DM playing a PC in their campaign

[Dark Hawk799]

How do players feel about a DM who runs the campaign and plays a PC?

[The Glyphstone]

DMPCs are Sturgeon's Law transplanted into RPGs - 90% of them are crap, and actively make the game worse.

[Rhynn]

DMPCs are Sturgeon's Law transplanted into RPGs - 90% of them are crap, and actively make the game worse.

Exactly this. The frequency with which DMPCs go together with bad DMing (even in my own experience as a DM!) is high enough that DMPCs are a warning sign.

If the DMPC is also an old PC of the DM's, it's basically a guarantee of a horrible railroad experience where the DMPC gets the spotlight and the players get to be an ingrateful audience.

[Tholomyes]

Yeah. DMPCs can be good when there are too few players, but in general, they're usually not good, if not actively bad.

Essentially, at best, a DMPC should fill a necessary role that none of the other PCs do, and not overshadow the PCs in other respects. If they do that then fine. If they start to overshadow the PCs, then they're actively detrimental.

[Sactheminions]

This is seen as the kiss of death. Generally speaking, this kind of thing devolves into "making the DM's PC look cool at the expense of the game" rather quickly.

There is a difference between NPC's who come with the party, and a DMPC. If your DM can maintain his distance, it can be fine to have other characters along, and in some kinds of campaigns (think military) it is essential anyway.

Usually, with an actual DMPC, it is only a good thing if they are (a) mostly comic relief; or (b) driving the plot through their own mistakes.

[Rhynn]

Yeah. DMPCs can be good when there are too few players, but in general, they're usually not good, if not actively bad.

Essentially, at best, a DMPC should fill a necessary role that none of the other PCs do, and not overshadow the PCs in other respects. If they do that then fine. If they start to overshadow the PCs, then they're actively detrimental.

I prefer to just use NPCs (there absolutely is a difference between a tag-along NPC and a DMPC, hence the separate term), or to have the players run multiple PCs. Either way, the players should control them in combat, because why should I?

[Tragak]

Yeah. DMPCs can be good when there are too few players, but in general, they're usually not good, if not actively bad.

Essentially, at best, a DMPC should fill a necessary role that none of the other PCs do, and not overshadow the PCs in other respects. If they do that then fine. If they start to overshadow the PCs, then they're actively detrimental. Bingo. The most important rules I've found on the internet are: 1) let the players decide what role the DMPC will play in the party and 2) keep it a few levels lower than the other PCs.

[pbdr]

I agree that the DM PC is a bad idea, but is there a way to make this more of a DM NPC that travels with the group?

How about if the DM "plays" a buffing/healing cleric with maxed out ranks in knowledge skills (better yet, cloistered cleric)? Could that work? I've been in the situation with my current group where I've thought of going this route as DM.

I know it's a slippery slope, but figure a purely support caster could be OK.

[Tholomyes]

It's a bit slippery slope, since a support caster can even be used problematically (Essentially, if the party is so reliant on the healing and buffs of the caster, that they are de-facto railroaded to follow whatever the NPC wants). I'd be careful with it, but it's more likely to work, than other stuff. Just make sure to keep in mind the NPC is still an NPC, even when tagging along with the party.

[killem2]

I think its really fun. I played a wizard as the DM for about 4 sessions, but it just got too demanding for to keep up with my enemies as well. One less player is one less set of dice rolls.


DMPCs are Sturgeon's Law transplanted into RPGs - 90% of them are crap, and actively make the game worse.

90% of the stories have no actual proof or basis, they just assume that since the DM has the power giving him a link to the player side of things, it is going to get abused. It's unfounded.



Exactly this. The frequency with which DMPCs go together with bad DMing (even in my own experience as a DM!) is high enough that DMPCs are a warning sign.

If the DMPC is also an old PC of the DM's, it's basically a guarantee of a horrible railroad experience where the DMPC gets the spotlight and the players get to be an ingrateful audience.

It's pretty much a straw man argument. The average group who plays d&d usually would never need to have a DM play with them, but like most everyone just assumes it's the end of the world when they do. I played with a wizard (which before I came to this forum or any forum apparently is god's gift to D&D) and I thought I was in the 50s or something with the level of extreme prejudice that came from people here, despite me asking honest and open questions about the mechanics of it. However, everything just assumed the worst.

It's just peer pressure and the popular and cool thing to do on the d&d forums to hate on DMPCs.



