DMPC Lessons Learned ? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Mnemnosyne

2012-05-04, 08:27 PM

The biggest problem I have experienced is when the players either consciously or unconsciously will not take the lead and act when in the presence of such a character. PC's that constantly ask the DMPC for advice, for instance. I find it very difficult to figure out exactly what the character would know, how they would think, when I already have all the DM knowledge influencing me.

Therefore, I'm now willing to include them generally only in situations where I want to lead the players by the nose (which means they tend to be used rarely and only for a short time), or theoretically, in the case that I have a party that I am reasonably certain will not look to the DMPC for advice and such. Then I can only pipe in when I feel it's appropriate to the character, not have to squirm when asked and try to figure out what the character is going to say.

Water_Bear

2012-05-04, 08:30 PM

I'm not sure I would trust myself with a DMPC.

Not that it would become a Mary Sue and overshadow the other characters (although that would be an issue), but because of the necessity of ignoring my OOC knowledge. I'm a person who likes to plan out encounters and build NPCs sessions in advance, and try to generally anticipate where the plot is going. While having a DMPC in the party would help maneuver them, it would be difficult to avoid giving things away or generally abusing that information.

I might not be typical, but its always my greatest fear that I'll inadvertently give the players plot spoilers. A DMPC would make it that much easier to slip up.

elonin

2012-05-04, 08:44 PM

I've only dm'd for a one shot so don't have experience. In a group I played with once there was a dmpc that floated among the different players switching each session. Caused some hysterical moments as we were inexperienced at playing and were level 3 and the dmpc was a level 15 paladin. The dm was trying to get us beyond the want more power stage.

Shadowknight12

2012-05-04, 08:48 PM

Oh no. Not the can of worms again. :smallfrown:

nedz

2012-05-04, 10:56 PM

Oh no. Not the can of worms again. :smallfrown:

This one does come up quite often. Maybe we need a handbook ?:smallamused:

Shadowknight12

2012-05-05, 01:34 AM

This one does come up quite often. Maybe we need a handbook ?:smallamused:

I fear that trying to organise a handbook that fairly and neutrally represents all the points involved (especially since there are sides of the issue that do not share the same definition of DMPC) would be like gathering all the cans of worms in all of the multiverse and opening them simultaneously. It's a good idea, but I fear for the sanity of all involved.

DarkHarlequinn7

2012-05-05, 02:16 AM

I can answer this question in 2 different ways.

1) My personal preference is to include DMPCs but not to go overboard with them. I used to go WAY overboard with them as a DM and it ruined the fun of the players involved. But if there are very few players in a group I tend to at least have 1 or 2 and mainly so the group can have the aid in combat. Should the players want to interact with the DMPCs so be it but lately I have only been embracing them as a method of making sure the players aren't overwhelmed in combat when there aren't many players involved.

That said, on the rare occasion that I myself am a player I am usually just a little bit bothered by it, but it only motivates me to make my character even more interesting to outshine the other one. It certainly makes for a good role-playing device.

2) My recommendation is to not do it unless you have enough confidence that you won't try to steal the spot-light from the other players and if you are confident enough in your ability to juggle your DM knowledge with the NPC knowledge. If your campaign is very kick-in-the-door then I highly recommend having DMPCs if your player count is low, since nobody is really gonna give a crap about the plot or each individual characters beyond what they can contribute in combat.

Golden Ladybug

2012-05-05, 02:17 AM

...I so want to stay out of this :smallfrown:

One thing that always annoys me is how blurry the distinction between "NPC" and "DMPC" is, because there isn't one definite terminology. The Healbot Cleric that has come along with the party on their mission from the church, or the Noble they're escorting to the next town, or the vampire hunter who has requested their aid to have a bit of muscle on his side for a big fight, etc, etc are NPCs. They might be more or less powerful than the party, make stupid decisions or whatever. They're part of the game world, and if they take some of the spotlight from the PCs by staking the Vampire, or being the ambassador to prevent a war, or by converting the barbarian leader to their faith, then that's okay. You probably don't want to make a habit out of it, but they do their thing and then they leave. They're the same thing as a Shopkeeper, or a Blacksmith. They're just scenery, that does stuff.

The DMPC is when the DM decides he wants to do more than just run the game, he wants to play in it too. They've gone through the steps of making a player character, and they're playing it as their own. This isn't always horrible, but its unlikely to be good. The problem arises if the DM decides to give their DMPC a few advantages, like, maybe making fights more favourable to their favourite trick, or giving them a bit of extra wealth...And then they're the Chosen One, have a Magic Horse made of Platinum and are the wielder of the Sword of Light!

I've had one experience of a "real" DMPC, with my first DM. As a level 4 Ranger, I got to compete with a Rogue that was always invisible, had a custom magic item that made all sneaks attacks do maximum damage and all attacks rolls higher than a 3 were critical hits.

Morithias

2012-05-05, 02:24 AM

Snip

This is what I mean, but I tend to do the opposite. Rather than have the "DMPC" be the chosen one. I tend to make them the big bad.

Most of my DMPCs are female healers (not cleric, the actual healer class). They heal and do nothing more, but by the time the reveal comes and they're ready to fight the party, they have the gate spell and can pose a challenge. They don't overshadow the other's PCs until it's time to kick their ass.

Generally I find the best DMPCs ARE the ones tied to the plot. The demon king Miki who they are trying to save from her curse, the Princess Olivia who is actually the cause of the plague, and so on.

You just have to be careful.

TuggyNE

2012-05-05, 04:02 AM

This is what I mean, but I tend to do the opposite. Rather than have the "DMPC" be the chosen one. I tend to make them the big bad.

Most of my DMPCs are female healers (not cleric, the actual healer class). They heal and do nothing more, but by the time the reveal comes and they're ready to fight the party, they have the gate spell and can pose a challenge. They don't overshadow the other's PCs until it's time to kick their ass.

Generally I find the best DMPCs ARE the ones tied to the plot. The demon king Miki who they are trying to save from her curse, the Princess Olivia who is actually the cause of the plague, and so on.

You just have to be careful.

AND NOW THE SECRET OF YOUR PLOTS IS SPOILED!

:smalltongue:

I have little to contribute to the thread, except a summary of the best advice I've heard: DMPCs in the strict sense are rarely helpful, often upsetting, and quite tricky to use properly.

Golden Ladybug

2012-05-05, 04:09 AM

Disagree with the letter, agree with the spirit.

The BBEG is supposed to be a challenge to the Party, and there is absolutely no problem with giving them all the advantages they need to stay relevant. You don't want to make it easy for them.

Also, I think the examples you give fall more into NPC territory than DMPC. They're simply more extreme examples of the vampire hunter, or the noble; they aren't for playing the game as if you were a player, they are fulcrums around which the world turns for your players. They're firmly rooted in the plot, and not in your own wish fulfillment.

This is why I always get so aggravated in discussions about DMPCs, because there is no standard definition for the term. Your DMPC is my Plot-Critical NPC :smallwink:

killem2

2012-05-05, 09:58 AM

What problems has it caused?

ZERO.

The first time I ever encountered a DMPC was back in AD&D in the mid 90s and our DM always played with us. It was just normal.

Fast forward to my first session in D&D since then, and we used 3.5 rules, in December. I created a DMPC, a focused specialist evoker. It wasn't really my final incarnation of my DMPC, or rather my PC, because I think DMPC has a rather negative connotation to it.

In our last session I introduced my real PC, which is a strongheart halfling, rogue/wizard that is also a focused specialist evoker but was much better trained at what he did.

What benifits?

I get to play too.
The party has access to a wizard (granted one that banned abjuration, enchantment, and Illusion).

Never would use them?
It wasn't until I came here, that I learned people has such a moral objection to running your own character.

Always chuck one in?
I would sure.

================================================== =============

Overall, as I have said in many threads that brought up the topic, if you can't avoid metagaming your own game with your PC, then you aren't very good at this game.

It isn't hard. It really isn't. More importantly, unless you are complete veggie, you should be able to tell if you are bending the rules in your favor. If your group follows your PC every move as if it gives then an advantage they are equally with out a brain.

I don't do this and my group is very smart and play for themselves. I also run ALMOST everything by the, (I didn't tell them about the new wizard because it was suppose to be a suprise)

To date the only time I have willingly gave my self any items was to keep myself inline with the party as my 2nd pc joined the group, and he got a twilight elven chain shirt. Not really a big deal.

willpell

2012-05-05, 10:11 AM

I think of a DMPC as a way to give the characters a safety buffer so that they don't get smeared. The DMPC is a slightly boring but solid character who exists to illustrate some point about the game world, as well as to serve as a target who lacks Plot Armor. I can like the character, might even give it a few special breaks, but I'll never allow it to outshine the players, because what would be the point? I can always just run a game for myself if I want to (I do Play By Post, so it's functionally writing a short story if I play with no other players, albeit a story featuring dice rolls and rules confusion). Right now, one of my players is a drow telepath, and the other (so far active) is a barbarian. Both have a DMPC, although in one case I deliberately positioned them as such, while the other was intended to be just a random extra in a fight scene (threw one knife at the monster, then got ganked by it; not so much contributing to the fight as adding color to what was meant to be a rather horrific scene) until the player started talking to her, and then I decided I'd actually "play" her. That one's a Halfling Rogue, so she'll be helping the barbarian avoid traps and occasionally acting as a "face" in civilized matters where a Knowledge skill is necessary. The other is a Blackscale Lizardfolk (a little personal indulgence on my part there, I just think they look awesome), and that puts him 2 levels ahead of the drow, but it's not a big deal because he's just there as a meat shield; encounters will be designed for the drow's benefit, and even if the Lizardfolk single-handedly eats every monster that comes near the drow, it won't mean he won the encounter - as long as she uses Read Thoughts once during the fight to find out why they attacked in the first place, she's fulfilled her game role and she earns XP for the fight, just as if she had no bodyguard and had been Mind Thrusting the creatures to death while running like hell.

