cost and a risk associated with DMPCs. At no point did I want to shame people into changing their play style or ruin their games, I just wanted people to be aware of the risk and cost of the DMPC and think for a second about whether or not the enjoyment the DMPC provided was worth it.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-14, 08:55 PM

Here is a simple litmus test:

When describing the potential DMPC's actions, does the DM use the term he/she or I?

A litmus test that fails instantly with players/DMs like me who use the term he/she exclusively. If I, as a player, use the term he/she to describe my own character, using the same term to describe my DMPC as a DM would not be indicative of absolutely anything.

Two fascinating sidenotes:

Awhile back, my brother noticed something on the BioWare forums. Posters who self-identified as male tended to refer to their characters as "he/she" while posters who self-identified as female tended to refer to their characters as "I."

Disclaimers & Fine Print:
1) Yes, tabletop roleplayers who roleplay with other people and console roleplayers who roleplay with a computer are two very different kinds of roleplaying.
2) Yes, this is very much a broad, non-scientific, informal "trend" with no conclusive or even very reliable data, being limited as it was to a brief window of time on a single forum for a single company with posters who first chose to post and then chose to list a gender, presuming they weren't just lying in the first place.
3) No, this is not meant as a definitive statement of gender-preferences in roleplaying.

With those out of the way, second fascinating sidenote time!

Extra Credits (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits) just did a three-week special on Western & Japanese roleplaying games, and one of the points they made was that in JRPG's, you (the player) tend not to have a direct character-avatar, acting more as a puppet-master or guide to a cast of characters. WRPGs, on the other hand, tend to cast the player as a singular character, who may in turn have allies or cohorts.

Now, in general, I think Talakeal's basic litmus test is a good starting point for whether the DM is likely to overshadow the players with his DMPC. It's not going to be 100% accurate, but I don't think he intended it to be. In my personal experience, though, players tend to use "I" the more invested in the character they are, unless they're describing some ultra-cinematic scene, whereupon the "he" or "[character name]" start to come out. But that's just my experience.

Anyhow, thought you two might appreciate some examples of different styles of roleplaying and how they might impact your pronoun usage.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-14, 09:23 PM

I know I said I was done, but you were nice so I will make a quick follow up, and give a slightly longer apology to anyone I might have offended.

I didn't mean to "demonize" anyone's play style. If that is what you thought I was doing I am sorry. I was just giving anecdotal evidence that in my opinion it doesn't work out, and saying that running a DMPC has both a risk and a cost associated with it that in my experience outweigh the benefit.

I apologise. When a lot of people dogpile on you to tell you how wrong you are for not being like them, you tend to generalise like that.

If it works for your group, great. Hell, if you have one really great player who comes up with great PCs and great campaigns, maybe having DMPCs really is the best course of action, I can easily see this happening. Hell, if you have a good enough DM/PC I can even imagine joining a game just to play Watson / Robin to the DM's Homes / Batman.

I just get really frustrated when I try and explain myself and people get so busy nitpicking my wording that they lose sight of the forest for the trees. Especially in a gaming situation where the local munchkin rakes the RAW over the coals to come up with a clearly irrational meaning so they can ignore the RAI.

Ah, I completely understand.

Again, I did not mean to demonize anyone's play style. I am sure there are a lot of people who use DMPCs who are great people and run great games. I was just sharing my experiences and opinions, and explaining that there is a cost and a risk associated with DMPCs. At no point did I want to shame people into changing their play style or ruin their games, I just wanted people to be aware of the risk and cost of the DMPC and think for a second about whether or not the enjoyment the DMPC provided was worth it.

Saying that DMPCs are risky is fine. Saying that they require skill or a special mindset on behalf of the DM or the players is fine. Speaking at length about the potential pitfalls of DMPCs is fine. I don't mind any of that. What I mind is when people say that I am to be ignored because I am not like the majority and therefore my opinions are invalid (which makes no logical sense, since if one ignores diverging opinions, one gets only a bunch of people agreeing on the same thing repeatedly, and no new knowledge is gained). I know that's not what you meant, but like I said before, these types of debates tend to put one in an "Us vs. Them" mentality. Speaking of which, I regret being impolite, nasty or unmindful of you in the past (I sincerely do not recall having ever talked to you before, so rest assured it wasn't anything personal), so I apologise.

Killer Angel

2012-03-15, 04:21 AM

Which also means Serpentine's comment was NOT an example of an exception that proves the rule.

I was merely stating the original meaning of the expression.
Saying that Serp's DMPC is "the exception that proves the rule" is literally incorrect, but it is used to draw attention to the rarity of the exception (a DMPC that works), and to establish the status of the standard DMPC (which is detrimental to the game).

Mystify

2012-03-15, 05:10 AM

I was merely stating the original meaning of the expression.
Saying that Serp's DMPC is "the exception that proves the rule" is literally incorrect, but it is used to draw attention to the rarity of the exception (a DMPC that works), and to establish the status of the standard DMPC (which is detrimental to the game).
You also have to account for selection bias. If there is a DMPC that works fine, you won't have someone running to the internet crying "The DM used a DMPC and it was perfectly OK!", whereas a bad DMPC is likely to get complaints made.

Poll:
How many people in this thread have actually been in a game with a DMPC?
How many of those have encountered a DMPC that wasn't a problem?

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-15, 05:48 AM

A player really wants his PC to do well. He is invested in their success or failure.

Okay, agreeing that pretty much anyone who plays a PC will want them to grow and succeed in their goals etc, but that doesn't always mean succeed. For instance one of my players plays a gobby lass who is incredibly hard to get along with most of the time and frequently peevs off people she shouldn't - the player knows full well that this isn't good for her, and would generally prefer it if she didn't mouth off at random powerful entities as it'll one day get her killed.
However she's still played like that, because that's the character, it doesn't matter that it will one day make her fail badly (and already has made her fail not quite so badly a few times) the player is just role playing true to the character regardless of the outcome.

Now obviously this is only one piece of anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure there are many players capable and willing to ignore meta-cognition and make bad decisions because that is what their character would do. They are no less invested, but they accept they are playing a character and the fun they get from that is more than the fun they get from "winning". Several heroic (and not-so-heroic) characters have died in memorable ways due to this simple decision to roleplay a character true even if it is detrimental.

Most NPCs are either obstacles designed with the intention of having them be defeated, or scenery.

I disagree, my NPCs are not obstacles or scenery, they are characters in a world with multiple moving parts. One day they might be in the background doing nothing so look like scenery, other days they might take a disliking to the players actions so act like obstacles, but equally they might agree with the players actions and aid them in their goals.

It might just be how I play, but NPCs are still characters, its in the title even! Most may be very roughly sketched out when first met, a few basic facts and a crude outlining of their personality, but they very quickly get fleshed out into real people with real goals and will act according to those parameters.
It's why I do know the name, personalties and a brief history of the two girls who run the dress shop that one of the character frequents on occasion. And why a "random NPC" dwarf who has been met once during a cage fight had enough of a personality they agreed to have a drink with their defeater after the match and was able to tell tales of their journeys which bought them to there. Now I agree that not everyone cares to have this level of detail or needs there to be this level of detail - but it goes back to what I said in my last post that everyone plays differently.

As a DM, obviously, I have NPCs who are exactly as cool as I want them to be. It is no challenge for an NPC to do well. When the DM begins to look on an NPC as his PC, or when a player perceives that as happening, the DM acquires or perceptually acquires a vested interest in that character that he does not have with other NPCs.