Yeah. DMPCs can be good when there are too few players, but in general, they're usually not good, if not actively bad.

Essentially, at best, a DMPC should fill a necessary role that none of the other PCs do, and not overshadow the PCs in other respects. If they do that then fine. If they start to overshadow the PCs, then they're actively detrimental.

A DMPC is is just a PC. Nothing more. Only those who have a nice bag of sterotypes and insults add on the DM part.




This is seen as the kiss of death. Generally speaking, this kind of thing devolves into "making the DM's PC look cool at the expense of the game" rather quickly.

There is a difference between NPC's who come with the party, and a DMPC. If your DM can maintain his distance, it can be fine to have other characters along, and in some kinds of campaigns (think military) it is essential anyway.

Usually, with an actual DMPC, it is only a good thing if they are (a) mostly comic relief; or (b) driving the plot through their own mistakes.

No it doesn't, stop generalizing. An ACTUAL DMPC (which again, is just a pc) is just the dm playing a character without meta gaming.

I like how once you become DM you some how lose the ability NOT to metagame, because that, is the root at the straw strawman arguement here.


I prefer to just use NPCs (there absolutely is a difference between a tag-along NPC and a DMPC, hence the separate term), or to have the players run multiple PCs. Either way, the players should control them in combat, because why should I?

NPCs are great, a PC totally different, and I can see why many DMs don't do it, because they don't know how to do it right.


Bingo. The most important rules I've found on the internet are: 1) let the players decide what role the DMPC will play in the party and 2) keep it a few levels lower than the other PCs.

If you're playing with friends, it should not have to come down to ANY of these rules. I don't know about the groups you've been with, but they would not give to craps about me playing a PC while dming.


I agree that the DM PC is a bad idea, but is there a way to make this more of a DM NPC that travels with the group?

How about if the DM "plays" a buffing/healing cleric with maxed out ranks in knowledge skills (better yet, cloistered cleric)? Could that work? I've been in the situation with my current group where I've thought of going this route as DM.

I know it's a slippery slope, but figure a purely support caster could be OK.

The only slipperly slope about it all is trying to make a slipperly slope arguement out of it.



It's a bit slippery slope, since a support caster can even be used problematically (Essentially, if the party is so reliant on the healing and buffs of the caster, that they are de-facto railroaded to follow whatever the NPC wants). I'd be careful with it, but it's more likely to work, than other stuff. Just make sure to keep in mind the NPC is still an NPC, even when tagging along with the party.

Nothing to be careful with. With the DM in question is a narsasticic jerk who has such ego problems that he can't properly DM and run a character of his own.



I think most of the replies against a DM who wants to run his own PC are clear sign of the type of people you actually play with.

[CIDE]

I only included a DMPC once and only once. It was purely by accident. It was a villain (not a BBEG though) that was sent to capture the party and eventually interrogate them. Rather than having the encounter go ANYTHING like I imagined half the party escaped, the other half was captured. Those captured broke free then beat down (and not killed) the bad guys.

Turned into a mess with the mutual survival requires everyone to work together and when some PC's (ater the big fight) want to willingly go with the bad guy. The party ultimately fell apart but the did have a DMPC in their midst for about a session and a half.

[ArcturusV]

Killem seems pretty level headed about this. It's not a horrible thing really. It sometimes is. But the thing is... if it was going to be horrible with the DM's PC, it was going to be horrible regardless. The same impulses that lead to these DMPC horror stories aren't unique to DMPCs. It still happens even if you tell the guy they can't have one. Suddenly you have Cameo NPCs doing the same thing. Or the Villain gets it. Or you find your DM is going on side stories where he's telling you about how badass this guy off screen is, etc.

I don't really see a causation between the two. It's deeper than that. It's about how people approach storytelling, what they think is interesting, etc. Which side of the screen, and what character does it, doesn't really make it any better or worse.

So it comes down to how your DM approaches the storytelling. I prefer to make it about the Journey myself. The payoff isn't in "look how shiny we are" or the like, it's about being able to look back and say "Daaaaamn... look at all we accomplished to get here". Since THAT is the payoff in campaigns I run, the DM's PC thing isn't really a concern. I'm setting it up so everything seems hard and insurmountable so that when you finally do accomplish something, you feel as if your journey payed off. That means it's pretty much impossible to have the horror story DMPC and still tell that sort of story. The guy who's perfect at everything, all powerful, sails through encounters and everything revolves around.