Nothing can stop the DM from including a Mary Sue who ruins the campaign, except the DM's desire not to ruin his own campaign. Which should usually be enough.

jara

2012-05-05, 10:41 AM

the dmpc i use is a necromancer cleric [evil campaign for newbies]. pretty much all of his spells prepared are cure spells, which may be converted over to inflict if the party needs a bit more damage done. he also pulls out a few choice undead if the tanks need a break or the rogue needs some flanking, but otherwise, his minions stay hidden in a bag of holding. also, if the pcs forget to loot the bodies, my character takes that stuff and randomly gifts it to the characters that need it over the next few game days, and i just say my character has the crafting feats and is feeling generous. a few times they've asked what my character feels like doing, and he just feels like sitting and crafting a bit, he never puts in any opinion about the plot, or maybe just vague options, so they make their own decisions.

so -
problems caused: none
benefits: no one wants to heal, so i take care of that. also, i get to play.
always/never use one: depends on the party makeup, but i probably would use one every time.

Ranting Fool

2012-05-06, 02:40 PM

Overall, as I have said in many threads that brought up the topic, if you can't avoid metagaming your own game with your PC, then you aren't very good at this game.

I've often had to make up a lack of numbers (Players didn't want to play two characters but wanted at least 4 people in the party :smalltongue: )

I've made a few mistakes, making a character that was just well balanced in a group relatively new to 3.5 so outshone them sometimes. Now I always make sure they are useful but never quite as awesome as the players.

Nothing can stop the DM from including a Mary Sue who ruins the campaign, except the DM's desire not to ruin his own campaign. Which should usually be enough.

+1

I often run Neutral DMPC's so the players are never entirely sure of their motives and any opinion on where to go or what to do heavily favours whatever agenda that character has.

Are there any classes that you would never use as a DMPC?
Me I avoid using Rogues because I know where all the cool traps are (Because I put them there :smalltongue: )

And I'd avoid any high Tier Classes. (Granted I am using a Wizard at the moment but he isn't as powerful as the PC Wizard or Druid) and I'd much rather have a Favoured Soul vs a Cleric or a Sorc Vs a Wizard (Partly because it's a lot less book keeping and you can do some nice "Themes" with the spells they gain)

Any Races you wouldn't use?

Nothing screams Mary Sue then a Half-evil creature who is really just misunderstood. Or chucking a bunch of random templates together...

Why I'm a Half-Drow, Dragon born, Fey touched Wizard / Cleric / Mystic Therge!

Roguenewb

2012-05-06, 03:17 PM

I believe in DMPCs for one, and only one thing: allowing RP into a Dungeon crawl. If you expect to put your players into a long-term (full session plus) crawl and they are players who enjoy speaking IC and really RPing their stuff, then a plot-relevant DMPC allows you to stimulate talk at the campfire each night, or after each fight stir up some flavor based conversation. This works *really* well. Like, omigod did I accidentally cast Summon Roleplayer on my optimization group?? I swear by it for RP groups in dungeons, and groups of half RP, half OP.

Palanan

2012-05-06, 03:40 PM

Some of the best roleplaying I've enjoyed in recent years was between one of my DMPCs and other members of the party. One memorable argument in particular, entirely in-character, was superficially over a tactical issue, but was fundamentally about party leadership. My DMPC lost.

At one point one of my DMPCs, working through a situation in-character, recognized a major logistical issue that the rest of the party hadn't realized was there. She brought up the issue, and suggested a solution, independently of my plans as the DM. Like characters that you're writing, DMPCs often take on a life and will of their own, for essentially the same reasons.

In my experience it adds a deeper dimension to the game, and the roleplaying really shines all around the table.

AslanCross

2012-05-06, 06:33 PM

I once had a player quit for good due to time and academic reasons. She was the best and most natural roleplayer in the group (all newbies) and had the strongest handle on what her character concept was. She was from the outset more of a leader than the 18 Cha paladin, and as such the party paid attention to her character. She made for rather interesting party dynamics, and

Since I didn't want to just put her on a bus, I decided to DMPC her, with the following caveats:

1. I intended to only keep her until I could kill her off for good.
2. In-character, she had no knowledge of the plot.
3. IC knowledge did not affect OOC actions.
4. I would retain the player's original character concept (overbearing, annoying, and spoiled), because it stimulated the other players to actually respond to her in-character.
5. No special favor rolls; if she dies before I'd planned, she would.

What problems has it caused?
None, really. Everyone was aware of what I intended to do with her (apart from killing her off, which surprised everyone and made for a deeply moving interaction as she lay dying)

What benifits?
The entire party basically learned to RP their own characters effectively.

Never would use them?
DMPCs need to have specific purposes. Do not use them if your only intention is to play your pet character concept. Only use DMPCs to teach. Whether it be to enhance RP or to help rules mastery of a rather complex character concept, a DMPC can be used to teach. Otherwise, they shouldn't be used. (There's also the DM running a PC for an absentee player)

Always chuck one in?
See above.

Chronos

2012-05-06, 06:36 PM

The group I used to play with was four players, and we rotated DM duties from one adventure to the next. During each player's turn as a DM, their PC was a DMPC. We generally deliberately reined ourselves in, so the non-DM players would still be driving what the party did (and yes, we did joke IC about how it seemed like we each got really stupid occasionally). It worked pretty well: It let us have a decent-sized party, and didn't dump the burden of DMing on any single player.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-06, 09:01 PM

I think the DM has so much to do that a DMPC is just a waste of time. Unless you don't like DMing very much and would rather be playing, I see no reason to use a DMPC. From time to time I'd add an NPC to the party, but they would never stick around.

Wookie-ranger

2012-05-06, 09:44 PM

I remember 3 times playing 'with' a DMPC.
As another Player:
1 time bad.
1 times good.

As a DM
good (as far as i can see anyway)

The main problem with the DMPC that i have seen is the PC part. The DM cannot be a Player, this is simply not how the game works.
I am referring to this DMPC that was more a DM-Railroad-Express.
Cannot figure out a puzzle? guess who just had a great epiphany!
Don't know how to get through the locked door? Look! the DMPC found a key on the floor earlier that he forgot to mention? (seriously)
and so on

however the DM can create and sort-of control an NPC with class-levels.
The good DMPC was a strait 1-20 cleric, and he healed buffed, did a little debuffing and a tiny bit melee.
The PCs (us) could tell the DMPC what to do in combat, what buffs we need and he prepared spells by what we thought lies ahead. He was leveled by the DM and the plyers had no more say in it then in each others characters, but we could still give suggestions. He had a very low Int, and so was RPed (by the DM) to not be a great help in any riddles and such. Over all he was more of a group cohort then a participating player. It worked well.
this is how i am DMing an DM(N)PC right now in a one on one champagne.

What problems has it caused?
As i said. The DMPC cannot be a PC, but need to be more of a DMNPC

What benifits?
If played right it can work great in small / low op parties or to help out new players.

Never would use them?
N/A

Always chuck one in?
N/A

The DMPC should be a help for the Party but not necessarily part of it.

Oscredwin

2012-05-06, 10:04 PM

Wubs

2012-05-07, 01:33 AM

I've used DMPCs as plot devices, but they don't participate in any sort of "rolling" unless called to do so by another PC.

That said, the best use I found was a rotating GM campaign, where the DMPC is present.. but usually captured, held hostage, in a bind, can't participate due to plot reasons, etc. Rather than actually adventuring, until you're done with your story arc.

Malachei

2012-05-07, 01:37 AM

If you want to know whether a DMPC has caused problems, ask the players, not the DMs.

willpell

2012-05-07, 01:43 AM

The problem I've had with DMPC's (as a player) is that he was a couple levels above the party, a couple tiers above the party and the only genre savvy party member (the only one who shared the DMs sensibilities).

See, to me, the DMPC's job is to make the players genre savvy, by explaining things from your perspective so that they know how you interpret certain issues. For instance my DMPC would spend a lot of time talking about how Lawful Evil creatures think that being brutally ruthless in exterminating possible sources of dissent is the only way to keep society stable, because that's the primary way I interpret a Lawful Evil alignment. By having my DMPC give this speech, I teach my players that LE in my game does not mean "kills for no reason but happens to obey the law otherwise and so is totally not CE". This being just a low-key example of the sort of thing I'll use them for.

Oscredwin

2012-05-07, 02:10 AM

The DM I was talking about pulled the Red Dragon disguised as a White dragon trick. The only clues were that we got access to fire weapons and there were a lot of scorch marks in the dragons lair where it fought previous adventurers. His DMPC (Wizard) had frost spells prepared while the (melee heavy) PCs had flaming swords.

The DMs I was playing with were somewhat adversarial back then. Lots of GOTCHA stuff, house rules about what "made sense" that always went against some player, bringing up volume considerations for the first time when we're looting a dungeon, and crit fumble rules that had my level 6 Barbarian break his greatsword (only magic item) on the first swing ever. On the ground. In a Swamp.

I may be a little bitter.

Killer Angel

2012-05-07, 05:05 AM

Oh no. Not the can of worms again. :smallfrown:

Monkday's frequency starts to pale...

This one does come up quite often. Maybe we need a handbook ?:smallamused:

At least, we can provide a link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235526&highlight=DMPC)to a recent thread on the subject. :smallwink:

Myth

2012-05-07, 05:08 AM

Acanous

2012-05-07, 05:54 AM

I'd just avoid the heck out of this.

Come on, you're the DM. You have enough work cut out for you creating CR appropriate encounters, designing cities and dungeons, fleshing out your world, and reacting to zany ideas your players toss at you. You really don't have the cognative function to spare to write up and roleplay your own character as well. If you REALLY want to play a while, toss the DM hat to someone else for a bit. It's better that way.

Surzt and Gurzt

2012-05-07, 08:55 AM

My own experience with DMPCs hasan't been so bad.
The DMPC in question is a human wizard in a campaign im currently running. The PCs met him stoping a revolution, and (since there were no spellcasters in the party) he managed to help them a great deal. As a focused conjurer, he mostly buffed and transported the PCs or summoned monsters, but nothing way stronger than the PCs. Almost all of his spells were for buffing the party.

Later they left him to adventure on their own, but occasionaly sent sending spells to him to ask for an occasional divination or a knowledge check.