My bolding, as this keeps being said - please note this is not the case, GMPCs are PCs from the start, they don't evolve out of NPCs and they're not just a state of mind for the GM. A GMPC also can't do as well as the GM would like them to, they are rolled for in the open and have a character sheet like everyone else, they are limited by the same mechanics as any other player.

Here is a simple litmus test:

Sorry to weigh in with more evidence for what they doesn't really work, one of my players plays two characters, and they very rarely ever use 'I' because of it.

Of course you are welcome to do whatever you want, but the assumption in a "role playing" game is that you role play a character, and that is a major component of the game.

As proven in my above post, what constitutes as "role playing" varies incredibly between groups however. In a hack-n-slash adventure with very little social elements the style of roleplaying will be very different than if you're playing a lords and ladies diplomacy game of intrigue with next to no combat. I'm still coming to the conclusion that ultimately if and how a GMPCs works in a group seems to be just down to how they group plays and thinks (which is sorta a duh moment, but shh).

Mystify

2012-03-15, 06:17 AM

For instance one of my players plays a gobby lass who is incredibly hard to get along with most of the time and frequently peevs off people she shouldn't - the player knows full well that this isn't good for her, and would generally prefer it if she didn't mouth off at random powerful entities as it'll one day get her killed.
One person in my current campaign is just like that, only male. The party cleric managed to accidentally summun Orcus(which was also a case of a person playing in character despite knowing its a bad idea), he mouthed off to him, and got dragged away to Abyss.

Serpentine

2012-03-15, 08:10 AM

Pretty much everything Reaper_Monkey said (except that I can see a situation where a DMPC could evolve from an NPC, and that I tend to switch between "I" and "he/she" as both a player and as the owner of a DM's Personal Character).

Eric Tolle

2012-03-15, 09:13 AM

I can't wait for the follow up to this thread: "Special treatment for the DM's girlfriend - good for the game".

The Glyphstone

2012-03-15, 09:15 AM

I can't wait for the follow up to this thread: "Letting the DM's Girlfriend Play - good for the game".

Fixed that for you.

Killer Angel

2012-03-15, 09:40 AM

Okay, agreeing that pretty much anyone who plays a PC will want them to grow and succeed in their goals etc, but that doesn't always mean succeed. For instance one of my players plays a gobby lass who is incredibly hard to get along with most of the time and frequently peevs off people she shouldn't - the player knows full well that this isn't good for her, and would generally prefer it if she didn't mouth off at random powerful entities as it'll one day get her killed.

As you say, the norm is that a player wants to see its PC to grow and succeed in their goals.
The fact that exist some players that like to make moves that aren't good for their characters, doesn't mean that we cannot consider valid the norm.

I don't care if a 5% of DMPC are not detrimental to the game. It won't change the general trend, that DMPC are almost always bad.

Mystify

2012-03-15, 09:41 AM

As you say, the norm is that a player wants to see its PC to grow and succeed.
The fact that exist some players that like to make moves that aren't good for their characters, doesn't mean that we cannot consider valid the norm.

I don't care if a 5% of DMPC are not detrimental to the game. It won't change the general trend, that DMPC are almost always bad.
But what if you can choose to be in that 5%?

Killer Angel

2012-03-15, 09:47 AM

But what if you can choose to be in that 5%?

The goal is to have fun.
If a group is fine playing with a DMPC (as Serp's case) and have fun, I will never say they're doing it wrong. But I'll say they're lucky (and good for them), 'cause usually it's a different story.

pres_man

2012-03-15, 03:30 PM

If a DM thinks of a character as their character, then they will cheat/bend the rules to benefit this character.

The unstated assumption here is that all players will try to cheat for the benefit of their characters and it is only the clinched fist of the DM that stops them. Thus when a DM does it they will cheat, because there is no one to keep them in line.

JadedDM

2012-03-15, 03:47 PM

Poll:
How many people in this thread have actually been in a game with a DMPC?
How many of those have encountered a DMPC that wasn't a problem?

First question: Me. On both sides of the screen, in fact.
Second question: Not me.

I have had games completely fall apart or self-destruct simply because my players had the suspicion that I might have a DMPC (regardless of whether it was true or not). Same deal with the whole DM's girlfriend thing. I once brought my girlfriend (at the time) into my game. I never gave her any special treatment whatsoever, but the other players were worried that I might. So they became increasingly disruptive (constantly trying to kill her character to see if they could, come up with ways to cheat her out of her share of loot and XP in order to 'balance things out', etc.) until the game blew up into a big ball of drama.

As for DMPCs specifically, once...I ran a game where the party was a group of rebels fighting against an evil empire. The leader of their cell was an NPC, who also just happened to be one of my old PCs. (The players knew this. It was intentional; I thought it'd be a cute little cameo. Plus, I have a history of recycling characters, as it's faster and more efficient than making brand new ones all of the time--and I'm lazy. I had no idea it would prove to be the game's downfall.)

Anyway, the NPC in question was the leader of the cell, but he never went on missions. In fact, he never did anything but paperwork, really. He would send the party on their missions, and debrief then when they returned. But that was it. He never took credit for what they did, the party got to keep all of the treasure they found along the way, and in no way did this NPC overshadow them.

But! Because he used to be an old PC of mine and because he technically was in a position of authority, my players at the time felt he had the potential to become a DMPC and started acting out. One even attempted to assassinate him just to see whether I'd allow him to or if the NPC had DM-given immortality (nevermind that the PC had no motive to do this in-character and was supposed to be of good alignment). Eventually, the players outright confronted me in a huge dramatic fight that ended with the game falling apart as a result.

This is why, as a DM, I would never use a DMPC even if I wanted to.

More recently, I was a PC in a game that had a DMPC. The DM wanted her own character (using the same reasoning as Reaper Monkey, that she 'deserved to have fun, too') even though I advised her against it.

The character in question was a good-aligned half-drow cleric of Pelor who escaped the Underdark and her evil kin. My favorite part of her backstory was that she was raised to be a cleric of Lolth, realized it was wrong, and fled to the surface and converted to Pelor. Because, obviously, Drow have a history of elevating half-breeds into clerics, which is pretty much the equivalent of nobility in Drow society.

Anyway, the only combat encounters we ever seemed to have were minor undead (so she could easily turn them and 'save the day') and spiders (which she seemed to have the ability to instantly charm, no roll, despite the fact that spiders are the symbol of Lolth, and not Pelor).

Even worse, the module she was running was Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. She added a real ghost to it, so she could use her clerical powers to save us from it. (For those of you who are not familiar with the module, the whole thing is a big 'scooby-doo' adventure. Smugglers are pretending to be ghosts to scare people off from an old mansion, so they can operate without interruption. There are no real hauntings at all!)

Furthermore, the people of Saltmarsh (the town the game takes place in) were surprisingly cool with a half-drow walking around wearing sexy, revealing dresses that often incorporated spiders and webbing into their design (that's how clerics of Pelor dress, right? And it's perfectly normal to devote an entire post to go into elaborate detail on what the dress looks like and how well it accentuates her curves, right?). It wasn't until I made a small reference to it that any NPCs showed any prejudice against her, and even then it was just an innkeeper who acted more like a racist white man in a 1950's diner than anything else ("We don't serve your kind here!") and he immediately dropped it moments later.