But if the payoff I went for was "Look how awesome you are" and it's all about building up people to think they're some Golden God, that sort of storytelling leads easily into the Horror Story DMPC. Particularly since you typically, in that sort of story, want the Zero to someone's X (Megaman X Reference), show someone that the PCs will want to become, someone they can look up to, and feel good about eventually surpassing.

Unfortunately in DnD it tends to go horribly. Heck... Elminister. Need I say anything else?

[Water_Bear]

I don't do it myself, for two main reasons;

Firstly, it goes into "DM's Girlfriend" (sexist name, I know, but there's not a good replacement) territory. If the DM has too close a personal connection with a Player, the other Players will assume that anything good which happens to that PC is a sign of favoritism. I had friends giving me **** about letting my then-girlfriend play a Catfolk in my all-supplements-allowed 3.5 game, so the idea that I would get any benefit of the doubt running a PC myself is silly.

Secondly, there is a bit of a metagaming issue. It's easier to keep information NPCs know seperate from what I do because they're fairly distinct from my personality, but any PC I'd want to play has enough of me in there that the lines get blurrier. And the DM doesn't just know about setting details, but the placement and DCs of traps, all the rumors in town and how accurate they are, the round-to-round tactics of every single enemy in a fight, etc.

[crayzz]

It's pretty much a straw man argument.The average group who plays d&d usually would never need to have a DM play with them, but like most everyone just assumes it's the end of the world when they do.

-SNIP-

I like how once you become DM you some how lose the ability NOT to metagame, because that, is the root at the straw strawman arguement here.

I like how both your accusations of building straw men are either followed by or preceded by straw men you've handily built yourself. No one said it was the end of the world, and no one said DM's lose their ability to not meta-game. The only argument put forward was that usually bad DMing goes hand and hand with DMPC's.

Also, I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. It's neither making unjustified assumptions, nor is it overgeneralizing, nor is it starting with a false premise.



A DMPC is is just a PC.
-SNIP-
An ACTUAL DMPC (which again, is just a pc) is just the dm playing a character without meta gaming.

There's an interesting contradiction here. The first I almost agree with; a DMPC is a just a PC, albeit one played by the DM. The second is rather odd though. You've arbitrarily restricted DMPC to "DMPC without metagaming". How does an instance of a DM metagaming with their PC not constitute "[a]n ACTUAL DMPC"?

[The Glyphstone]

Killem seems pretty level headed about this. It's not a horrible thing really. It sometimes is. But the thing is... if it was going to be horrible with the DM's PC, it was going to be horrible regardless. The same impulses that lead to these DMPC horror stories aren't unique to DMPCs. It still happens even if you tell the guy they can't have one. Suddenly you have Cameo NPCs doing the same thing. Or the Villain gets it. Or you find your DM is going on side stories where he's telling you about how badass this guy off screen is, etc.

I don't really see a causation between the two. It's deeper than that. It's about how people approach storytelling, what they think is interesting, etc. Which side of the screen, and what character does it, doesn't really make it any better or worse.

So it comes down to how your DM approaches the storytelling. I prefer to make it about the Journey myself. The payoff isn't in "look how shiny we are" or the like, it's about being able to look back and say "Daaaaamn... look at all we accomplished to get here". Since THAT is the payoff in campaigns I run, the DM's PC thing isn't really a concern. I'm setting it up so everything seems hard and insurmountable so that when you finally do accomplish something, you feel as if your journey payed off. That means it's pretty much impossible to have the horror story DMPC and still tell that sort of story. The guy who's perfect at everything, all powerful, sails through encounters and everything revolves around.

But if the payoff I went for was "Look how awesome you are" and it's all about building up people to think they're some Golden God, that sort of storytelling leads easily into the Horror Story DMPC. Particularly since you typically, in that sort of story, want the Zero to someone's X (Megaman X Reference), show someone that the PCs will want to become, someone they can look up to, and feel good about eventually surpassing.

Unfortunately in DnD it tends to go horribly. Heck... Elminister. Need I say anything else?

This is very level-headed, though killem2's argument is far from such. DMPCs are not guaranteed to be horrible, but their presence can be a very potent canary-in-the-coal-mine of a horrible DM in general. Maybe killem2's just part of the 10%.

