THE DM INCARNATE: A means to play without playing?

[visigani]

The Cloistered cleric seems tailor made to be a DM stand in.

A cloistered cleric of istus with the luck, destiny, and knowledge domains could serve to provide the players with vital information, extra rolls, and divinations... in a manner easily controlled by the DM.

Further, the cloistered cleric would always hang back in combat, tending to needs as they arose... and could be the source of numerous plotpoints in and of himself simply by virtue of his usefulness.

He also allows the other players to be flashy without investing too much into what would otherwise be necessary, if not a little boring, skills and abilities.

Finally, he's a character the DM can play even as he's playing the part of DM.

[Miriad]

No. The DM Should never play.

[Eonir]

I find these guys (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bardVariantBardicSage) make great DMPCs as well.

[Fighter1000]

I find your idea to be a very useful campaign tool that I have used on numerous occasions. It can lay a foundation for a successful and good campaign. I daresay a campaign cannot be very successful without such an NPC in it.

[lsfreak]

The DM is not supposed to be in the PC's group.

If there's an NPC with the group, it should have a good, clear reason to be involved during this adventure ("they know a lot about the dungeon they're going to today" is legitimate, "the party sought out and hired them" is as well, "'they're part of the adventuring group" is not). If it's there for more than one part of one storyline, it needs a damned good reason to be there, not just a good one.

The DM interjecting himself as a character in the group should not be done, no matter how flat the character is and how much he acts like a walking hospital. Offering up free information is crossing the line even more, imo, robbing the players of interesting interactions with actual, fleshed-out, interesting NPC's, rather than a "totally not the DM's PC"-PC that's purposefully dumbed down from a living character in order to not steal the PC's spotlight.

[Phelix-Mu]

No. The DM Should never play.

The DM can and does play, in the form of NPCs. NPCs should be limited to ones that have some business being in the setting and are involved somehow with the plot.

Much has been spoken of the ills of DMPC, so let it suffice to say that a DM should avoid hogging spotlight with NPCs. If the DM has a character and is good at role-management (some of us do have that skill), then a PC-ish character run by the DM can do just fine. If the whole point of the DMPC is to just be super cool and show off, not cool. The story is about the PCs, and even if the DM has a character (necessary for some campaigns with small groups or with rotating DMs), you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS completely avoid any level of metagaming between your DM knowledge and your PCs actions and knowledge. Any overlap immediately implodes believability.

Now, I expect flack for this position, but I think forums tend to be a place where worst case scenario and horror stories are bandied about, along with immortal legends of non-play, like Pun Pun and Tippy. In reality, good DMs can have fun without having some cloaked all-powerful stand in, and if a character is necessary, it need not become some abomination from beyond the stars. Let the actual players drive the plot. Play a support class, or fill a party role that allows the actual PCs to drive the action in the roles that the players actually want to play, and so forth. A recurring NPC of this nature is little more than a plot-device given flesh, and can be a fun "friend of the party" thing to have going on.

Competitive op between the DM and the players is, ofc, anathema, since DMs hold all the cards the players hold and all the DM win buttons too. Please don't have a PC just so you can have a character that says "and rocks fall, killing everyone."

[AuraTwilight]

DMPC's are, 99 times out of 100, completely and totally a bad idea.

[ArcturusV]

I feel the issue here is... you're creating a DMPC for something that doesn't need to exist, and can make a much richer experience if it didn't exist. It's not... helpful. Well, it's helpful but it also is Lazy.

Here's what I mean:

Your party is about to undertake some adventure out onto a large glacier to delve into some half swallowed up tower in the ice, etc. With your Cloistered Cleric DMPC they just go and ask for a few divinations and you tell them whatever hints you want them to know about the Ice Tower, it's denizens, threats they may face, etc. All that really happened was people turned to you as the DM and said "Hey, make your cleric tell us everything we need to know. We'll take a few days off so you can divine enough to know what we want." Cast a few Endure Elements on the party, Create Food and Drink as needed, have healing ready to go, give out wilderness survival lore, etc.