Whew.

Long story short, the game wasn't fun, my character was superfluous and had nothing to do (as the DMPC took care of everything for us), and I lost all interest in the game and would have quit had another person not taken over as DM shortly after.

And all of this is just scraping the surface of my experience with DMPCs. I could go on and on, really (I probably have gone on too much as it is, now looking back at how long this post has become).

EDIT: It should also be noted that all three of the groups I speak of here were entirely different people, at different times, and different games.

Coidzor

2012-03-15, 03:54 PM

I can't wait for the follow up to this thread: "Special treatment for the DM's girlfriend - good for the game".

Fixed that for you.

The sad thing is that the one time anything remotely related to this has come up for me IRL, I got told that, yes, it was a good thing that the DM was changing the table rules and affording special treatment to a girl he invited to play with us because he was trying to get into her pants. :smallsigh:

Talakeal

2012-03-15, 03:58 PM

Sorry to weigh in with more evidence for what they doesn't really work, one of my players plays two characters, and they very rarely ever use 'I' because of it.

Yeah, I could see that. Again, that is an unusual situation, and my "test" was just a simple guideline, not meant to be an absolute for every situation.

On a related note, I have tried for years to run two PCs at once, I have never been able to pull it off, for many of the same reasons as I have never been in a game where a DMPC could work.

First question: Me. On both sides of the screen, in fact.
Second question: Not me.

I have had games completely fall apart or self-destruct simply because my players had the suspicion that I might have a DMPC (regardless of whether it was true or not).

Seconded. I have run games with DMPCs, and I have seen (although not actually played in) a lot of other DMs games with DMPCs, and they always got to the point where the DMPC went away or the game ended.

And like Jaded, if the PCs suspect something might be a DMPC, for example if I use a retired PC of mine or a PC I built but never used as a villain or quest giver, or if I have a stronger NPC work with the party, my PCs go on strike.

pres_man

2012-03-15, 04:08 PM

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-15, 04:32 PM

Yeah, I could see that. Again, that is an unusual situation, and my "test" was just a simple guideline, not meant to be an absolute for every situation.

On a related note, I have tried for years to run two PCs at once, I have never been able to pull it off, for many of the same reasons as I have never been in a game where a DMPC could work.

That's fair enough, as a general rule of thumb to identify DMPCs when the DM doesn't realise/hasn't claimed it to be one (more so when they use he/she/{name} for every other NPC) it probably works... but it's scope is somewhat limited otherwise.

As for the second part, its interesting that you say that, I wonder if its just because I play with unique people - we've all played multiple characters at one point or another, and it only showed signs of strain with one of the players - and only then because the second character was very similar to their first so they kept overshadowing themselves :smallbiggrin:.

So they became increasingly disruptive (constantly trying to kill her character to see if they could, come up with ways to cheat her out of her share of loot and XP in order to 'balance things out', etc.) until the game blew up into a big ball of drama.
{snip}
One even attempted to assassinate him just to see whether I'd allow him to or if the NPC had DM-given immortality (nevermind that the PC had no motive to do this in-character and was supposed to be of good alignment). Eventually, the players outright confronted me in a huge dramatic fight that ended with the game falling apart as a result.

:smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: ... :smallfrown: What?!

Like seriously, what the hell? People actually act that way? If someone tried to pull off even a quarter of that I'd chuck them so far out of my gaming circle they'd end up in orbit! Or if I wasn't the GM I'd walk for sure, that is despicable!
Luckily I've never had to deal with any kind of behaviour like that, but I'd personally say that has nothing to do with DMPCs or DMGFs but everything to do with the immaturity/spitefulness of the players. My sympathies. :smallfrown:

Serpentine

2012-03-15, 04:35 PM

JadedDM: See, the moral I get out of both of your stories is that it was the people involved, nothing to do with the DMPC/NPC itself.

You know what? I think I'm gonna start taking these threads as a huge compliment to myself and my players. Apparently we're AMAZING :smallconfused:
We trust one another to do our best to make the game fun for everyone, we're reasonably open and honest, we're not passive-aggressive, we're really good at keeping IC and OOC knowledge separate, we're neither jealous nor suspicious of one another's characters and will all try to come up with solutions if a character is falling behind or pulling too far ahead, we're more focused on making our characters interesting than making them powerful, we've never (as far as I'm aware) had any problems with favouritism, and we often take as much pleasure from our characters' failures and flaws as we do their successes and strengths (a lot of our best stories come from a failed check or a fumbled attack or simply a bit of bad luck).
I find it really hard to believe we're such a unique group of people, and a little sad if that's the case. But I guess it's pretty flattering, the way people keep insisting we cannot possibly exist or are at best freakish abnormalities.

kyoryu

2012-03-15, 04:38 PM

I find it really hard to believe we're such a unique group of people, and a little sad if that's the case. But I guess it's pretty flattering, the way people keep insisting we cannot possibly exist or are at best freakish abnormalities.

Actually, it does sound like you have a pretty good group. And I do believe that's part of why DMPCs work well in your game.

Serpentine

2012-03-15, 05:00 PM

Oh, I have no doubt it's the major reason why they work in my group. I just find it a little sad if we're such a tiny, minuscule minority that our experiences don't even count.

eggs

2012-03-15, 05:10 PM

Oh, I have no doubt it's the major reason why they work in my group. I just find it a little sad if we're such a tiny, minuscule minority that our experiences don't even count.That is exactly what every post that you disagree with has been saying.

JadedDM

2012-03-15, 06:23 PM

So I take from JadedDM's post that a DM shouldn't make any character that is anything more than "orc warrior #7". Because if a character has a name or some relevance, then the players may think it is the DM's pet character and so will ruin the game before the DM can ruin the game.

No, you took the wrong moral from that story then. My players, past or present, have never had any issue with a named NPC, or even a relevant one. The issue with the second group I presented was because the NPC, specifically, was one of my old PCs. I suspect had I not done that, they never would have taken issue with him.

Like seriously, what the hell? People actually act that way? If someone tried to pull off even a quarter of that I'd chuck them so far out of my gaming circle they'd end up in orbit! Or if I wasn't the GM I'd walk for sure, that is despicable!
Luckily I've never had to deal with any kind of behaviour like that, but I'd personally say that has nothing to do with DMPCs or DMGFs but everything to do with the immaturity/spitefulness of the players. My sympathies. :smallfrown:

Forgive my immense cynicism in saying so, but if you have truly never encountered players like this before, you have either been consistently gaming with the same (good) group for a long time or just haven't been gaming very long. It's been my experience that this sort of behavior is fairly typical among players. (Then again, perhaps its a generational gap thing? Who knows?)

In any case, admittedly, in the example I gave regarding the DMGF, the main two instigators (most of the rest of the party were just following their example) were a pair of misogynistic jerks. And I'd toss 'em out of my group now for that sort of behavior, too--but at the time, I was younger, less experienced, and had the typical rookie DM mindset of a bad group being better than no group at all.

JadedDM: See, the moral I get out of both of your stories is that it was the people involved, nothing to do with the DMPC/NPC itself.

Perhaps so. But keep in mind that the examples I gave were of different people, in different games. So either I have the worst luck in the world when it comes to attracting players, or this kind of attitude is fairly typical among many players.

pres_man

2012-03-15, 06:26 PM

Oh, I have no doubt it's the major reason why they work in my group. I just find it a little sad if we're such a tiny, minuscule minority that our experiences don't even count.