[Eldonauran]

I've run a few characters through a few campaigns with my players. Mostly to fill a role that was needed. I've always made them memorable for the players and we've had a few inside joke born from the antics that have ensued. I would categorize them as NPCs though.

I've never had a problem with metagaming. Its not too terribly difficult to grasp that your character doesn't know what you as a player (or DM) know and to have that character act accordingly. I am somewhat startled that many of the people that post here have run across such rampant issues with metagaming. I'd chaulk it up to either an inexperienced DM, or an immature (as in emotionally) one. You can never be too careful in today's politically correct society, so I'll add in a bit of IMO and 'that just might be their way of having fun' so that I'm not accused of generalizing and labelled accordingly.

[ericp65]

It all depends on the DM, and the motivation for playing a party member. I've been in games in which the DMPC was always someone/something powerful and "helpful," always resulting in unbalanced encounters more in the party's favor than necessary. Other games, the DMPC was a more reasonable asset, and great for game flavor. I've never objected to the practice in and of itself, and I usually play a character when I run a game, but never show it any favoritism or give it inappropriate knowledge.

[Sylthia]

I've had an NPC follow the party around in the last few campaigns I've run, currently, I've got a Sorc who primarily buffs and provides arcane support for an otherwise arcane-less party. My last campaign had a dwarf cleric tag along since the only other character capable of healing was a bard. Before that, I hadn't planned for it, but the party more or less recruited a bard NPC that they ran into into the party. A running joke after that was they'd ask just about every NPC they met to join the party, and I'd have to say "This isn't Fire Emblem!"

I've found that support roles are the best part for DM NPCs to fill. I also like them to round out the party. I like to have a party size of at least 4-5, if not 6. Sometimes people in the party can't make it and for a while, we only had 3 PCs that could come on a weekly basis. My encounters can be tough and there's a big difference between a 4 person and a 3 person party if one of the characters goes down. I usually let one of the players control the NPC anyway.

[Steward]

Like most people, I feel as if it would be hard to avoid metagaming accidentally if you are both the one determining the game's progression directly as DM and one of the players (eg. running a fight where you both control the attacking monsters and the defending PCs; would you unwittingly shift the focus off of your character who is near death even though logically the monsters shouldn't do that?). Even if you are not deliberately cheating, the other player-characters may inadvertently begin looking to the DMPC as a weathervane to see where they should go or what they should do next.

I'm not saying that you're doomed forever if you try it, I just think that it adds a layer of complexity to the DM's job that not everyone will be up to managing. There's no catchall answer in my view; it all depends on the people involved, the nature of the campaign, the nature of the existing characters, and how comfortable they are working with a DMPC.

[The Glyphstone]

I've had an NPC follow the party around in the last few campaigns I've run, currently, I've got a Sorc who primarily buffs and provides arcane support for an otherwise arcane-less party. My last campaign had a dwarf cleric tag along since the only other character capable of healing was a bard. Before that, I hadn't planned for it, but the party more or less recruited a bard NPC that they ran into into the party. A running joke after that was they'd ask just about every NPC they met to join the party, and I'd have to say "This isn't Fire Emblem!"

I've found that support roles are the best part for DM NPCs to fill. I also like them to round out the party. I like to have a party size of at least 4-5, if not 6. Sometimes people in the party can't make it and for a while, we only had 3 PCs that could come on a weekly basis. My encounters can be tough and there's a big difference between a 4 person and a 3 person party if one of the characters goes down. I usually let one of the players control the NPC anyway.

This is a good distinction to make, and one of the rules I go by...a DMPC is not any DM-controlled character who travels with the party. The PCs can't usually tell the difference, regardless of metagaming or not, but if the DM is invested in this particular NPC more than any of the literally infinite other NPCs he/she has created, and thinks they deserve an equal or greater-than-equal share of attention, loot, and/or XP, they're on the road to badness. If you can, without remorse or hesitation, blot the character out of existence with a giant space rock and either replace them or move the game on without them, they're not a DMPC. If you treat them with the same respect and care, or more, than a PC, they are. One of the biggest problems with DMPCs is that no two people can ever come to a solid, definitive agreement on what a DMPC even is - this happens to be mine, even if it tilts towards the 'all DMPCs are bad, because if they're not bad, they're an NPC' tautology.

[Kristinn]

DMPC's can be a very bad thing, particularly if the DM would rather have been a player than the DM.