However, once they were planning on raiding Far-Realm enclosure, and were afraid of the horrors it might hold. One PC asked the wizard (and with a sucessful Diplomacy check) to come with them. The wizard helped them through the dungeon, but was maddend by a creature inside it. The PCs, of their own voilition, payed for clerical healing to fix him.

That, IMO, is how a DMPC should be. A sort of helping hand through the world that the PCs can see as their anchor to the campaign world, someone they (and their characters) can grow attatched to and collectivley see as their freind.

tahu88810

2012-05-07, 09:02 AM

What problems has it caused?
I've found that it bogs down combat for myself. I now need to think tactically for both the enemies and a single entity on the opposite side. Otherwise, the only other issue is that the DMPC quickly becomes underpowered because I defer to the players' goals and needs when deciding what sort of loot might be found.
What benefits?
Provides a straight man for party antics at all times, bolsters party numbers (DMPCs work very well in a support role), and can generally help to provide more flavor to the setting-- A cleric of <insert major religion> who moonlights as a historian is an amazingly useful DMPC.

I use them on occasion. If there's a character concept I want to try out, or the players specifically request an NPC tag along, usually. Sometimes to bolster the ranks with a support character. It depends.
I never have massively plot-relevant DMPCs, but Sir Knight might decide to accompany the PCs for a time because he feels their quest is noble, or Mister Ranger might decide to lead them to the bandit camp and then provide ranged support during the ensuing 5-man assault. If the players are all ok with it, I may have a long-term DMPC who is essentially my character. This only happens when we have multiple DMs in the group and we're all trading off the job between sessions.

killem2

2012-05-07, 09:52 AM

I wanted to add, the only negative that I have seen from running a PC while DMing, is that if your group gets bigger, it is another step in the machine. If you don't want to be rolling dice for more people than you already are handling, then maybe you should give up the PC.

DrDeth

2012-05-07, 03:14 PM

DMPCs are Bad Mojo unless they're a bandaid solution to some hole you plopped the PCs in with your crude DMish hands or something weird happens that you didn't foresee and the PCs didn't know about or expect.

Other than that, make sure the DMPC leaves as soon as it is practical, or even before that. Do not steal the spotlight from the party - they are the heroes of this story. Sure, there may be other NPC heroes about, but this is not a story about them.

Kill the ones that the party becomes too fond of. It shows that your world is real and the dangers in it are real. Depending on the level of the campaign, you may or may not bring them back, but make the death count - a change of perspective and some on-the-side character development for your DMPC is good flavour for an immersive story.

Repeat after me:

"I shall not steal the spotlight from my players. I shall not make them watch cutenesses of DMPCs fighting NPCs. Even though I think my DMPC is awesome, I shall remember that I am a DM and not a player. I vow to kill or remove any Mary Sue/God Sue DMPCs if the party expects them to be ever present as a Deus Ex Machina or simply if they start growing too comfortable with them."

And so you are pledged.

Right. Her'es a earlier post of mine:
Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.
Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.

Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.

Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.

I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.

I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run.

Toy Killer

2012-05-07, 03:59 PM

The only DMPC I've ever used were Bards that had worldly knowledge of the campaign world and acted as a smart guy, so I wasn't getting "Knowledge check (local): what happened at Almore's Farm three years ago?" "It burnt down, no one knows who was the arsonist, but the governors daughter died in the fire" wait for PC to relay in character what I just said.

Once I have amble time to lay in some back story to the world and the PC's are able to piece things together themselves, the Bard furthers his adventures elsewhere, or heroically takes the big fall for the PCs.

Even then, that's hardly a DMPC.

Deophaun

2012-05-07, 04:14 PM

Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.
And that is why DMPCs are not good, because there is always a better option available (hand them off to the PCs to run). Can you run a DMPC without ruining a game or it being a negative influence? Sure. But, why would you when the alternative is better?

MukkTB

2012-05-07, 04:57 PM

An NPC with the party is not automatically a DMPC. I've had players actively try to hire NPCs to come adventure with them for the added safety/power/utility. When that happens I don't suddenly let the player run the NPC. Not to mention NPCs that are plot relevant being on the same side of a conflict as the PCs.

Take order of the stick. If the main crew are PCs then sometimes they end up fighting on the same side as npcs. The defense of azure city has a number of cases like that.

A DMPC comes about when the DM decides some character is his personal avatar.

Killer Angel

2012-05-08, 02:31 AM

An NPC with the party is not automatically a DMPC.

Of course it's not.
A NPC that goes with the group to help them, usually takes no initiative and acts following the players' suggestions.
A DMPC acts on DM's will, and it's not subordinate to the PCs.

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 03:10 AM

Of course it's not.
A NPC that goes with the group to help them, usually takes no initiative and acts following the players' suggestions.
A DMPC acts on DM's will, and it's not subordinate to the PCs.

But even that isn't a DMPC.
For example some rogue that hires on with the party as a henchman. He sticks around with them but if they ever hand him some really expensive loot to carry hes gonna bail with his 'retirement fund.'

Or some really obnoxious (but competent) fighter who always goes on about honor and glory and wants to run screaming at every obstacle. The party needing to keep him under control and watch him if they don't want him to get them into trouble.

Neither of these is exactly passive. Neither of them are DMPCs in the traditional sense. Both of them are preferable to being followed around by characters with no motivation or personality. I like to encounter developed NPCs that seem to have their own motivations as long as those motivations are not 'Get Mukk to do what the DM wants him to.' I'm not playing a fantasy RPG because I like to fight next to generic swordsman dude #3.

Killer Angel

2012-05-08, 03:59 AM

I like to encounter developed NPCs that seem to have their own motivations

Of course you should meet NPC with their own agenda, but rarely they'll adventure with the group, and when they do it, it's for a short time.
At least, that's my personal experience, someone else can tell different stories.

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 04:01 AM

Gandalf from DM of the Rings
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612
^ First Strip. I couldn't find a single strip that really demonstrates, but this guy is an awful DMPC. Tells the PCs what to do. Outguns the PCs significantly. Still generally makes the PCs do the hard work.

Nailo from Unforgotten Realms
http://www.urealms.com/content.php?150-Unforgotten-Realms-Episode-1
About as good as DMPCs can go. The 'player needs a buddy' variety.

OOTS
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0391.html
This captain scoundrel guy isn't a DMPC even though he is an NPC aligned with the PCs doing something useful actively.

Darths and Droids
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0041.html
Here are some NPCs aligned with the PCs being doormats.

So we have examples of Bad DMPCs, Good DMPCs, active NPCs, and passive NPCs

MukkTB

2012-05-08, 04:08 AM

Of course you should meet NPC with their own agenda, but rarely they'll adventure with the group, and when they do it, it's for a short time.
At least, that's my personal experience, someone else can tell different stories.

Yeah they don't normally stick around all that long.

Rejusu

2012-05-08, 04:28 AM

Personally I wouldn't use them. There's too much danger of it being a Mary Sue. And even if it isn't a Mary Sue there's the danger the characters will perceive it as one anyway. If something bad happens to the PC they might just question why it didn't happen to the DMPC. Besides there's no good reason to use them anyway. Bolstering party numbers can be done by allowing leadership or giving the PC's an extra character to play. If you need a guide for the party then just use a temporary NPC. If you need it to be with the party a while just make it a total non-combatant that makes themselves scarce when the going gets rough.

Togo

2012-05-08, 07:32 AM

I've seen a lot of excellent DMPCs run, and my advice is to avoid them like the plague.

The basic problem is that a DMPC has an advantage that no player can ever match - he doesn't have to extract all his information about the world from the DM. So he always has a clear idea of what's going on, never misses an important detail the DM thinks is obvious, never gets faced with an unexpected rules call, never wastes time or resources doing something the DM thinks is a waste of time. Session by session, this kind of thing adds up.

I'd suggest not including any characters that are supposed to function as PCs. NPCs who are clearly superior or clearly subordinate, characters who don't have a role as a member of the party, and chair-warmers that you're only running because the players don't want to, they're all fine. But if you want to run a character that is a member of the group, then you shouldn't be DMing. Not because you can't artificially balance it to try and make it vaguely fair to the players, but because that character is missing an element of the challenge - having all their actions and information filtered through a DM.

Togo

2012-05-08, 07:59 AM

DigoDragon

2012-05-08, 08:09 AM

This is what I mean, but I tend to do the opposite. Rather than have the "DMPC" be the chosen one. I tend to make them the big bad.

I'm going through that scenario myself. With a twist-- the PCs KNOW that the character is the Big Bad and they are figuring out the Big Bad has been dethroned from the plot by a younger (but now more powerful) "Bigger Bad".

The reason I have the former Big Bad adventuring with the party right now is purely for RP opportunities and it has paid off like winning the Lottery. :smallbiggrin: While the Big Bad knew of her own plots and gambits and could tell the PCs everything, it is useless information now use the new Bigger Bad works with different plots and gambits. Any remaining minions the former Big Bad had are either-
1. slain by the PCs in former adventures
2. quit because the Big Bad can no longer pay them
3. switched sides and have joined the ranks of the Bigger Bad

What I find the best part is the party is split on what to do with the Big Bad once they take care of the Bigger Bad. My wife's character is actually trying to reform the Big Bad to be a better person and give up the evil plots.

So to make a long story short- (too late)
Thus far it has worked out beautifully.

legomaster00156

2012-05-08, 08:23 AM

I am currenting DM'ing a campaign with a group that has a highly fluctuating number of players. Before the campaign began, we expected 6-7 players. By the beginning of the game, we were down to 3.
I decided to toss in a single Paladin DMPC to join in, provide a meat shield for the squishier characters, and add a little healing to the party. In terms of roleplay, he is often silent when it comes to conversation with other NPC's (I let the players handle that), but he is quite talkative towards the other PC's when they're alone. It bolsters the roleplay.
Since the first session, the group has grown to an expected 4-7 players a week. For this reason, I am debating how best to get rid of the Paladin, but in a way that he might return should they ever need their bodyguard again. I have been presented with the perfect opportunity recently. The other players have commited massive crimes towards another world leader, while acting under orders of their own. Their own leader also happens to be the Paladin's goddess. He will shoulder the weight of the other player's crimes to the goddess, and he will Fall for it. He will then leave the party to seek redemption on his own.