Don't worry, you are not that unique. There are lots of folks that are just the same as you.

But there is a reason why the stereotypical roleplayer is a loser that still lives in his mom's basement and can't seem to be socially appropriate (*hush voice* because there is a lot of people that fit that stereotype).

Mystify

2012-03-15, 07:02 PM

@JadedDM
That first story is more about the players paranoia and distrust than any actual problem a DMPC would or would not have caused. Thats not "I had a DMPC, and it caused problems." That situation would be like saying "I got a really dark tan one time, and the KKK burned a cross on my yard, so obviously it would be problematic to have an African American in the neighborhood".

But the player composition is a good point. I have played with a group where all the players were distrustful and dysfunctional, and I'm sure a DMPC would have caused serious issues. Those groups do exist. However, in my experience, that is atypical. I've played with over a half dozen groups from a wide variety of ages and backgrounds and proximities to my normal social circle, and most of them were perfectly reasonable people who could deal with it properly. The closest I've come to that problem group was my current one, and that is all in character strife because my character is a changeling vampire, so nobody trusts her. The group is great and that strife is purely in character.

The half-drow cleric is, in fact, an example of how not to run a DMPC. Aside from that incident, how skilled was she as a DM/how much experience did she have?

Serpentine

2012-03-15, 07:09 PM

That is exactly what every post that you disagree with has been saying.And I find that equal parts sad and flattering.

huttj509

2012-03-15, 07:11 PM

Don't worry, you are not that unique. There are lots of folks that are just the same as you.

But there is a reason why the stereotypical roleplayer is a loser that still lives in his mom's basement and can't seem to be socially appropriate (*hush voice* because there is a lot of people that fit that stereotype).

*cautiously raises hand*

I hereby apologise for not helping the stereotype.

Serpentine

2012-03-15, 07:54 PM

Eh. I'd be at risk of having to live in my mum's basement right now if she had a basement... More like her attic thing :smalltongue:

JadedDM

2012-03-15, 08:28 PM

Serpentine

2012-03-15, 09:14 PM

Or how about polyamorous relationships? I'm sure if you search hard, you can find successful cases. But the vast majority of humans are too jealous, petty, and possessive for that to work. We hate to admit it, we all like to think we're more enlightened than that, but that's just human nature. And just because there are rare cases where it can work, doesn't mean it should be suggested to everyone or even considered a good idea.If someone is polyamorous, I certainly wouldn't discourage them from having a polyamorous relationship with other polyamorous people. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't dismiss their positive experiences with polyamorous relationships just because they're in the minority.
Also, watch how you use analogies like that. There's a very active LGBT+ community in the forums, including a number of polyamorous folks.

And, again: just because there are suspicious, jealous players, that doesn't mean all players are, nor that their whims should take priority.

Mystify

2012-03-15, 09:29 PM

Re: Mystify

Maybe so, but I felt it goes to show that a DMPC can be disruptive to a game even when the DM has pure intentions. Just the perceived problem was enough to destroy the game.

And yes, you can argue it's more of a matter of human nature, but that doesn't negate the argument any. I think your KKK analogy is a little harsh. I think a more appropriate analogy would be a manager promoting his own son. Even if the son was the hardest worker in the company and he earned that promotion, it's still likely to cause problems and dissent.

Or how about polyamorous relationships? I'm sure if you search hard, you can find successful cases. But the vast majority of humans are too jealous, petty, and possessive for that to work. We hate to admit it, we all like to think we're more enlightened than that, but that's just human nature. And just because there are rare cases where it can work, doesn't mean it should be suggested to everyone or even considered a good idea.

As for the half-drow thing, the DM in question was 36. She admitted it had 'been a long time' since she last DM'd, but I have no idea how much time is a 'long time' or how much experience she had prior to that. She made lots of other rookie mistakes, though (removing all lethality from the game, placing all hidden treasure in plain sight and removing any danger that protected it, not giving very clear descriptions, lashing out in-game at anyone who upset her out-of-game, etc.,) which suggested to me she was never very good to begin with.
I used the KKK example because it was a case of there being a problem due to people's prejudices, not because there was actually a problem. Whether or not the prejudice against DMPCs is valid or not does not change the fact that a problem arising purely because of the prejudice is not an argument against DMPCs.

And sine the half-drow DM was notreally a great DM, all that shows is that a poor DM used a DMPC poorly. The DM I saw run one well was probably in his 40s, and had been gaming heavily since college, so he had a lot of experience and skill to pull it off. I've only been DMing for a few years, but my players seem to agree that I am a good DM, and I was able to pull it off without any real issues. File DMPC under "advanced DMing practices", and warn the inexperienced and poor DMs away from trying it.

Coidzor

2012-03-15, 10:56 PM

...I know this is heated and all, but bringing up the KKK and polyamory? :smallconfused:

wat

huttj509

2012-03-16, 12:36 AM

...I know this is heated and all, but bringing up the KKK and polyamory? :smallconfused:

wat

I think we've jumped the Godwin here.

And you thought Nazis were inevitable?

Talakeal

2012-03-16, 12:40 AM

Mystify

2012-03-16, 12:47 AM

What if the campaign is a pre-written module, and the DM does not alter it to suite their DMPC. Would that provide the impartiality you think is needed?

And as another reason to have a DMPC:
While an experienced DM, the campaign is using a system they have not tried before, and the DM wants to try playing a character in it. Assuming that they can do it without favorism or hogging the spotlight etc, would you consider that a valid reason to include a DMPC?

kco_501

2012-03-16, 01:37 AM

I have taken my own conclusions from the thread :). I am now reasonably sure that DMPCs like most other problems that occur in real life and around the gaming table are, assuming a modicum of good intent, not necessarily issues themselves but rather symptoms based around trust and communication issues.

I guess I have to be thankful I have a group of players were trust is not an issue.

Also, to answer the poll, yes to both questions, and on both sides of the screen.

I will admit however in being in a game with a bad DMPC as well, but back then we were all very young and inexperienced.

Knaight

2012-03-16, 02:21 AM

Really? None? I may have phrased it a little stronly, but virtually every time there is an alignment debate or a thread about realism in combat I notice at least something in the vein of the last two examples, and whenever there is a "stat yourself" thread the average Int score seems to be about 15.

In threads about combat, people are giving real experience - moreover, most of those relate to a specific hobby people here are disproportionately likely to engage in, and it isn't as if simply weighing in involves the hidden claim "I'm a blackbelt", as being above the average in a dead sport isn't exactly difficult. As for intelligence, those tend to see a lot of people putting themselves in the 12-13 range (probably to the point of setting a median), and given that what the D&D scale even means in real terms is highly undefined that is unremarkable in the extreme.

Reaper_Monkey

2012-03-16, 03:42 AM

...but rather symptoms based around trust and communication issues.

Spoken truly. I think that is what I'm coming away from this thread with, Serpentine and myself seem to have similar group play styles (ie, im sure our games are very different in content, but within the context of the group we play similarly) which involve a lot of discussion and the willingness to compromise and work issues out rather than let them stew. This does seem to be the key to success on many levels, and has kept my current group playing for 6 years despite literally being hundreds of miles apart for more than half of it.

I think we've jumped the Godwin here.

And you thought Nazis were inevitable?