However, I sometimes run DMPCs when the story calls for it. Like if the party has no healing, and they go to the local church and ask a cleric to accompany them, or if they need an elf archer to accompany them to the hidden elf city.

But if the DM just wants to use a new build he likes, or is using an old PC of his from the last campaign, then you should be wary.

[Jon_Dahl]

What about this?:
The players get to vote if the DM brings in a DMPC.

I think in my game the players might enjoy something like a DMPC, although I detest the idea.

[Sylthia]

DMPC's can be a very bad thing, particularly if the DM would rather have been a player than the DM.

However, I sometimes run DMPCs when the story calls for it. Like if the party has no healing, and they go to the local church and ask a cleric to accompany them, or if they need an elf archer to accompany them to the hidden elf city.

But if the DM just wants to use a new build he likes, or is using an old PC of his from the last campaign, then you should be wary.

My advice to fellow DMs is that is you want to experiment with builds, design an enemy for your party to fight against. It's hard to design a good character if you're just playing against yourself. Just don't go overboard and TPK or anything.

[Eldonauran]

Like most people, I feel as if it would be hard to avoid metagaming accidentally if you are both the one determining the game's progression directly as DM and one of the players (eg. running a fight where you both control the attacking monsters and the defending PCs; would you unwittingly shift the focus off of your character who is near death even though logically the monsters shouldn't do that?).
If you find yourself questioning if you should make the monsters 'back off' in the middle of a fight, just because a PC (even yours) went down, you need to check yourself. You've already toed the line of metagaming. Metagaming is not an accident. It is a lack of paying attention.

Even if you are not deliberately cheating, the other player-characters may inadvertently begin looking to the DMPC as a weathervane to see where they should go or what they should do next.
This is a legitimate concern. I find it easy to break my players of that when the DMPC/NPC is content to sit around for weeks, getting drunk or other such things. You know, having a life outside of adventuring.

[SciChronic]

i used a DMPC in my latest campaign, it was a bunch of mostly new players, so i used the DMPC as a way to give advice and real examples of fighting tactics so that the other players could see the variety of options available to them, without explicitly telling them. Once i felt that the other players were ready, i removed him.

[chainer1216]

DMPCs can work, but require both a very good DM to balance out how the character interacts with the PCs, world, and story, it also requires a group open to there being a DMPC, as i'm sure has been posted in this thread there are those who absolutely hate the very idea, and will actively sabotage a DM or group that tries to work with one, whether they know it or not.

in my past i have DMPCed 1 hurtful character to the game, and 1 that's still remembered fondly by my group to this day, i was quite shocked when one of the PCs was willing to sacrifice his character in order to save this guy when i tried to get rid of him due to party size. Now-a-days i don't bother with DMPCs though, i can keep a group of a high enough number that a full fledged DMPC isn't warranted.

though i have a friend who's consistently used one in every game he's run for years, and he runs many, many campaigns in several systems, and no issue has ever popped up.

[Rhynn]

This is very level-headed, though killem2's argument is far from such. DMPCs are not guaranteed to be horrible, but their presence can be a very potent canary-in-the-coal-mine of a horrible DM in general. Maybe killem2's just part of the 10%.

Exactly all of this, again!

I should note, though, that the DM who runs a DMPC is probably not the best person to evaluate whether the DMPC is bad or not...


This is a good distinction to make, and one of the rules I go by...a DMPC is not any DM-controlled character who travels with the party. The PCs can't usually tell the difference, regardless of metagaming or not, but if the DM is invested in this particular NPC more than any of the literally infinite other NPCs he/she has created, and thinks they deserve an equal or greater-than-equal share of attention, loot, and/or XP, they're on the road to badness. If you can, without remorse or hesitation, blot the character out of existence with a giant space rock and either replace them or move the game on without them, they're not a DMPC. If you treat them with the same respect and care, or more, than a PC, they are. One of the biggest problems with DMPCs is that no two people can ever come to a solid, definitive agreement on what a DMPC even is - this happens to be mine, even if it tilts towards the 'all DMPCs are bad, because if they're not bad, they're an NPC' tautology.

Again, I am pretty much in perfect agreement. A DMPC is not the same as a tag-along NPC, and the difference is in personal investment. I generally think the DM having a personal investment in any character (DMPC, NPC, or PC) is a bad idea, and commonly (again, not always) leads to all sorts of trouble. "We tried to kill a NPC and the DM went nuts" is a classic sort of bad DM story. (Or, I suppose, more commonly an element thereof.)