Now... compare to WITHOUT the Cloistered Cleric DMPC:

Your party is about to undertake some adventure out onto a large glacier to delve into some half swallowed up tower in the ice. One of your players go, "Well this tower is mostly buried right. So it's existed here for a LONG time. It might not even BE from around here. We need someone who knows a lot about history and not just local history... maybe we should find a sage who can answer some questions about it?" Other players nod, you go, "Well there's a well known Library in the (Some city a distance away)." BAM. You have another adventure. It's not just handed to them, it gives them something to do. Sure it sidetracks them a little but when they get the vital clue about Archmagus Blows **** Up and use it to beat the final boss, they'll feel a lot better about it because they got the answer through their own sweat, blood, and tears. Without a Cleric to just pop out "endure elements" and provide food, water, healing, etc, you have them trying to scrounge supplies, which can be another adventure hook as the town they're basing out of in the Arctic isn't exactly swimming in enough extra gear to just give out. You may try to find a local hunter who knows the Glacier well and can be their guide, showing them to correct path instead of relying on auguries and such.

You just suddenly have so much more to DO. You can make interesting contacts with strange NPCs (The hunter, library, town mayor to get supplies, etc). You are rewarding players for preparing rather than preparing FOR them. If they skimp? They have a harder time of it and this is perfectly right.

[nedz]

Whilst I occasionally have NPCs accompany the party a DMPC is a bad idea for several reasons.

If the NPC is going to be with the party for a while then I prefer the players to run them. This is because the DM should be far too busy to run NPCs, especially in combat.

The main problem is one of agency. If there is a problem which the party need to solve then the DM is compromised. It is very hard, if not impossible, to genuinely separate IC knowledge from OOC knowledge. The DM will know the solution to the problem and may be forced to have the NPC act to resolve it.

[Fyermind]

While I sometimes have NPCs work with the party, I would never use a tier one. Cloistered clerics are too versatile and powerful. I have occasionally on a very melee heavy party (Crusader, Warblade, Factotum, Dragonfire adept) lent the party a bard.

It made sense to the plot, and he helped them overcome a powerful red dragon with his dragonfire (ice) inspiration. They later sought out his help again when they were trying to help a small population of recruits defend a village from hobgoblins hordes.

I made sure he died in that part of the story arch so they didn't keep calling on him to solve their problems. He buffed their damage considerably, had access to bardic knowledge, divinations, and several save or lose spells.

Cloistered clerics have all the problems my bard did at lower levels and to a greater degree. Furthermore, they don't have a lot of the good things. They don't provide easy calculable numerical bonuses for doing something that eats their actions in combat without invoking spells. Further, because they prepare their spells, they can come in with literally any cleric spell they want. That is far too powerful.

[rockdeworld]

On the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable to have that character as a venerable mentor figure who never leaves his house, only to kill him off halfway through the campaign.

Just kidding. I love the other comments posted :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

I daresay a campaign cannot be very successful without such an NPC in it.

Wait. What?

[Story]

along with immortal legends of non-play, like Pun Pun and Tippy.

Nitpick: The Tippyverse has seen actual play. It's just a setting (or more accurately a type of setting).

[Shining Wrath]

I find the DMPC to be workable. Such a PC should be low charisma and / or low wisdom, so they won't be doing the party face bit, and won't notice things others don't.

A big sullen barbarian who is the perfect mindless meat shield lets the rest of the party run the characters they want rather than someone who wants to play a Tier 1/2 having to play a Tier 4 to keep the party balanced.