I didn't think too poorly on the KKK inclusion, a bit of a shock tactic perhaps, but I've a feeling it was chosen because of the highly unlikely chance of a KKK supporter speaking up against the claim due to their rigorous methods of identifying race (or whatever else they'd reject the claim under). As for pulling polyamory into it... well I'll also hope that was just in a broader sense than actual relationship relationships, and so also wasn't intended to cause offence.
However, I am going to jump ship before the Nazis show up... they're like beetlejuice in that if you say their name too many times you automatically summon them!

Mystify

2012-03-16, 03:59 AM

I used the KKK because I was making the point that the group was only acting on prejudice, and the KKK are what came to mind when I thought about being prejudiced.

Coidzor

2012-03-16, 04:01 AM

I used the KKK because I was making the point that the group was only acting on prejudice, and the KKK are what came to mind when I thought about being prejudiced.

I find this to be even more questionable than the assertion that DMPCs are good for the game in and of themselves that the thread title suggests.

Mystify

2012-03-16, 04:09 AM

I find this to be even more questionable than the assertion that DMPCs are good for the game in and of themselves that the thread title suggests.

Can you think of an analogy to illustrate my point that wouldn't be inflammatory?

Killer Angel

2012-03-16, 06:23 AM

prufock

2012-03-16, 07:01 AM

New discussion:
DMPCs - bad for the game forum threads?

Mystify

2012-03-16, 07:23 AM

Count me in for the first question. It was a real problem.
How would you rate the DM apart from that issue?

Killer Angel

2012-03-16, 08:23 AM

How would you rate the DM apart from that issue?

Great railroaded stories, and usually there were issues also with the NPCs and the BEGs, so I would say that, in the end, it wasn't a fault of the DMPC per se, but it was merely a bad DM.
But must be also said that, with the NPCs, the level of annoyance was minor, while with the DMPC we reached major levels of suffering, so i would say that the DMPC can easily amplify already existing negative tendencies.

I've got another half bad experience with a DMPC, but it was a one shot we played with a DM i didn't knew (that sort of things you play at night when you're at a Con), so I can judge the DM in question.

Mystify

2012-03-16, 08:30 AM

The trend I am seeing is that bad DMs have bad DMPCs, and good DMs can have good DMPCs.

JadedDM

2012-03-16, 10:07 AM

The trend I am seeing is that bad DMs have bad DMPCs, and good DMs can have good DMPCs.

See, to me, that's like saying 'bad writers use bad Mary Sue self-inserts, and good writers use good Mary Sue self-inserts.'

Or 'bad players use bad munchkins, good players use good munchkins.'

The point I am trying to make here is, "Bad DMs use bad DMPCs, good DMs have no need to use DMPCs."

Mystify

2012-03-16, 10:56 AM

See, to me, that's like saying 'bad writers use bad Mary Sue self-inserts, and good writers use good Mary Sue self-inserts.'

Or 'bad players use bad munchkins, good players use good munchkins.'

The point I am trying to make here is, "Bad DMs use bad DMPCs, good DMs have no need to use DMPCs."
You are turning it into "DMPCs are an inherantly bad thing", which is false.
If your assertion was true, then there would be no cases of good DMs running a DMPC and having it work. We have several examples of that.

And how come I have seen good DMs with good DMPCs? Not all of then added anything to the campaign, but it didn't take anything away, and the DM had more fun. With others, the alternative was for a generic NPC to fulfill the same roll, and that would have worked out worse. The PC was specifically crafted for that role, and it would not have made any sense for a NPC to be built for it. Or to have let the artificer have a cohort, and essentially run 2 characters, which I would think is more problematic than the DM having a character.

PersonMan

2012-03-16, 11:14 AM

Poll:
How many people in this thread have actually been in a game with a DMPC?
How many of those have encountered a DMPC that wasn't a problem?

1. Yes.
2. Me.

Although I guess this is because we're like Serp's group.

Perhaps one of the most important differences between DMPC-possible groups and ones where they don't work at all is the type of group - that is, if it's a purely gaming group (we meet to play, but don't know each other outside of the game) or if it's a group of people who meet to play DnD because they met somewhere else, became friends and realized that they had a similar hobby. I personally can't imagine playing in a group where the assumption was that everybody was trying to cheat, was jealous of anyone whose character was better than theirs, was only interested in success, etc. In fact, I can't imagine a group like that lasting more than a few months.

Siosilvar

2012-03-16, 01:22 PM

See, to me, that's like saying 'bad writers use bad Mary Sue self-inserts, and good writers use good Mary Sue self-inserts.'

Or 'bad players use bad munchkins, good players use good munchkins.'

The point I am trying to make here is, "Bad DMs use bad DMPCs, good DMs have no need to use DMPCs."

I think Mystify's point is "Bad DMs, when they use DMPCs, execute them poorly. Good DMs, when they use DMPCs, can actually pull them off." After all, neither DM always uses DMPCs and neither has to.

Also, good "Mary Sues" can exist. They're potentially only theoretical, but self-insert characters (for the author or for the audience) as a whole are reasonably effective narrative devices. Likewise for "good munchkin". A person that argues their way out of rules and into ones that are much more fun for the group could be called a "munchkin", since they're ignoring the rules for their own benefit.

I think the problem here is terminology. Mary Sue is a term usually only used for bad self-insert characters. Munchkin is typically used only for players that ignore the rules to "win the game". Self-insert characters can be well done. Players that ignore the rules can be well behaved (but will probably find a better home with rules-light systems). Likewise, DMPCs can be pulled off spectacularly. They're not often, but it's important to remember Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap. The remaining 10% isn't necessarily.

Karoht

2012-03-16, 01:32 PM

I did a DMPC with a twist once.

I gave the party a Holy Symbol from an order of Paladins who were long since dead. Using the Symbol (anyone in the party could activate it by speaking his name aloud while holding the Symbol), and it would summon forth a spirit once per day.
It was the spirit of a long since dead Paladin. Nealy any amount of damage and he would disappear for the day. He only stuck around for a number of rounds, and could only strike evil targets. He was designed to scale with the party and just be an "oh snap" button if they ended up in trouble, but then the party started asking questions about this Paladin, started investigating him, looked for his tomb, etc. So he slowly developed a backstory that expanded on the history of the world as well. And the party just sort of gravitated around that story, which thankfully I was able to tie back to the main plot without any railroading and just a tiny bit of breadcrumbs.

But rather than have this guy feel and operate like someone's Cohort, I controlled his actions once summoned.

Was he a DMPC? Well, yes and no. Did he have class levels? Eventually. Did he have things like feats and special attacks? Yes. All of his stats were eventually tied to party members so that he scaled with the party (IE-When the Monk found his Signet ring and began wearing it, he gained bonus Wisdom and the Wisdom bonus to AC feature of the Monk), and as they acquired more of his old belongings or tracked down clues about his past and reminded him of what happened, he became more and more useful over time. He stuck around longer, he could use Smite attacks, he could be called upon more times per day, he got ranks in Knowledge (History) to assist in rolls related to events when he was alive, etc. Eventually he did just become 'that ghostly party member' more or less.

I had plans to have him subverted by the villian, but the campaign ended early due to a problem player.

I don't think this guy fell into the negative stereotypes of DMPC. He wasn't always relevant or even useful, he couldn't always be used in combat, and in many ways he behaved more like a well roleplayed cohort with a good amount of backstory, rather than a DMPC.