To me, there's no tautology. It's not "if it's not bad, it's not a DMPC." Of course not. (Although that seems to be a popular strawman to trot out.) It's "it's a DMPC if these elements are present, and these elements frequently (not always!) lead to bad."

[Regitnui]

I'm starting a new campaign, and I'm playing at least three different major NPCs. Any tips to avoid having them turn into the bad kind of DMPCs?

[Sylthia]

I'm starting a new campaign, and I'm playing at least three different major NPCs. Any tips to avoid having them turn into the bad kind of DMPCs?

How big is the party? Are they always with the party and participating in battle? Three is a bit too many in my opinion.

I've found that one, or at the very most two NPCs is desirable. If you have a small party, of say 3 PCs and 3 NPCs, it's seems like you're just playing with yourself and the PCs can get bored. If your party has 6 PCs, then you have a party of 9, and that treads into the "way too big" category, so it's rare to find a way that having 3 NPCs works, unless it's short-term.

What is the party PC composition and what 3 NPCs are you thinking of adding?

[Regitnui]

They aren't party members. My campaign is, at first, set on an airship, and these NPCs are the Captain of said ship, his first mate/minder and a Macguffin Girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffinGirl).

The PCs... I think I have about six in the party, only one of them has really finalized his character with me.

[Sylthia]

They aren't party members. My campaign is, at first, set on an airship, and these NPCs are the Captain of said ship, his first mate/minder and a Macguffin Girl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffinGirl).

The PCs... I think I have about six in the party, only one of them has really finalized his character with me.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. I think most people's issues are with DMPCs that are characters in the party that can steal the spotlight or otherwise make things bad.

If your NPCs aren't going to be in the party, I think you are 99% certain to not fall into DMPC territory. Just remember to keep the focus of the story on the PCs.

If there's an encounter on the ship, where it would make sense for them to be in an encounter or two, you should be safe as long as they don't follow the party everywhere. You could also give a story reason for them not getting into combat, like they keep to keep flying the ship, for instance.

[Rhynn]

A DMPC most commonly travels with the party, but not always. The "DM's old PC" type often mostly shows up to direct the PCs, tell them what to do, and railroad them horribly. (Classically they're an Elminster-type wizard who teleports the PCs where the DM wants them.)

Major NPCs are not (automatically) DMPCs, and so long as you honestly won't mind too much if they die for whatever reason (including player spite), you're probably perfectly fine. Make sure the players have the spotlight and the players get to make the decisions. Never have a "scene" where the players are forced to watch one of the NPCs do something cool; they can do something cool in a scene (such as during a pitched battle the PCs are fighting), but the PCs are the focus of the story and the game (though not, usually, of the world). The players should choose the direction of the story and the PCs should be the stars.

[Kasbark]

In my experience DMPC's are almost always a bad idea. The only time i've seen it work was when the DMPC was a healer in a small party. The character ended up being a healbot and party buffer who allowed the small party to take on bigger challenges.
That said, it would still have been better to have her be a NPC, and be player-controlled in combat (seriously, the DM often controls a dozen monsters or more, the players can take turns to control two characters in combat).

[ArcturusV]

From just the one sentence there, I'd say your only danger is the Melfina there, your "MacGuffin Girl". Mostly if she ends up being a hyper competent type. A good metric for you is to (If you're familiar with it), think back to Star Trek: The Next Generation.

If your "MacGuffin Girl" is in any way acting like Westley Crusher, you might want to tone it down.

If you're not familiar, here's the checklist:

[]This 13 year old kid is somehow more knowledgeable and competent than the officers who have decades of experience on top of years of Academy Training as well (Which already makes them about the top 1% of people just because they were capable of passing the Academy, it's not easy).

[]Somehow they always have the answer to every problem at hand.

[]No one seems to think it's somehow "WRONG" that this Girl is basically taking charge and doing what they want at every point.

[]Someone eventually shows up to tell said character that they are some special snowflake who is just plain better than everyone else/has some unique gift that no one else can ever have or be taught.

Good starting checklist.