[Vaz]

I occasionally have a mule type character who has access to crucial piece of equipment. Because our group ia quite new and Im really the only one who likes Optimizing and so spend time on these boards and learn of useful pieces of kit like the Basement, I use it to teach, if I know the party is going traveling without something required in time critical quests. "What do mean you came without Rope? Good job i'm here then, you'd be lost without me." They tend to learn a bit quicker, and are grateful that the game doesn't end with 'and you weren't able to climb the cliiff to the wizards keep in time to stop the portal completion, drowning the world in Elementals., Game over". He isn't much of a fighter, usually taking out of combat utility and dips, like a Factotum sort of character without the potential for abuse.

There will be a stage that they will no longer need him.

[Phelix-Mu]

Nitpick: The Tippyverse has seen actual play. It's just a setting (or more accurately a type of setting).

My bad. I think my point still stands. The bad part about the DM having a character is that it might draw attention, role play and fun away from the PCs. If you can avoid this, it's hardly the crisis that people make it out to be. In campaigns where I DM and have a PC (often for irl strategic reasons, rotating DM or small group), I occasionally have the PC out of commission, off doing something else, and such, and make time for individual role play with characters, incorporating their backstories and trying to get them interested in setting-based stuff (affiliations and such, if they don't want it, I just let it slide, it's there if they want it), and crafting. My character does cool things (cause npcs do cool things too, and I want to give the players an example of what they could be doing...I keep it sensible) and helps the other characters do cool things.

In the last campaign there was no arcane caster in the campaign, so I had my character gish a bit and he could do handy stuff that the party otherwise would have had to farm out (and since they were a bunch of sociopaths, they probably wouldn't have done a very good job on that account, either).

Over all, it eased play along with my group. Some groups won't like this, and be understanding. With experienced players (my group is not so much...or rather not back then, they are growing up so fast...:smalltongue:), a DM probably will have their hands full, especially if player system mastery matches or exceeds DM system mastery. I am pretty far ahead of my friends, and I can swing it. My game specializes in a cast of thousands-type feel, so there are tons of NPCs with personalities, names, class levels, roles in their communities, simple backstories, missions of their own, etc, etc. My character is just another cast member, one that, for one reason or another, works alongside the characters more.

I usually don't play problem-solvers in this case, but people with some combat skill and support-type utility. Like I said before, it's like a plot-hook that is friends with the PCs. I strictly segregate DM knowledge from PC knowledge (it's not that hard for me...does that make me strange?) and if my often boneheaded PC doesn't know that there is a trap right there? Well, sucks to be him. I am perfectly capable of bringing the hammer down on my own handiwork as well as that of the players. I do get sentimental sometimes...but it never lasts. Desire to kil...I mean, challenge the players and their characters is my first love.

On the other hand, what the OP is suggesting is silly, no offense meant. Avatar of DM is strange, setting-wise, and smacks of weirdness like Power Rangers or Tomb of the Crypt-Keeper stuff, some all-knowing npc that enjoys watching his lessers run around and do chores and missions for him, even when he knows the big picture. Later he tells them the big picture. But only in dribs and drabs, for maximum dramatic effect. Expect many a player character to make a move to kill said Avatar, because PuppetMasters are irritating.

[rockdeworld]

Nitpick: The Tippyverse has seen actual play. It's just a setting (or more accurately a type of setting).
He was talking about the Tippyverse? I assumed it was [insert fantastic thing Tippy has done here].

Like creating Pun-Pun with epic magic via Origin of Species and a mind swap spell.

Or the epic "Enslave the Nation" spell.

etc. :smalltongue:

[Acanous]

Incorporating a DMPC in your adventure is like taking out a large loan with high interest.
The bank providing the loan are your playes, the money is their confidance in your session, and the DMPC is what you bought with it.

It is now your responcibility to ensure they have MORE fun than they would have otherwise, to do a BETTER job as a DM. They WILL be watching you for favoritism, plot leaks, betrayal, spotlight hogging, magic item/spell selection, and any mistakes you make compound.

Really, you are better off not doing it, but few people listen. Who isn't in debt these days?