Mystify

2012-03-16, 01:36 PM

I think Mystify's point is "Bad DMs, when they use DMPCs, execute them poorly. Good DMs, when they use DMPCs, can actually pull them off." After all, neither DM always uses DMPCs and neither has to.

Yes, that sums it up nicely.

Siosilvar

2012-03-16, 01:50 PM

The point I am trying to make here is, "Bad DMs use bad DMPCs, good DMs have no need to use DMPCs."

I think I'd like to respond to this again. Bad DMs use them as crutches to keep the party on the rails. Good DMs don't need crutches to keep the plot moving and the players engaged. A great (or a lucky) DM does it anyway and pulls it off spectacularly.

Sucrose

2012-03-16, 04:55 PM

I think I'd like to respond to this again. Bad DMs use them as crutches to keep the party on the rails. Good DMs don't need crutches to keep the plot moving and the players engaged. A great (or a lucky) DM does it anyway and pulls it off spectacularly.

This wording implies that using DMPCs is a prerequisite to being a great DM. I doubt that this was your intent, but it is nonetheless how it reads. This reading strikes me as absurd. Further, I've yet to see any case where DMPCs are pulled off 'spectacularly.' The best that I've read, seen or experienced is Serpentine's DMPC, which is wanted by the group (presuming that they weren't just demanding that it be kept alive to spare her feelings), but nonetheless likely not the highlight of the campaign.

More directly on-topic, one of my present DMs does not use DMPCs, the other does. The former is a bit less effective of a DM for me than the latter, mostly because of the latter's willingness to houserule in ways that encourage silly and/or epic action. The latter's DMPCs are pretty much always weaker than PCs, and add a bit of color to the game, though I'm not convinced that it's more than would be added by a few NPCs around the game taking an equal amount of DM-brainspace.

If the DM wishes to play a cohort of the party in some way, I have no particular issue with that. If they wanted to be even with the party mechanically, I would be a bit concerned, given that the DM has greater non-mechanical power than the rest of the party, and it's indicative of a lack of joy in DMing, rather than playing, which usually is an indication of a DM who won't put as much effort into the world. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be the death knell of a game for me.

Note: Here I define DMPC as a PC-levelled character that accompanies the group and is not ordered around by anyone in particular, rather than the inherently negative meaning. If you prefer the other definition, then by all means replace DMPC in my statements with 'PC-levelled character that accompanies the group and is not ordered around by anyone in particular'.

Coidzor

2012-03-16, 06:15 PM

That would be NPC Ally, properly.

kyoryu

2012-03-16, 07:34 PM

I'd actually go a bit further on this, and not get into the "bad DM/Good DM" false dichotomy.

A DMPC is one of the harder things to pull off in running an RPG. In addition, even if the DM running the DMPC has the skills to do so well, the success of a DMPC is also heavily dependent on the makeup and mentality of the party.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the DM or party are "bad," just that they lack the particular qualities needed to make it work.

Combined with what I see as a higher-than-average set of possible consequences if the DMPC is done poorly, as well as issues in the normal feedback loop (it can be harder to accuse the DM of things when it's the DM's character), and it's generally better to avoid them overall.

None of which means that they can't be successful, with the right DM and the right group.

pres_man

2012-03-16, 08:46 PM

kyoryu

2012-03-16, 09:24 PM

And I could say much the same for a DM's significant other playing in a game. But would I suggest that its better to avoid playing with your significant other? Probably not.

Actually, it's probably a good idea to avoid it, especially with a new group.

pres_man

2012-03-16, 10:06 PM

Actually, it's probably a good idea to avoid it, especially with a new group.

One of the strongest aspects of tabletop gaming is the social aspect. If you can't have that with your significant other, then I have to question if it is truly a social endeavor.

Sucrose

2012-03-16, 10:21 PM

And I could say much the same for a DM's significant other playing in a game. But would I suggest that its better to avoid playing with your significant other? Probably not.

Are your DMPCs really of the same importance to you as a significant other? :smallconfused: A wrecked game is a wrecked game, and only one of those two will still be around to console you if your risk winds up costing the group.

pres_man

2012-03-16, 10:55 PM

Are your DMPCs really of the same importance to you as a significant other? :smallconfused: A wrecked game is a wrecked game, and only one of those two will still be around to console you if your risk winds up costing the group.

If you think I would cheat for my own character, which if it dies, won't make me sleep on the couch, just think about what I would do for my significant other. Obviously, as a DM I can't be trusted to game with my significant other. A DMPC would be much less worrisome.

massgamer

2012-03-16, 11:24 PM

Apply to healing, hacking, cartography, or whatever. At best, a DMPC just puts more of the talking and problem-solving Eternal Blade (http://www.dotmmo.com/eternal-blade-7745.html) on the DM's head, which is precisely the opposite of where the DM should be pushing it.

Sucrose

2012-03-16, 11:26 PM

If you think I would cheat for my own character, which if it dies, won't make me sleep on the couch, just think about what I would do for my significant other. Obviously, as a DM I can't be trusted to game with my significant other. A DMPC would be much less worrisome.

If your significant other were so immature that he/she would be upset out-of-game for a fair in-game death, essentially demanding DM favoritism, then yes, bringing him/her into the game would be as strong a breach of DMing good practices as bringing in a DMPC, though perhaps a more understandable one.

Coidzor

2012-03-16, 11:37 PM

If you think I would cheat for my own character, which if it dies, won't make me sleep on the couch, just think about what I would do for my significant other. Obviously, as a DM I can't be trusted to game with my significant other. A DMPC would be much less worrisome.

I suppose the silver lining for would be that a DM's SO who was that much of a hellion (or was it harridan?) would correct itself in short order, as the DM could only have a group for so long before being without one.

pres_man

2012-03-17, 12:53 AM

Coidzor

2012-03-17, 12:58 AM

Yet it doesn't matter if the DM's S.O. would actually act in such a way

I imagine it would if he or she proceeded to act in such a way. :smalltongue:

To say the least, it would certainly give the impression of misconduct to the rest of the group and push them towards believing that such was the case if they were to observe it.

I pointed out, just about any DM is much more likely to cheat for their S.O. than they would ever for themselves.

Then you should remember that you're making it cross-wise. The DM's SO playing isn't reviled in and of itself. It's the DM's SO trying to get special treatment or the DM affording them special treatment that is. Whereas DMPCs are reviled in and of themselves in addition to the ills and other problems with the DM that they do such a great job of showcasing.

MukkTB

2012-03-17, 01:17 AM

A DMPC is fundamentally unfair. Its never going to accidentally step on a trap. It's never going to overestimate or underestimate enemy forces. Its never going to wonder whats behind that door or who the murderer was. The best the DM can do is have the DMPC step on the trap and then declare 'Oh Noes!' None of the players are going to buy it as a genuine accident.

Therefore the DMPC should not move the plot. When they do the players see railroading. The players will never see the DMPC as 'one of us.' The DMPC doesn't experience the same kind of fun that the players do. At best the DMPC can be an interesting support character. But at that point I would rather have a DM who populated the world with a number of interesting NPCs than spent his time polishing a DMPC. I can choose which NPCs I befriend and which I don't.

Furthermore if I have an argument with Wizard Bob that's fine. If I have an argument with DMPC John I'm also having an argument with the guy who could declare my face melts off, no saving throw, no roll for initiative.