Now, as you can see, I have no issues with DMPC's. I made sure to warn the players in advance that there would be an extra character, and recieved their permission. I make sure to keep his role as specific as possible. I will retire him as quickly as possible, now that he is no longer required. In short, you should be careful with DMPC's, but they are not inherently a bad thing.

killem2

2012-05-08, 08:45 AM

I will retire him as quickly as possible, now that he is no longer required. In short, you should be careful with DMPC's, but they are not inherently a bad thing.

You make a good point.

I only play a PC because, well, I want to play the damn game. I only DM because.. well someone has to be the dm.

Every single time it turns to my pcs turn, DM mode turns off, and I look at the battle like any other player would.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-08, 09:21 AM

I do not use them whatsoever. I have seen them create all manner of problems in the hands of others... I can build a perfectly useful world without the aid of a DMPC...so there's no reason I need them as a plot device.

I also tend to not have problems with lack of players. Usually, there's a waitlist. So, making up numbers is not an important reason. That said, even a solo campaign can totally be done(as I have), without a DMPC. You just build encounters appropriately.

If the PCs desire backup, they can take leadership or hire minions. They can also run them. So, no need for a DMPC there.

The desire to play a char? Well, as a DM, I run a lot of NPCs. These can all have backstory, clever builds, interesting roles in the world. Not having a DMPC does not prevent me from playing. And hey, while I DM frequently, I also play in other people's games. I encourage the cultivating of new DMs for this purpose.

So....I can't think of any reason I would want a DMPC in my game. As for reasons why I wouldn't want one....

Perception of favoritism. There doesn't have to actually BE favoritism for it to look bad. Perhaps the dice just love me today. Perhaps that random item drop really just happened to be perfect for my char. But still, I'd rather not deal with the perception of favoritism.

Perception of plot influence. People often assume the DMPC has plot knowledge. This may not always be the case...but it's still metagame thinking that isn't really beneficial to the story. Not a plus.

Unfair screen time. In basically any group, the DM spends more time talking and running NPCs than any PC. This is sort of necessary, since there's usually a lot of enemies, NPCs, etc. If the DM runs a PC in addition to all the other stuff...it increases his screen time. This is also not good. I want combat to be snappier, and to give my PCs more screen time, not less.

So, long story short, there's a lot of reasons to avoid them even if you are an excellent GM, and there is nothing that only they can accomplish. Therefore, they should not be used.

Oscredwin

2012-05-08, 10:13 AM

The basic problem is that a DMPC has an advantage that no player can ever match - he doesn't have to extract all his information about the world from the DM. So he always has a clear idea of what's going on, never misses an important detail the DM thinks is obvious, never gets faced with an unexpected rules call, never wastes time or resources doing something the DM thinks is a waste of time. Session by session, this kind of thing adds up.

This, this, god so much this.

Othesemo

2012-05-08, 11:11 AM

I'm currently running a DMPC which I've tried to make more tolerable in a few ways.

Firstly, he's a bard. Specifically, a Conductor Bard (a NeoSeraphi bard variant with better bardic music but no spells), meaning that most of his combat action is buffing the PCs, rather than actually fighting on his own (it also means that he can be a helpful source of information, since the party is missing a few knowledge skills). Additionally, his combat focus is on the longbow, meaning that he doesn't have much opportunity to be 'in the spotlight,' even when fighting (helped by the fact that the party tank is a combat beast). He doesn't get any of the Gold or XP, and he advances at one level behind the PCs at all times, with appropriate gear (not taken from the PC's loot).

Secondly, he adventures with the PCs because they saved his life, and he wants to repay that debt (and he likes them). I give them the option to take him along if they like, or leave him behind if they don't. They tend to like him so far, but should they decide that he isn't of use or that they don't like him, they're at liberty to just leave him behind.

Finally, he roleplays with the PCs only (this one is very deliberate- I created him originally to let the players roleplay more comfortably knowing that he was specifically on their side and in their service). I don't give him a place within NPC dialogue (though he'll often give his opinion on the matter once he's alone with the PCs).

In short, he exists with the purpose of assisting the PCs, and only if they want the assistance. I enjoy roleplaying him (and his greek accent), and he serves a useful purpose in the game.

Jergmo

2012-05-08, 11:55 AM

The introduction of DMPCs to my campaign was purely accidental on my part - my players were dead set on converting a character that started as a throwaway low level boss. Yet she became one of the most in-depth characters I've ever made.

Since then, DMPCs have been an important part of my campaigns and have never really caused any problems. The current DMPC was a random 10 year old girl that the last party met, an admirer of the party leader. The gang enjoyed her so much they practically demanded the next campaign feature her as an adult.

The last DMPC was an Enchantment-focused cleric, a very intelligent and blunt psychoanalyist type that acted as a party advisor.

The new DMPC is low Wis, high Cha and is the unofficial party leader, or is at the very least a catalyst for adventure.

Malimar

2012-05-08, 10:05 PM

My policy is this: the world, and every NPC in it, is my DMPC. I don't have any need to play a party member, too.

That said, if the PCs ask an NPC to come adventuring with them, the NPC might well accept, depending on their personality. If the PCs don't demand a DMPC, I'm not going to foist one off on them.

But, with one exception, no PC has ever asked any NPC to join the party (though I haven't really made it plot-relevant, and I don't know that I've ever made it explicit that asking NPCs to join is an option).

(The exception: one party specifically sought out and hired a pair of level 1 warrior hirelings. To tend the horses.)

JadePhoenix

2012-05-09, 01:16 AM

My policy is this: the world, and every NPC in it, is my DMPC. I don't have any need to play a party member, too.

I agree completely.

Killer Angel

2012-05-09, 02:14 AM

I only play a PC because, well, I want to play the damn game. I only DM because.. well someone has to be the dm.

DMing is pretty funny, only, the kind of fun is different from the one you have playing a character.
If you don't have fun doing the DM by itself, then you shouldn't DM. Doing it because "someone has to", imo is a wrong approach. And brings to the worst DMPCs.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-09, 07:21 AM

Tyndmyr

2012-05-09, 08:28 AM

DMing is pretty funny, only, the kind of fun is different from the one you have playing a character.
If you don't have fun doing the DM by itself, then you shouldn't DM. Doing it because "someone has to", imo is a wrong approach. And brings to the worst DMPCs.

In most things in life, someone who wants to do something does a much better job than someone who does it because they "have to".

If nobody in your particular group is a huge fan of DMing...share the job. Round robin DMing can work out quite well, or simply taking turns running shorter campaigns is fine.

And most people can DM just fine once they get used to it. Ive never run a campaign in which at least one player hasn't later gone on to DM.

killem2

2012-05-09, 08:31 AM

Agreed. If you don't want to be the DM, then don't be the DM.

Then we don't play d&d. :thog:

Sounds fun right?

JadePhoenix

2012-05-09, 08:34 AM

Then we don't play d&d. :thog:

Sounds fun right?

Here is a crazy idea: find someone that wants to DM.

Water_Bear

2012-05-09, 09:25 AM

Here is a crazy idea: find someone that wants to DM.

+1 to this.

I understand that DMing isn't everyone's cup of tea, and everyone eventually wants to step out from behind the screen. But you can't have it both ways; you are a player or a DM.

Every human being, first to last, will tend to view their own excesses more charitably than those of other people. It is easy to see where someone else is making a mistake, but people have to be trained to realize their own screw-ups and it isn't a foolproof process. A DMPC is dangerous because there is no-one to keep its player honest.

It seems like most DMPC stories run in one of two directions. Players complain about the annoying nanny characters who hustle them around and keep them on the rails, hogging the spotlight. DMs proudly recount how their DMPC keeps the players alive and encourages RP, built with interesting connections to the main plot. Somehow I sense a connection.

I don't think people who run DMPCs like that are bad DMs per se, it's just human nature to love what you create. That's why we have DMs in the first place, to be the one who adjudicates more impartially than a player could.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-09, 09:30 AM

Here is a crazy idea: find someone that wants to DM.

Yeah, if you're all doing the thing you want to do, it's more fun for all. Good times.

TuggyNE

2012-05-09, 04:52 PM

Every human being, first to last, will tend to view their own excesses more charitably than those of other people. It is easy to see where someone else is making a mistake, but people have to be trained to realize their own screw-ups and it isn't a foolproof process. A DMPC is dangerous because there is no-one to keep its player honest.

It seems like most DMPC stories run in one of two directions. Players complain about the annoying nanny characters who hustle them around and keep them on the rails, hogging the spotlight. DMs proudly recount how their DMPC keeps the players alive and encourages RP, built with interesting connections to the main plot. Somehow I sense a connection.

I don't think people who run DMPCs like that are bad DMs per se, it's just human nature to love what you create. That's why we have DMs in the first place, to be the one who adjudicates more impartially than a player could.

Or, in short, the old advice for writers: "Kill your babies." Any pet phrase, superbly clever little idea, or the like -- out it goes. If you're inordinately fond of something you create, scrap it and go with something different, or just rebuild it from the ground up.

Shadowknight12

2012-05-09, 05:06 PM

Or, in short, the old advice for writers: "Kill your babies." Any pet phrase, superbly clever little idea, or the like -- out it goes. If you're inordinately fond of something you create, scrap it and go with something different, or just rebuild it from the ground up.

Thanks for this, I had no idea this was common wisdom (I never heard of this, but I do it all the time). Now when people tell me I'm a good writer, I can just go "Nope, I just kill my babies. Unlike the rest of the hacks out there." :smallbiggrin:

Serpentine

2012-05-09, 05:57 PM

Nice to see a DMPC thread that isn't all "DMPCs are always bad".

I've talked about my DMPC on here many times. I can even give a link to her character sheet, if anyone wants to see it. Hell, my game's (slowly) moved online - you can go watch, or ask my players about her if anyone wants.

What problems has it caused?
Combat gets a bit slowed down. I've been working on ways to speed it up, and it won't be an issue at all online.
The usual issues of "favouritism" and metagaming and so on aren't issues. My character is a meatshield in a party mostly of casters, she's died three times - once was when I tried to remove her from the game, and once was AWESOME - and one thing my party as a whole doesn't have a problem with is metagaming.