Side note: Also try to make sure your girl there isn't a "Target". Well, it's okay to have them be a helpless target, occasionally. But most people hate the "Escort Mission". It causes bad ticks in players in my experience. EVERYONE is familiar with having to take care of someone who is a complete bag of hammers and seems to lack even basic survival instincts, the sort that are needed to do things like avoid swallowing a pencil and strangling on it. Don't want to draw on that extreme either.

[Regitnui]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. I think most people's issues are with DMPCs that are characters in the party that can steal the spotlight or otherwise make things bad.

If your NPCs aren't going to be in the party, I think you are 99% certain to not fall into DMPC territory. Just remember to keep the focus of the story on the PCs.

If there's an encounter on the ship, where it would make sense for them to be in an encounter or two, you should be safe as long as they don't follow the party everywhere. You could also give a story reason for them not getting into combat, like they keep to keep flying the ship, for instance.

Would starting a quest with the captain negotiating with a silver dragon be a case of railroading? It's essentially a cutscene; the players are present but it is a very, very bad idea for them to interfere.


From just the one sentence there, I'd say your only danger is the Melfina there, your "MacGuffin Girl". Mostly if she ends up being a hyper competent type. A good metric for you is to (If you're familiar with it), think back to Star Trek: The Next Generation.

If your "MacGuffin Girl" is in any way acting like Westley Crusher, you might want to tone it down.

She's six years old and has a pet griffin cub she calls "Puppy". She is in fact, very special in-world (i.e. the result of a centuries-long breeding program by a half-dragon lich), but mechanically she doesn't even have a class level. Story-wise, she's an excuse for me to throw a fight at the players whenever they get complacent.

[Rhynn]

Would starting a quest with the captain negotiating with a silver dragon be a case of railroading? It's essentially a cutscene; the players are present but it is a very, very bad idea for them to interfere.

That's not necessarily or automatically bad, but that's a warning sign. There's a difference between linear plot (basically presenting a plot to the players that progresses from A to B to C) and railroading (forcing them to go along).

Think about the players' agency and fun. Are they going to enjoy being dragged along on some quest by people much more powerful than them? Are they going to care about this quest?

Cutscenes may or may not work. I'd say cutscenes with the players present are the worse kind - cutscenes that give the players a better view of the story even though their characters don't learn the information may actually be better. At the very least, you have to keep such a cutscene brief, and make sure it's not about you grandstanding with oh-so-awesome NPCs. (I'd personally skip it and just make it part of the set-up narration. "Okay, so you're part of the crew of this ship and the captain's on a quest from a silver dragon...")


She's six years old and has a pet griffin cub she calls "Puppy". She is in fact, very special in-world (i.e. the result of a centuries-long breeding program by a half-dragon lich), but mechanically she doesn't even have a class level. Story-wise, she's an excuse for me to throw a fight at the players whenever they get complacent.

Doesn't sound too bad, although the special-snowflakyness is a mild warning sign, again.

Basically, you need to keep in mind that while the world may not revolve around the PCs (yet - at high levels, parts of it certainly should), the game does, or should.

[Sylthia]

Would starting a quest with the captain negotiating with a silver dragon be a case of railroading? It's essentially a cutscene; the players are present but it is a very, very bad idea for them to interfere.

I'd say skip the cutscene and have your characters learn of it by talking to the captain or just telling them outright what happened at the beginning. Since they start on the airship, they're already railroaded to an extent, short of jumping off, but not all railroading is bad, as long as it is done in moderation.

By having the characters learn of it by talking to the captain, it gives them a chance to RP and doesn't relegate them to being an audience.

[Regitnui]

I've got a mix of experienced roleplayers and tabletop newbies, so they don't actually start off on the ship; they're hired by the captain to retrieve his sister from a dungeon, and when (if?) they succeed they're invited aboard his ship as crew. I have pitched this to them as an airship-based campaign, so the experienced ones will be itching to get aboard.

The dungeon acts as a sort of tutorial for the newbies, but it is geared for challenge, so hopefully I won't be boring the experienced players.

[GnomeFighter]

Since they start on the airship, they're already railroaded to an extent, short of jumping off, but not all railroading is bad, as long as it is done in moderation.


I would say that is the clasic line between a plot that tells you where to go and railroading. They are on an ariship. The airship is going where the captain wants. That is fine and guiding the players. In theory the players could storm the bridge and try and take over the airship.