#1 DMPC does not provide a satisfactory play experience.
#2 DMPS only does well in a support role, which could have been filled by NPCs.
Therefore
#3 DMPC only works when the DM isn't looking for experience as a player but rather support and he fills that role ok.

I would rather ask my friend to run a campaign for a while than play a DMPC in my own games for the same reason that I wouldn't play hide and seek without knowing where everyone I'm looking for hid.

Sucrose

2012-03-17, 06:40 AM

Yet it doesn't matter if the DM's S.O. would actually act in such a way, all that matters if some player might feel like that might happen. Thus because some player might falsely (or correctly in some cases) assume that the DM is going to show favoritism to their S.O., that is reason enough to say that any DM anywhere should never game with their S.O. I mean that is the argument some are making when it comes to DMPCs, and as I pointed out, just about any DM is much more likely to cheat for their S.O. than they would ever for themselves.

The difference is, a S.O. is an important part of the DM's life, existing prior to the campaign, and thereby making it reasonable to want to include them.

A DMPC, by contrast, is not an important preexisting element to the DM's life, and has no right to be there.

And further, I actually disagree with your final claim. As I stated, if your S.O. were immature enough to be upset if things didn't go their way, it would be incorrect to involve them in the game. Most people are not that immature, so it would be unreasonable to expect the game to devolve in the way that you describe.

However, in the subset of DMs that wish to employ DMPCs, there is a rather large proportion that would misuse them. Consequently, paranoia on the players' parts is much more reasonable.

Edit: In short, basically what Coidzor said.

Mystify

2012-03-17, 06:50 AM

However, in the subset of DMs that wish to employ DMPCs, there is a rather large proportion that would misuse them. Consequently, paranoia on the players' parts is much more reasonable.

Just because most people who use them are those who will misuse them does not mean they are bad. It just means they are commonly misused. Going back to the self-insert example; just because most people who do self inserts are those writing bad fan-fics with mary sues does not mean that all self inserts are bad. Sure, a more skilled author is less likely to use a self insert, but when they do they can pull it off. Self inserts are not bad, they are just commonly misused, just like DMPCs.

Knaight

2012-03-17, 06:55 AM

Just because most people who use them are those who will misuse them does not mean they are bad. It just means they are commonly misused. Going back to the self-insert example; just because most people who do self inserts are those writing bad fan-fics with mary sues does not mean that all self inserts are bad. Sure, a more skilled author is less likely to use a self insert, but when they do they can pull it off. Self inserts are not bad, they are just commonly misused, just like DMPCs.

However, the Dunning-Kruger effect makes it near impossible for authors to actually tell when they can pull off a self-insert, which leads to travesties such as the second half of King's Dark Tower series. I'd argue that GMPCs are basically the same way, and that they are almost always a bad idea as a result, though they can work in some circumstances (e.g. Serp's group).

Sucrose

2012-03-17, 07:07 AM

Just because most people who use them are those who will misuse them does not mean they are bad. It just means they are commonly misused. Going back to the self-insert example; just because most people who do self inserts are those writing bad fan-fics with mary sues does not mean that all self inserts are bad. Sure, a more skilled author is less likely to use a self insert, but when they do they can pull it off. Self inserts are not bad, they are just commonly misused, just like DMPCs.

That they are not inherently wrong is irrelevant. Neither are pointy hoods, to borrow one of your previous analogies. What matters is that they are commonly misused, so it is unreasonable to expect your players to be okay with you using one.

Mystify

2012-03-17, 07:08 AM

However, the Dunning-Kruger effect makes it near impossible for authors to actually tell when they can pull off a self-insert, which leads to travesties such as the second half of King's Dark Tower series. I'd argue that GMPCs are basically the same way, and that they are almost always a bad idea as a result, though they can work in some circumstances (e.g. Serp's group).
By that logic, nobody should try anything challenging because you can't tell if you are actually good enough to do it. That is horrible reasoning.

Mystify

2012-03-17, 07:20 AM

That they are not inherently wrong is irrelevant. Neither are pointy hoods, to borrow one of your previous analogies. What matters is that they are commonly misused, so it is unreasonable to expect your players to be okay with you using one.
I think its unreasonable to expect somebody to mess up without evidence that they will. That other people did is not evidence. After all, most people can't put on a magic show, but when you go to see an illusionist you go into it with the expectation that they can pull it off anyways. In fact, as was demonstrated earlier, expecting somebody to fail at it can cause problems where none exists. To return to my same analogy, If one person has experience with a group of african americans who happen to be gangsters, it is unreasonable for them to have a problem with any african american just because they might be gangsters too.
A bad DM can use a bad DMPC and have a bad game, but that has more to do with them being a bad DM than them having a DMPC, just as its reasonable to have a problem with gangsters, but its not reasonable to have a problem with african americans. There may be a correlation, but that this not a good enough reason to transfer the hate.

Sucrose

2012-03-17, 08:05 AM

I think its unreasonable to expect somebody to mess up without evidence that they will. That other people did is not evidence. After all, most people can't put on a magic show, but when you go to see an illusionist you go into it with the expectation that they can pull it off anyways. In fact, as was demonstrated earlier, expecting somebody to fail at it can cause problems where none exists. To return to my same analogy, If one person has experience with a group of african americans who happen to be gangsters, it is unreasonable for them to have a problem with any african american just because they might be gangsters too.
A bad DM can use a bad DMPC and have a bad game, but that has more to do with them being a bad DM than them having a DMPC, just as its reasonable to have a problem with gangsters, but its not reasonable to have a problem with african americans. There may be a correlation, but that this not a good enough reason to transfer the hate.

Your magician analogy is faulty, as is your analogy about gangsters and black people. Magic shows are the entire point of illusionists (aside from some fairly impressive wartime misdirection); DMPCs are not the entire point of DMing. And creating DMPCs is a behavior, not a skin color. It would be more akin to seeing someone flashing the gang sign. Maybe they are just some privileged kid that doesn't understand what it means, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take it as a warning sign.

And expecting someone to screw up something that is most commonly screwed up is entirely reasonable. Maybe someone really has made a perpetual motion machine, but they're going to need to show some strong proof before they can be believed over the crowd of charlatans.

Knaight

2012-03-17, 08:08 AM

By that logic, nobody should try anything challenging because you can't tell if you are actually good enough to do it. That is horrible reasoning.

No, it merely removes "It will be fine, I know I can do this" from acceptable reasons and allows sober risk analysis, though that will still be warped. "I'm a good GM, no worries" doesn't work, and warrants criticism.

Mystify

2012-03-17, 08:57 AM

Shadowknight12

2012-03-17, 09:17 AM

Based on the testimonies in this thread, bad DMPCs don't seen to be a n overwhelming majority like you are making them out to be. If you look at all the traits of a bd DMPC, they are traits of a bad DM. The problem is not the DMPC, at all. That just happens to be one tool they are using to be a bad DM.If you are going to take a DMPC as a bad sign, then its not because the DMPC is bad, its because it might mean they are a bad DM. If they are a bad DM, they will be a bad DM with or without a DMPC.

I'll try to add to that with a simile.

Running a game is a lot like cooking. Some ideas a DM can try are a lot like specific dishes. Not all dishes are equally easy to make, and some are quite hard indeed. Some of them require a lot of cooking ability that cannot be acquired simply by following a recipe to the letter.