What benifits?
I like having her around, and my group likes having her around - so much so that when I made a deliberate attempt to remove her from the game, they went out of her way to keep her in it. I'm told that they like her interactions with the group, and that her job is to get hit so the others don't.
I frankly don't need any better reason to have her in the game than that my group likes having her, but I also find her handy as a poking stick to keep things moving.

Never would use them?
It seems the successful use of DMPCs requires some very specific skills/traits, and the right sort of group. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone without them.

Always chuck one in?
Honestly, I originally only put her in in the first place because it was the way I'd always played. If I started a whole new game... Dunno. Maybe I'd use one again, maybe I wouldn't. Depends on the game, and the players.

DrDeth

2012-05-09, 08:55 PM

+1 to this.

I understand that DMing isn't everyone's cup of tea, and everyone eventually wants to step out from behind the screen. But you can't have it both ways; you are a player or a DM.

Every human being, first to last, will tend to view their own excesses more charitably than those of other people. It is easy to see where someone else is making a mistake, but people have to be trained to realize their own screw-ups and it isn't a foolproof process. A DMPC is dangerous because there is no-one to keep its player honest.

It seems like most DMPC stories run in one of two directions. Players complain about the annoying nanny characters who hustle them around and keep them on the rails, hogging the spotlight. DMs proudly recount how their DMPC keeps the players alive and encourages RP, built with interesting connections to the main plot. Somehow I sense a connection.

I don't think people who run DMPCs like that are bad DMs per se, it's just human nature to love what you create. That's why we have DMs in the first place, to be the one who adjudicates more impartially than a player could.

Good points. It's interesting to note that the only posters here who defend DMPCs are DM's who play DMPCs.

Folks, can you read this post and my prior post and think- really THINK, about whether or not your players love your DMPCs... or simply tolerate them?

Yes, players will try to keep the DM happy by keeping a DMPC in. Just like they will bring you DrPepper and Cheetos.

Serpentine

2012-05-09, 09:24 PM

Shadowknight12

2012-05-09, 09:31 PM

I had my DMPC tell another character that she shouldn't waste resources resurrecting her if she died, just take her shield and axe back to her homeland. And then murdered my DMPC. I had her stabbed through the heart in her sleep. She was dead. She was out of my game.
I did this specifically because of threads like this making me paranoid that my players secretly hated my DMPC, and that I was a bad DM for having one.
They used precious charges from their magic item to bring her back to life. I even paused the game there - I outright said "This is me trying to take my DMPC out of the game. Are you SURE you want to do this?"
They said no. They said, they wanted her in the game. My players said, they prefer the game with this character run by me, the DM, than the game without it.

*reads that post and the prior post*
*Thinks - really THINKS - whether my players like the DMPC or merely tolerate them*

...I'm gonna go with "they like the DMPC". And if they ever don't, they can tell me so. For now, it was my players' decision to keep her in the game at all.

Oh, and a while ago I actually straight-up asked a couple of my players what they think of DMPCs. The one who was most negative about them - who was "I don't like them, but I can put up with yours" - was the one who plunged the life-saving magic dagger into the DMPC's heart to save her.

I was waiting for you to share that one with us. I can't imagine anybody speaking in absolute terms after hearing your anecdotes. True, maybe disliking DMPCs is somewhat common, but you prove that not all DMPCs are bad, and that using a DMPC can sometimes improve the game.

For the record, my experiences with DMPCs have been a lot like Serpentine's. My players went out of their way to include DMPCs in the party even though I made clear they didn't have to (in one game, I created a bunch of DMPCs specifically to die instead of the players, to provide verisimilitude to the world while still letting the PCs have fun while the sacrifices were made by other people. They still went out of their way to save them).

DrDeth

2012-05-09, 11:24 PM

I had my DMPC tell another character that she shouldn't waste resources resurrecting her if she died, just take her shield and axe back to her homeland. And then murdered my DMPC. I had her stabbed through the heart in her sleep. She was dead. She was out of my game.
I did this specifically because of threads like this making me paranoid that my players secretly hated my DMPC, and that I was a bad DM for having one.
They used precious charges from their magic item to bring her back to life. I even paused the game there - I outright said "This is me trying to take my DMPC out of the game. Are you SURE you want to do this?"
They said no. They said, they wanted her in the game. My players said, they prefer the game with this character run by me, the DM, than the game without it.

*reads that post and the prior post*
*Thinks - really THINKS - whether my players like the DMPC or merely tolerate them*

...I'm gonna go with "they like the DMPC". And if they ever don't, they can tell me so. For now, it was my players' decision to keep her in the game at all.

Oh, and a while ago I actually straight-up asked a couple of my players what they think of DMPCs. The one who was most negative about them - who was "I don't like them, but I can put up with yours" - was the one who plunged the life-saving magic dagger into the DMPC's heart to save her.

So? Then just have her leave, just walk away. See what happens. You obviously have smart players.

as for

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowknight12
I was waiting for you to share that one with us. I can't imagine anybody speaking in absolute terms after hearing your anecdotes. True, maybe disliking DMPCs is somewhat common, but you prove that not all DMPCs are bad, and that using a DMPC can sometimes improve the game.
.
No. It's still a DMPC using DM saying how great his DMPC's are. I see no or few players here talking about how they love their DM's DMPC. Do you?
__________________

Shadowknight12

2012-05-09, 11:38 PM

No. It's still a DMPC using DM saying how great his DMPC's are. I see no or few players here talking about how they love their DM's DMPC. Do you?

I most certainly do! I'm playing an aasimar sorcerer in a party with not one, but two DMPCs, a shy, bashful, innocent drow magus and a mysterious fire genasi rogue, and my character is still trying to figure out who to get romantically attached with, if at all (and wondering if a threesome is out of the question). They make for great inter-party interaction, with my character and the drow being long-time friends and the fire genasi being a newcomer that has lured the attention of the aasimar. The banter between the three of them is frankly awesome, with lots of innuendo and joking around. They have the right mixture of friendly and sassy, and my character sure loves being the meat of the sandwich.

Of course, this is a solo game, so the extra party members are welcome and the attention placed on my character does not overshadow anybody. Having said that, it's still a case of two DMPCs done deliciously right.

Tvtyrant

2012-05-09, 11:48 PM

Good points. It's interesting to note that the only posters here who defend DMPCs are DM's who play DMPCs.

Folks, can you read this post and my prior post and think- really THINK, about whether or not your players love your DMPCs... or simply tolerate them?

Yes, players will try to keep the DM happy by keeping a DMPC in. Just like they will bring you DrPepper and Cheetos.

I have liked most of the DMPCs I have run across, and I find it slightly odd that you are couching this in terms of absolutes.

The first game I ever played the DM had a Ranger as the DMPC, whose purpose in life started out as a copywrited character clone, but evolved into a wand-healer/source of loans (seriously, having a character who uses most of their money to underwrite other character's item purchases is a God-send).

Rogue Shadows

2012-05-09, 11:56 PM

Personally?

What problems has it caused?
None that I can recall.

What benifits?
There's a few. The biggest it that a DMPC can plug a strategic gap in a party. Say you've got a warrior-type, a mage-type, and two rogue-types in a player group. Fair enough, but good luck keeping your HP up, guys. A DMPC priest-type for healing is just useful.

There's also the benefit of having someone who can help get things back on track if the PCs have wandered too far afield. Note that this is not necessarily railroading, but its my experience that even if a given PC group is told "in 100 days the world will end," they'll probably spend 50-60 of those days either goofing off or compeltely at a loss as for how to save the world.

Never would use them?
I've used them twice. Both times they tended to be basically background characters that hung out with the PCs and did little more than set up flanks and be an extra body in a fight, though once or twice they did speak up to the effect of "um, aren't we supposed to be saving the world?"

Always chuck one in?
No...but always hold one in reserve. Just in case.

Togo

2012-05-10, 05:31 AM

I was waiting for you to share that one with us. I can't imagine anybody speaking in absolute terms after hearing your anecdotes. True, maybe disliking DMPCs is somewhat common, but you prove that not all DMPCs are bad, and that using a DMPC can sometimes improve the game.

No, you don't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is simply impossible for DMPCs to be fun for the players, but the anecdote doesn't say anything other than that the players are roleplaying their characters, and the characters like and trust the DMPC and want them around. That doesn't mean that the players feel the game is better for having the DMPC around.

I played a game with a DMPC in it. The characters got on with the DMPC, and of course we wouldn't hesitate in using limited resources to help that character. My character liked that character, trusted that character, and I as a player enjoyed interacting with that character. It would have been a better game if that character had not been in the game.

Feedback from my own players, by which I mean a long and drawn out process whereby I get some opinions I can trust are honest, reveal the same dynamic. It's a wonderful character, we like interacting with that character, the game would be better without it.

Obviously you can have fun however you want, and I'm glad your players are enjoying your game. I'd still advise against DMPCs. Not because it's hard to do them well, but because they have and cause problems that is nothing to do with how well or poorly they are played.

Ranting Fool

2012-05-10, 07:37 AM

*reads that post and the prior post*
*Thinks - really THINKS - whether my players like the DMPC or merely tolerate them*

One of my players has been reading this thread went and told me that they really like my DMPC's and enjoy the character they bring to the world, but then he likes / hates a lot of my NPC's (As a DM I feel my job is done well when my players really care about what happens to any character I make, NPC or DMPC whether they go out of their way to save / rez (Yes they've spent their own cash to bring back a party member knowing that after such a death experience that character will retire from this risky life style or they really really just want to kill that BBEG whos plans they've been foiling for awhile)

Yes, players will try to keep the DM happy by keeping a DMPC in. Just like they will bring you DrPepper and Cheetos.

Bringing snacks to the table is a good way to keep your DM happy :smallbiggrin: though bringing me DrPepper or Jaffa Cakes is a good way to say "I hate you and will only bring snacks you dislike" :smallbiggrin:

I started this thread because i've seen a few negative comments on DMPC's and wanted to know what people really don't like (so I can go out of my way and avoid it) if my Players wanted to run a game without them i'd be happy to (less paperwork for me) but they always end up hiring NPC's to quest along with them to make up the lack of numbers/key role they are lacking and I end up having to play the NPC and i'd rather build someone with more flavour and detail for RP in mind then generic "Hire a level 4 fighter one week, hire a level 5 fighter the week after"

Combat slowdown: Yep I've had this, I often get players to take over my characters actions in combat so it's not me fighting againts myself. I've also had this with some classes (Summoners being the worst so far) taking a lot more time then other members of their party and making them feel like they have little impact.

The main difference I see in DMPC's Vs NPC's tagging along for one adventure is the amount of paperwork I seem to do :smalltongue:

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 07:53 AM

So? Then just have her leave, just walk away. See what happens. You obviously have smart players.Why? Why on Earth would I do that? What possible reason could I have to take away something my players have explicitly told me they like, and have specifically gone out of their way to keep, just because some stranger on the internet who has exactly zero to do with my game can't comprehend that my experience could possibly be different to theirs without me being either a liar or a moron, and my players being self-defeating liars? You say I have smart players: how about you give them some credit, then?

No. It's still a DMPC using DM saying how great his DMPC's are. I see no or few players here talking about how they love their DM's DMPC. Do you?
__________________*she. And I'm not saying "how great she is", I'm saying she works and my players like her, and therefore DMPCs are not always bad. That's it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is simply impossible for DMPCs to be fun for the players, but the anecdote doesn't say anything other than that the players are roleplaying their characters, and the characters like and trust the DMPC and want them around. That doesn't mean that the players feel the game is better for having the DMPC around.My players said, out of character, that they wanted her in the game. I don't understand what's so hard about this... And frankly, at this point, if they actually secretly really don't want her in the game, then it's their own damn fault. I'm happy to remove her - again - but until they tell me otherwise, I'm going to assume they want her there, seeing as that's what they've already told me, and I'm not going to take away something from my game the players like just because a bunch of people who have never played in one of my games can't believe that anyone could enjoy something they don't. If I do remove her from the game, it will either be because my players have eventually changed their mind about her, because I get tired of the extra work, or for plot reasons. None of those are issues right now.

Also I've been in many games with a DMPC. The first one was bad, but I didn't know D&D well enough to know it, but it didn't ruin the game (the game sorta ruined that game...).
The second one was good, although between the combined personalities of character and player tended to overshadow the party somewhat - not in power, but in behaviour. The game was great, and wouldn't've been the same - for the worse - without that character, I just think it could've been handled a little better.
The third is still going on, on this forum. Not sure whether he counts, as he's a PC whose player left, but it's been played like the DM's Personal Character, and has gone fine. Would've been a much smaller game without him. Think he's about to be replaced by a new PC, though. Pity, I quite like him.

Because, you know, my experiences just flat-out don't count, I'll go let my players know that this thread's going on, and they can contribute their own take on it if they want to. Not sure whether they will, but the option will be there. And like I said: the game's going on right now on these very forums, you're welcome to come watch how terrible my DMPC is, or read her character sheet and see how ferociously overpowered she is.

killem2

2012-05-10, 07:54 AM

Here is a crazy idea: find someone that wants to DM.

Boy you really hate DMPC don't you? So much so, you would rather ruin the session of everyone else, quite selfish, tisk tisk. :smallsmile:

Just because I don't want to be the DM and I am only DM because I have too, doesn't mean I'm bad at it.

So get your logic right, then come back and we can talk, ok.

Because, you know, my experiences just flat-out don't count, I'll go let my players know that this thread's going on, and they can contribute their own take on it if they want to. Not sure whether they will, but the option will be there. And like I said: the game's going on right now on these very forums, you're welcome to come watch how terrible my DMPC is, or read her character sheet and see how ferociously overpowered she is.

Of course it doesn't! Testimonials? You and I are just in denial.

DrDeth

2012-05-10, 08:00 AM

Of course, this is a solo game, so the extra party members are welcome and the attention placed on my character does not overshadow anybody. Having said that, it's still a case of two DMPCs done deliciously right.

Umm. No. Solo games, like rotating DM games, are unusual exceptions.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-10, 08:07 AM

Boy you really hate DMPC don't you? So much so, you would rather ruin the session of everyone else, quite selfish, tisk tisk. :smallsmile:

Just because I don't want to be the DM and I am only DM because I have too, doesn't mean I'm bad at it.

So get your logic right, then come back and we can talk, ok.

Boy you really love DMPC don't you? So much so, you would rather do something you dislike instead of finding someone who actually likes doind so, tisk, tisk. :smallsmile: /sarcasma

I'm not saying you're a bad DM. I'm just saying that some people like DMing. Find someone that does and everyone wins. How is that selfish? :smallconfused:

I was waiting for you to share that one with us. I can't imagine anybody speaking in absolute terms after hearing your anecdotes. True, maybe disliking DMPCs is somewhat common, but you prove that not all DMPCs are bad, and that using a DMPC can sometimes improve the game.

I'm going on a limb here, but you ruine Serpentine's argument.
She had a perfectly good point - "my players like my DMPC". She never stated anything other than that, just claiming from her experience that DMPCs can work. Well said. She convinced me, even.
Then you come along and say she "you can't imagine" anyone disagreeing with her. What? Serpentine's case is an exception. She is a DM that wants to DM, from the looks of it. You can't use her experience as grounds for debunking everyone else's experiences. Like Serpentine herself said, DMPCs are usually a bad idea. Some groups, just a few of them, her group included, seem to enjoy them. It's not for everyone. In general, DMPCs are still a bad thing, DM of the Rings being the most egregious example.

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 08:13 AM

Umm. No. Solo games, like rotating DM games, are unusual exceptions.They're a situation where DMPCs demonstrably help. Any "exception" debunks an absolute statement.

Boy you really love DMPC don't you? So much so, you would rather do something you dislike instead of finding someone who actually likes doind so, tisk, tisk. :smallsmile: /sarcasma

I'm not saying you're a bad DM. I'm just saying that some people like DMing. Find someone that does and everyone wins. How is that selfish? :smallconfused:A lot of gaming groups, so I gather, don't have an abundance of people who want to, or are decent at, DMing. Not everyone can just go out and find someone to DM for them. Sometimes it's the person who finds it least trying, or sometimes there's only one person who's any good at it and they find themselves DMing over and over and over again when what they really want to do is play. Should they just not play at all, or should they play the sort of game that makes it fun for everyone, even if it's not the sort of game you, personally, would like to play?

JadePhoenix

2012-05-10, 08:19 AM

A lot of gaming groups, so I gather, don't have an abundance of people who want to, or are decent at, DMing. Not everyone can just go out and find someone to DM for them. Sometimes it's the person who finds it least trying, or sometimes there's only one person who's any good at it and they find themselves DMing over and over and over again when what they really want to do is play. Should they just not play at all, or should they play the sort of game that makes it fun for everyone, even if it's not the sort of game you, personally, would like to play?
I agree completely. My point is just that finding a new DM would be a far more enjoyable solution. killem2 never raised the points you did, and I figured it simply wasn't his case.
I mean, I don't even live in the US and when I was booted from my last group, it took me less than a week to start DMing, then less than a week to find someone else to sub for me DMing for that group (because I wouldn't have time to DM, I was going to join another group as a player). The US being D&D's homeland, I figured it would be far easier.

Ranting Fool

2012-05-10, 08:21 AM

Just because I don't want to be the DM and I am only DM because I have too, doesn't mean I'm bad at it.

The last two (full) campaigns I've wanted to be a player and ended up DM'ing, after a few one off adventures with others trying out their DM shoes I agreed to start a campaign as a DM. Why? Because my group really rather enjoy my games (there is always times where people disagree or didn't like something, that is where feedback comes in) I wanted to be a player because it's a lot less paperwork and time involved then what I chuck into my worlds :smallbiggrin::smallcool::smallbiggrin:

As with all things in D&D if you don't like something, don't do it. :smalltongue:

Now I find people on the forum telling me things they really don't like to be rather helpful because it helps me avoid common dislikes (or at least see how people use rules in ways I've never thought of) but any and all of the rules can be changed to make the game whatever you the Players and DM feel fit best.

Which reminds me, I was thinking of making a world where there has never been any stairs. Or Ladders. (wasn't sure on flight) and have it play like the "Standard" D&D world but stairs have never been invented. Just to think "How would buildings be changed"

Water_Bear

2012-05-10, 08:30 AM

D&D 3.5 is played in a huge number of ways, and there will always be people who like something other people despise. Often in the same party, from my experience. :smalltongue:

Still, there are two things that I would like an answer to, from everyone.

What is your definition of a DMPC?
For me a DMPC is a Player Character played by the DM; as in a character at the same (or greater) level who takes a chunk of the gold and xp each encounter and participates in RP.

It seems like a lot of people are talking about what I would consider plot NPCs or Hirelings as DMPCs, which confuses me.

Do you like DMPCs as a Player? Why or Why Not?
It seems like an inordinate number of responses come from DMs here, and this really isn't about what the DM likes.

I think most DMs have a good read on their Players and what they like, but its more prudent to ask people directly than to work through an interpreter.

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 08:38 AM

What is your definition of a DMPC?
For me a DMPC is a Player Character played by the DM; as in a character at the same (or greater) level who takes a chunk of the gold and xp each encounter and participates in RP.Pretty much that. At its most basic, I'd say it's a character run by the DM that the DM considers their own in at least very close to the same way they'd consider their PC their own if they were not DM. I'd also expect them to spend significant time with the party, as a party member, taking a share of the aforementioned rewards.

Do you like DMPCs as a Player? Why or Why Not?Depends on the character, the DM, the game, the group... I wouldn't object to having one included in the game. My opinion after that is entirely depended on the specifics, which I would discover after having played with them for a while.
Mostly, though, as far as I'm concerned, they're just another PC. I'd prefer a DMPC where the DM wasn't self-conscious about it, holding the character at arms length and everyone being very aware that it's a "DMPC". I'd want one that's Just Another Character.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-10, 08:40 AM

So... perhaps I can sum up the hazards of using a DMPC. Also, provide a definition:

DMPC: A DM-controlled NPC designed to function as another adventurer in the PCs' Party that is intended to accompany the Party for the medium or long term.