Some dishes require several preparations going on simultaneously, which means that the chef needs to be able to multitask to perfection, keep in mind stuff on the stove (how long they've been there, how long till they're done, if they require constant stirring to avoid burning, etc), stuff that must be refrigerated for specific periods (like some types of creams or gelatins, which must be allowed to cool to acquire a thicker texture, but not TOO much, because they will become unusable), things that must be done in specific orders (you do NOT want to mix up the order you're adding the different components of a mousse), tasks that cannot be interrupted once they've been started (like handling cooling chocolate), and so on.

Some dishes aren't meant to be tackled by cooks without experience or the aid of someone who knows what they're doing. Same thing goes for DMing. People, in my opinion, have nothing against a layered cake with ice cream, mousse and custard (made in record time with other dishes on the go, just to make it even more difficult), they're just tired of the cake being burnt, the mousse falling apart, the custard being overcooked, the ice cream having melted by the time it was served and the whole thing being an inedible mess. So many cooks have tried and failed to serve it right, that it has been dubbed an inherently EVIL and BAD dish.

Putting it in another context highlights the silliness of declaring something wholly bad simply because it has never been done right and dismissing the times where it HAS been done right.

Mystify

2012-03-17, 09:25 AM

I'll try to add to that with a simile.

Running a game is a lot like cooking. Some ideas a DM can try are a lot like specific dishes. Not all dishes are equally easy to make, and some are quite hard indeed. Some of them require a lot of cooking ability that cannot be acquired simply by following a recipe to the letter.

Some dishes require several preparations going on simultaneously, which means that the chef needs to be able to multitask to perfection, keep in mind stuff on the stove (how long they've been there, how long till they're done, if they require constant stirring to avoid burning, etc), stuff that must be refrigerated for specific periods (like some types of creams or gelatins, which must be allowed to cool to acquire a thicker texture, but not TOO much, because they will become unusable), things that must be done in specific orders (you do NOT want to mix up the order you're adding the different components of a mousse), tasks that cannot be interrupted once they've been started (like handling cooling chocolate), and so on.

Some dishes aren't meant to be tackled by cooks without experience or the aid of someone who knows what they're doing. Same thing goes for DMing. People, in my opinion, have nothing against a layered cake with ice cream, mousse and custard (made in record time with other dishes on the go, just to make it even more difficult), they're just tired of the cake being burnt, the mousse falling apart, the custard being overcooked, the ice cream having melted by the time it was served and the whole thing being an inedible mess. So many cooks have tried and failed to serve it right, that it has been dubbed an inherently EVIL and BAD dish.

Putting it in another context highlights the silliness of declaring something wholly bad simply because it has never been done right and dismissing the times where it HAS been done right.
Much better analogy than any of mine, thank you.

Nich_Critic

2012-03-17, 09:35 AM

I'm generally against dmpc's, not because I feel like they're inherently wrong, but I do have a great deal of trouble playing against myself. I ran Ravenloft for some friends, and just by the nature of the module they picked up some NPC's to help the party (Two paladins and a fighter, I think). I did a couple of things to keep them out of the limelight:

1) They didn't get initiative rolls. They automatically acted after all the PC's and enemies had moved. This means that the PC's directed the flow of combat.

2) Their tactical options were simple. They would complete a flank if they could, they would use their powerful abilities on strong enemies, but otherwise they mostly just moved and attacked.

3) They didn't make decisions for the party. The module gave them backstories and goals, so if they were asked, they would express a desire to do one thing over another, but all three of them had different goals, so mostly they worked as a way to tell players a couple of options that they had that would advance things.

4) They couldn't give information that they wouldn't know.

I think it worked out ok, but I would have rather not had them. Mostly they just bogged down combat (for me).

Killer Angel

2012-03-17, 09:41 AM

If you look at all the traits of a bd DMPC, they are traits of a bad DM. The problem is not the DMPC, at all. That just happens to be one tool they are using to be a bad DM.

Except, the DMPC often appears to be the worst tool of all.
We're talking about a thing that, when done bad, completely ruins the gaming experience, break the campaing and sometime puts an end to the group of player itself (judging by some tales).
When done right, don't add anything so exceptional to an already good game (we're talking about a good DM, right?).
In the end, we're talking about the use of a dangerous tool for a complex task, to obtain (at best) a minimal positive result.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-17, 09:49 AM

Except, the DMPC often appears to be the worst tool of all.
We're talking about a thing that, when done bad, completely ruins the gaming experience, break the campaing and sometime puts an end to the group of player itself (judging by some tales).
When done right, don't add anything so exceptional to an already good game (we're talking about a good DM, right?).
In the end, we're talking about the use of a dangerous tool for a complex task, to obtain (at best) a minimal positive result.

So it's like serving a dish with Fugu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu)?

Killer Angel

2012-03-17, 10:05 AM

So it's like serving a dish with Fugu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu)?

That would fit your food analogy. :smallsmile:
And personally, I'm pretty sure the master cook can serve me an excellent dish even without fugu...

Mystify

2012-03-17, 10:10 AM

That would fit your food analogy. :smallsmile:
And personally, I'm pretty sure the master cook can serve me an excellent dish even without fugu...
But is fugo inherently bad?
Edit: Actually, fugo is a bad example. If you get served bad fugo, you die. If you get a bad DMPC, you have a ruined game. This would be the equivalent of serving a horribly burnt, misshapen mess of a meal, not a plate of poison.

Killer Angel

2012-03-17, 10:57 AM

But is fugo inherently bad?

Isn't the use of poison "evil", by RAW? :smalltongue:

Mystify

2012-03-17, 11:01 AM

Isn't the use of poison "evil", by RAW? :smalltongue:
But the point is to not poison somebody.

Sucrose

2012-03-17, 12:14 PM

But the point is to not poison somebody.

Which can be done quite handily by not cooking the pointlessly dangerous dish of fugu, while still having a delightful meal. That really is a good analogy.

Jay R

2012-03-17, 12:15 PM

A PC is a character run and identified with by a player who does not know what everything in the world is like, and is using that character to explore the world. A lot of the tension in the game comes from the PC attempting something while not knowing everything about what effects it might have, and sometimes getting results he thought impossible, simply because the player didn't know everything about the situation. Often, bad things happen based on ignorance or incorrect assumptions about the actual conditions in the world.

A NPC is a character run by and not identified with by the DM who knows everything there is about the world. She cannot be used to explore the world, since the DM already knows everything about the world. Instead, the NPC is used as a tool to provide an experience for the players.

A DMPC is a character run and identified with by the DM who knows everything about the world. There is no tension about the DM not knowing what possible effects it might have, since the DM already knows all of the parameters. It can never get a result the DM thought was impossible. While the DM might choose to have something bad happen to the DMPC, a bad thing never happens based on ignorance or incorrect assumptions about the actual conditions of the world.

A DMPC never opens the door to the tiger, or steps on the trap door, or chooses the cursed magic item, except by choice. And even when he does, he knows what's behind the door, what's down in the pit, and what the curse will be. He never needs a Legend Lore or Speak With Dead to find out the truth. He always knows if the lord they're working for is planning to double-cross them. It is simply not the same experience as a PC's.

I have no problem with an NPC ally. But a DMPC is a PC with unfair information. Even if the DM chooses not to use it, he got that choice and the players didn't.

I won't play with a player who tries to sneak a peek at the DM's notes. I certainly won't play with somebody who has read them through thoroughly.