Feel free to quote this definition for the future. With luck, we can at least make a Playground Standard :smalltongue:

Having seen a bunch of these threads by now, here are the standard hazards for using a DMPC. Note that these are hazards, not certainties: sufficiently skilled DMs (like Serpentine) can run DMPCs without any problems, and less-skilled ones can at least mitigate the harms.

(1) DMPC as DM Mouthpiece
Fairly or not, some Players see a DMPC and assume that this character is the DM's avatar in the world. At worst, the Players see the DMPC as a minder and think that following his plans and hints will guarantee a happy DM, if not success. At best, the Players view the DMPC as an extension of the DM they can interrogate in-character for clues about how the adventure is going to run -- does he think there will be traps? Should we trust Baron Evilpants? It can be difficult for a DM to separate his own knowledge from the DMPC's knowledge, particularly in the midst of a campaign, and nosy PCs don't make life any easier.

How to Avoid: If you're lucky, your PCs won't go this route. On the other hand, it can be wise to take precautionary measures such as having the DMPC be mistaken sometimes (particularly about things the PCs already know the truth of) or putting the DMPC in a more passive, or less knowledgeable role.

(2) DMPC as DM PC
Some DMs put DMPCs into games because they want to play too. Aside from the additional strain this puts on the DM's time, this approach can yield the same problems as self-insert fanfic: the writer shapes the story to focus on himself, rather than the other characters. At worst the Players are sidelined by the Mary Sue that is the DMPC; at best the DM subtly shades narrative events to preserve their DMPC and otherwise keep him relevant -- sometimes at the expense of the other Players.

How to Avoid: As always, keeping the DMPC in a more passive or secondary role is a fine place to start. If you set the DMPC in the background at the start, you will be less likely to treat him as a DM-controlled PC and instead view him as another part of the story. Additionally, if you treat the DMPC as just another NPC your Players will be less likely to be suspicious of the DMPC; suspicion can play hob with Player contentment.

(3) DMPC as Railroad Conductor
As mentioned in #1, some PCs will automatically view any DMPC as the Party's Minder -- someone designed to keep them on task, and within the rails of the plot. This perception is in part rooted in truth: it is very tempting to place a high-authority and/or -power DMPC within a party to make sure they stick to the adventure you planned out. At worst the DMPC is empowered with the very soul of the DM and is capable of mustering DM Fiat to keep the PCs on the rails at all time. At best the DMPC is simply a taskmaster who gets cross if the PCs do something "wrong" and threatens them with in-game punishment if they don't get serious.

How to Avoid: Don't use DMPCs like this except for the shortest intervals and with the newest of Players. It is all well and good to have Sir Adventureman introduce new Players to the word of RPGs; it is stunting to the Players' growth for him to still be leading adventures after that.

Anyone have other hazards to add? Or comments/criticisms?

Disclaimer: IMHO, using DMPCs is playing with fire. While I have heard stories of DMPCs being assets to games I have never personally been in, or run, a game where this was the case. When I have NPCs join the party they are either recruited by the PCs themselves or are short-term plot tokens of some sort (e.g. they lead PCs to treasure, they need escorting) and are rarely even on par with the PCs in terms of power.

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 08:49 AM

JadePhoenix

2012-05-10, 08:52 AM

You know, Serpentine. You are a seasoned DM and you seem to be one of the best regarding managing DMPCs. How about a handbook?

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 08:55 AM

Mmmmaaaaaybe... but it'd be full of waffling: "you probably shouldn't do this. But there might be a situation where you could do this, but it would be tricky, unless..." :smalltongue:

Also I'm not sure how I'd feel about writing any advice for DMs. I'm actually not a very good one - it's just that my DMPC is not amongst my many flaws, as far as I'm able to tell.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-10, 08:56 AM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-10, 08:58 AM

Nup. I prefer a definition that focuses on the relationship between the character and the DM, particularly as this seems to be where a lot of the suspicion stems from :smalltongue: (but it's actually not a bad one, that's just preference :smalltongue:)
Would you like to propose an alternative definition?

Favouritism, and/or the perception of favouritism, seems to be a big one. Not sure what "How To Avoid" advice you can give outside of "be fair, treat your character the same way you'd treat anyone else's including in what you allow or disallow, and don't play with players who distrust you before being given cause". Which pretty much boils down to "don't be an ********, and don't play with paranoid people".
I mostly put that down under Hazard #2, although suspicions of favoritism could certainly be their own Hazard. In any event the easiest way to resolve those suspicions is either by doing all of the DMPC's rolls in public (i.e. not behind the DM screen) or letting another Player make the physical die rolls. For the truly paranoid, placing the DMPC's character sheet for all to see is a solution but one that may be too extreme for most DMs.

But yeah, "design the DMPC using the same rules allowed to the Players" is also good advice.

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 09:06 AM

Would you like to propose an alternative definition?I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek there, but pretty much what I said before: "a party member character which is run by the DM as their personal character". I think the DM's personal character bit is the most important - from what I've seen, that personal attachment seems to be the source of the most serious problems as well as a lot of the appeal and benefits, and is I think the main thing that separates a DMPC from an NPC.

But yeah, "design the DMPC using the same rules allowed to the Players" is also good advice.I'd say that'd be one of the most important points, and Step 1 in making a DMPC that works. Outside, perhaps, of some very specific exceptions (which pretty much boil down to "helping the PCs be awesome), I think "don't give your DMPC anything, or build them in any way, you wouldn't let any other PC have" is absolutely essential.

edit: I'll consider writing a DMPC handbook after we see what, if anything, my players have to say about it. Not gonna be much point if they come in with "weeeelllll actually, Serpentine's kinda misrepresenting the situation... Only one of us like Kariana. The rest have been discussing ways to off her permanently while making it seem like an accident", will there?

Oracle_Hunter

2012-05-10, 09:12 AM

I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek there, but pretty much what I said before: "a party member character which is run by the DM as their personal character". I think the DM's personal character bit is the most important - from what I've seen, that personal attachment seems to be the source of the most serious problems as well as a lot of the appeal and benefits, and is I think the main thing that separates a DMPC from an NPC.
So mote it be.

DMPC: A party-member character which is run by the DM as their personal character.

Next time a DMPC thread comes up, cite this definition as the Playground Standard. With time and luck, it will be :smallamused:

Serpentine

2012-05-10, 10:19 AM

Huzzah! \:smallbiggrin:/
You do realise, though, there will be at least one or two people who don't accept that definition because it doesn't incorporate innate negativity, right?

lorddrake

2012-05-10, 10:54 AM

I use DMPC sometimes IRL they usually do something the party does not (healing, probably, because my players never make healing characters)...

They usually are the quiet type and they only do their stuff and are ordered around by the PCs.

And they die when the PCs reach certain level (when they can care for themselves) or they become the BBEPerson...

Shadowknight12

2012-05-10, 11:56 AM

Umm. No. Solo games, like rotating DM games, are unusual exceptions.

HAH. I knew someone'd say that. People will shift goalposts to avoid admitting they're wrong. So what if they're rare? Does it somehow diminish the enjoyment I had of the DMPCs? If all DMPCs were bad, wouldn't I had hated them all the same, whether I was in a solo game or with other players? All the perils that people have decried over and over in this thread, are they suddenly gone because it was a solo game? Of course not, don't be silly. Everything would still stand, and the fact that I enjoyed the presence of DMPCs means that nope, not all DMPCs are bad, regardless of whether the game is the most standard one you've seen or if it's just people playing underwater with scuba-diving suits (rarer than solo games, I'd wager). See, you keep shifting the goalposts to dismiss evidence against arguments, but anyone with a discerning eye can put two and two together and realise the truth.

Ironically, the DM I used as an example also has a group where they rotate DMs. Hilarious, huh?

I'm going on a limb here, but you ruine Serpentine's argument.
She had a perfectly good point - "my players like my DMPC". She never stated anything other than that, just claiming from her experience that DMPCs can work. Well said. She convinced me, even.
Then you come along and say she "you can't imagine" anyone disagreeing with her. What? Serpentine's case is an exception. She is a DM that wants to DM, from the looks of it. You can't use her experience as grounds for debunking everyone else's experiences. Like Serpentine herself said, DMPCs are usually a bad idea. Some groups, just a few of them, her group included, seem to enjoy them. It's not for everyone. In general, DMPCs are still a bad thing, DM of the Rings being the most egregious example.

Uh, no. Actually, I do say that I really can't imagine anyone ever saying "all DMPCs are bad" precisely because of Serpentine's experiences. It's plain logic. If there is at least one exception, one which is certifiable and indisputable, then yeah, you literally cannot say "all DMPCs are bad." You could say, at most "almost all DMPCs are bad" or "most DMPCs are bad." Which is something I'm perfectly okay with.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-10, 03:43 PM

edit: I'll consider writing a DMPC handbook after we see what, if anything, my players have to say about it. Not gonna be much point if they come in with "weeeelllll actually, Serpentine's kinda misrepresenting the situation... Only one of us like Kariana. The rest have been discussing ways to off her permanently while making it seem like an accident", will there?

And the fandom rejoiced!

Tyndmyr

2012-05-10, 03:51 PM

Umm. No. Solo games, like rotating DM games, are unusual exceptions.

Why would rotating DM games be an exception? My last rotating group, we had to make a rule banning people from playing or doing ANYTHING that would affect their char on their DM turn. And still we had problems with people pulling in ex-chars as overpowered god NPCs.

No, a rotating DM game is best served as not having the DM run a char while he DMs, and not messing with his char or chars at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is simply impossible for DMPCs to be fun for the players, but the anecdote doesn't say anything other than that the players are roleplaying their characters, and the characters like and trust the DMPC and want them around. That doesn't mean that the players feel the game is better for having the DMPC around.

This is also an interesting point. There have been plenty of times where the DM has introduced an element to a game that I thought was a poor choice in general...but my char would obviously jump at the chance. The same is true of many people I've played with.

For instance, playing a greedy rogue who loves to cheat and steal...and the DM happens to choose them as the person all jobs for the party get offered to.

Bad idea for the game? Absolutely can be. In many groups, it will lead to conflict and problems.

Will the rogue gleefully indulge in cheating his compatriots. Yeah, probably.

So, chars engaging with an DMPC is not the same as players liking a DMPC.

Killer Angel

2012-05-11, 04:10 AM

Shadowknight12

2012-05-11, 04:13 AM

A single anecdote is good but there's not so much difference between absolute and quasi-absolute.
Crossing the highway at night to reach the gas station is not a bad idea in absolute terms. Someone can succeed, thus reducing the loss of time. Still I wouldn't recommend it.
Luckily, the risk involved in DMPCs if a lot inferior...

And I have no problems with the assertion "There is great risk involving the use of DMPCs, but someone with sufficient skill, with the right players, can pull it off if they are very careful."

What I have issues with is the assertion "All DMPCs are always bad, no exceptions."

Killer Angel

2012-05-11, 04:24 AM

What I have issues with is the assertion "All DMPCs are always bad, no exceptions."

I agree with you on this.
My standard position on the argument is: "The risks are great, the benefits are minimal at best, so it's usually better to avoid them".

JadePhoenix

2012-05-11, 05:49 AM

And I have no problems with the assertion "There is great risk involving the use of DMPCs, but someone with sufficient skill, with the right players, can pull it off if they are very careful."

What I have issues with is the assertion "All DMPCs are always bad, no exceptions."

You know, I think you're fighting a windmill here.

Togo

2012-05-11, 07:04 AM

I'm saying she works and my players like her, and therefore DMPCs are not always bad. That's it.My players said, out of character, that they wanted her in the game. I don't understand what's so hard about this...

Noone on this thread has disagreed with you on this point.

I'd still advise people against using them.

And +1 on the definition. The critical point is the DM treating the character as his own, as you said. That helps differentiate the DMPC from the NPC.

This is also an interesting point. There have been plenty of times where the DM has introduced an element to a game that I thought was a poor choice in general...but my char would obviously jump at the chance. The same is true of many people I've played with.

A Monty Haul campaign for example. Noone is going to turn down easy fights and piles of loot, but that doesn't mean that the game is better as a result.

One weird example I came across was in a live action victorian steampunk game, full costumes etc, where people were playing various occult or steampunk characters. One guy had his character killed late on, and came back as a new character. Queen Victoria. It was one of the most memorable performances of the game, and people are still talking about it as a highlight of the game 10 years later. It also kinda killed the game, since an obviously historical character wandering around ruined the suspension of disbelief. People loved the character, and consider the game to be the better for it, but would I advise anyone to do something similar in their game? Heck no. It was a great stunt, but we only got away with it because the game was nearly over, because of the conditions that applied at the time.

Serpentine

2012-05-11, 12:27 PM

JadePhoenix

2012-05-11, 12:33 PM

Psssst. I didn't say that second bit :smallwink:

And maybe noone in this thread has said that (yet), but there's an awful lot of people doing their darndest to insist that I'm wrong or lying about the quality of my DMPC, or that my experience doesn't count.

You know, a handbook would really help explain your point to that people.
Or at least you could go ":smallsigh: Read this" and link it to them.
(Yeah, I really want to see that handbook :smallcool:)

Tyndmyr

2012-05-11, 12:44 PM

A Monty Haul campaign for example. Noone is going to turn down easy fights and piles of loot, but that doesn't mean that the game is better as a result.

One weird example I came across was in a live action victorian steampunk game, full costumes etc, where people were playing various occult or steampunk characters. One guy had his character killed late on, and came back as a new character. Queen Victoria. It was one of the most memorable performances of the game, and people are still talking about it as a highlight of the game 10 years later. It also kinda killed the game, since an obviously historical character wandering around ruined the suspension of disbelief. People loved the character, and consider the game to be the better for it, but would I advise anyone to do something similar in their game? Heck no. It was a great stunt, but we only got away with it because the game was nearly over, because of the conditions that applied at the time.

Every rule has it's exception, yeah. But, the people who need to look for advice need to learn the basic rules first. Learning when the rare exception is appropriate comes with practice. Whenever I see a new person in ANY discipline eagerly proclaiming that none of the rules apply to HIS awesome idea...I pretty much assume it's going to be terrible.

Advice online should be geared towards getting the foundations right first. Don't focus on exceptions. Yeah, sure, there MAY be exceptions where giving 10x normal wealth is great...but as a general rule, you shouldn't. 'Causes problems. I see DMPCs the same way.

Fyermind

2012-05-11, 02:59 PM

I planned a campaign for six. I got four players. Two of the more experienced and rules savvy players are doing double duty but consulting me and the group for RP advice. It works, and this way everyone knows I don't need to pull punches so much. At level 1 I am willing to kill any of the characters at the drop of a d20.

I could have used 2 DMPCs but I found another way to do it that gives me more time to focus on DMing the half dozen NPCs my players are trying to protect as well as my myriad duties simulating a multiverse.

I do have an NPC who occasionally fights with the PCs who is a level higher and very competent, but HATES GETTING BLOODY! He flees combat as soon as it is possible to do so and lets the players do all the fighting. They all love that he is there, and I often join in on discussion for how they could kill him. It's been almost a dozen sessions since the first time they expected him to join in a fight, and they still haven't killed him off, mostly because he hasn't paid them yet. Once they get their dues there will probably be a showdown where he gets VERY, VERY BLOODY.

My feeling on NPCs who run with the players, is that they are easy to ruin a game with, and hard to improve a game with. I remember my first few games as a player had DMPCs in the, and they just weren't fun. Where I live we have more players than DMs, so a lot of DMs try to do both at once. It doesn't work.

Active NPCs or NPCs who help out on a specific adventure are often great plot devices. They can totally bring a game from mechanically great but indistinct story-wise, to terrific story-wise and mechanically good enough.

The one time I really did use an DMPC was when I'd planned out a dungeon and my players showed up with a party that could not heal, or find/disable traps. I played an artificer who carried a lot of scrolls of lesser vigor and MWK thieves tools and let the players boss him around.

killem2

2012-05-11, 03:56 PM

Tyndmyr

2012-05-11, 04:03 PM

Just too bad many of you aren't willing to use a pc. (complexity aside of course, if its already too much to manage, don't do it)

My group loves it, we have a great time. They learned very fast that my PC is no more of an advantage or disadvantage in social or combat situations.

And if you reasons are because you just don't want to, nothing wrong with that. I'm just tired of the constant barrage of hate that comes with me playing a PC.

Because I promise, most of these damn horror stories about a dm playing a pc, is a a dramatization.

I can give you some horror stories that I've actually been there for, if you'd like. Can promise that nothing is dramatized. Lots of terror. Screaming. Railroading and plot DMPCS that break reality.

Not a lot of hate for you, though. Just the DM that did it. I suppose I could add some hate if you really want it, but it seems pointless.

JadePhoenix

2012-05-11, 04:10 PM

Just too bad many of you aren't willing to use a pc. (complexity aside of course, if its already too much to manage, don't do it)

My group loves it, we have a great time. They learned very fast that my PC is no more of an advantage or disadvantage in social or combat situations.

And if you reasons are because you just don't want to, nothing wrong with that. I'm just tired of the constant barrage of hate that comes with me playing a PC.

Because I promise, most of these damn horror stories about a dm playing a pc, is a a dramatization.

Wow, saying everyone that disagrees with you is just lying is really going to make us agree with you.

Rejakor

2012-05-11, 04:19 PM

DMPC's are called NPCs. DMPC is by definition a DM or GM trying to have a character that they want to succeed, their 'DMPC', in the group with real PCs. That's never a good idea, for blindingly obvious reasons. Ever.

The people who can play through an adventure, learn all the secrets, and then play through it again are the kind of people who treat their character as an NPC for the duration, while other people who haven't experienced it are playing through it.

Not even counting that, even if the DM is perfect at separating in and out of character knowledge, any time you spend 'playing your DMPC', any moment where you don't treat it like any other random npc, you're taking time away from the players being in the spotlight, and away from furthering the story. If you aren't, then that npc would be on-stage anyway, so it's a moot issue, and you're treating it just the same as any other npc.

Basically, altering the rules by which you have npcs in the spotlight/play npcs in order to pay special attention to a single npc, your 'DMPC', takes spotlight off the players, opens up all kinds of mary sue bull****, and wastes time that could be spent on the players. Honestly, as the DM, you should be run off your feet with the time you have to play npcs and run fights and answer questions anyway.. if your players are putting up with a pace slow enough to go through Beedo the Halfling Paladin/Bard that you played in your first campaign's personal anguish about his lost love Magdalena the Sorceress/Druid, well either it's interesting improv that you would have done even with them as npcs, or you're wasting everyone's time and they're putting up with it as opposed to enjoying it.

Serpentine

2012-05-12, 10:06 AM

Wow, saying everyone that disagrees with you is just lying is really going to make us agree with you.Welcome to my world :smallsigh:
I actually disagree with them, btw. I have no doubt that there are a lot of truly horrendous DMPCs out there, just like there's no doubt hundreds of utter munchkins. It's completely outside my experience so it boggles my mind that it can be so, but still, I believe and sympathise.

Rejakor: See - my experience, which contradicts your claims.

PersonMan

2012-05-12, 01:06 PM

Someone mentioned that one doesn't see many players talking about good DMPCs. This is, in part, due to the whole 'people tend to complain about the trainwreck DMPC online more than they mention the well-done DMPC' thing.

Anyways, with that aside, I'll mention a case in which I think a DMPC has added to the game. The DM seems to tend towards games and plots with heavy NPC ties. I'm not entirely sure which of the two people who travel with the party qualify - or even if they match the 'DM considers them their PC' criteria, but they certainly seem close enough that I consider them DMPCs. One is a human warlock and the other an elven ranger. The ranger took a more leading role for part of the mission, as we were going through a forest none of us apart from her knew and the warlock tends to take a bit of a back seat when making decisions, although she's always there.