Not railroading is hoping they don't do that, but if for some reason they do work with it (This may be "the crew refuse to help you. Who knows how to fly an airship" or "the crew attack you. Hears a combat with massivly overwheling odds where you will probably end up in the brig" or "Ok. The crew hate the captain and are willing to work with you" etc etc...

Railroading is hoping they don't do that, but if for some reason they do saying "No, you can't take over the ship because of X".

Anyway, GMPC's.

IMO they are almost always bad. The GM knows exactly what is going to happen, where to go, what to do, what questions to ask, who to ask. In a non combat encounter the GMPC can either stand and look dumb or ask all the right questions. They remove allot of the tangents and incorrect paths that make RP so much fun. In combat they know all the strengths and weekensses. The same gose in combat. Which monster has low enough hit points for them to take it down etc.

I don't buy the argument of too small a party myself. That just seems to be a case of poor GMing. Either the GM cannot work with what the players have or will not change there plans. "I have written something for 6 players and am going to run it even if we only have 4".

I'm playing a campain at the moment where we have 3 in the party, a ranged caster, and two DPS/tank with a little healing. Between us we can manage short sharp fights and hit and run, so the GM has written stuff that works with this. No long drawn out fights, no "win or fail" combats, and always a way to strike and run. For example, no dungons so no need for long term support, or if we need to rescue someone it is a matter of one party member starting a fight and another sneeking in to untie them, rather than having to take down all the bad guys.

I have never known a campain where a GMPC is needed. They seem to normaly be the refuge of a bad GM or one who dose not want to GM and would like to be playing.

[Man on Fire]

I had added DMNPC to my party, because I decided they need some combat guy after ecounter of "3 Tier 1s, Bard and Druid's Animal Companion vs 1 Ranger with a rat" amost ended with most pwoerful party member dead. Funny thing, at the same time I got player who decided to be a Paladin, and I already planned role of the character in the plot and didn't have time to adjust it. So I asked Paladin if he wouldn't want be friends with this Cavalier NPC. And it worked pretty well. Cabvalier has the same goal as party Druid and offered joining forces, so I managed to quickly introduce paladin, who was accompanying Cavalier, to the party.

I also try to move all plot points related to cavalier on players - Paladin knows guys important secret and I like to make them go to him whenever they're curious. Same with Cavalier's rival who spend 100% more time trying to make Druid turn on cavalier/entire party/on cavalier with entire party and join him, than he had interactions with DMNPC. And funny thing, Druid almost bought into it, until Paladin didnt botched it.

In combat I'm using the fact Cavalier is built to support casters, so he spends the fight acting like a living shield for the squishes and giving buffs to casters (Order of the Staff, yay!). Of course my players still snarked at me when he anaged to make two attacks at enemy Inquisitor and missed both times (fair, open rolls)

Lately however, I have thendency to forget abotu him, because he became reundant. He dissapeared in large part of one adventure (Druid was looking for some informations about their mutual goal, I decided he went to look for it his way, exiling him from the plot) for so long our wizard thought it's a doppleganger when he reappeared. And last game I just forgot he is there at some point and only remembered that after the cliffhanger on which it ended. Which is kinda problematic, because I actually have a thing for him to do at next game, he and Druid will face way to accomplih their goal, but at terrible price and Cavalier will offer to pay it alone. I want to know what will Druid do, having a choice between sacrificing this guy or getting hurt himself.

[only1doug]

I think that GMPC's are a horrible idea, the GM should not have a player character as he isn't a player, he's the GM.

There is no reason that the GM shouldn't have NPC's accompany the party, the trouble comes when the GM takes the level of emotional attachment higher by calling one them "his PC".
The GM has to maintain an emotional distance from the group so that he can be fair to the entire party, if he is emotionally invested in a single character he will be biased and tempted to protect or favour that character.

[NeoPhoenix0]

My group has successfully used DMPCs. The best way seems to be to make yourself a strict set of rules and stick to them like glue.

1) Never design an adventure that showcases your abilities.
2) Never have significant loot designed for you.
3) Don't use DMPCs to fill holes. That will only showcase your character. Let the party figure out how to deal with the hole in their party.
4) Never be the party leader. NPC generals in a war campaign are OK but they are not DMPCs.
5) If your character could suspect a trap or something don't assume 24/7 paranoia. Roll a wisdom check or something before you search for it.

It can be hard to strike a balance between being in the background and being the center of attention when you are the DM so when I'm uncertain I tend toward the background.

[Sylthia]

My group has successfully used DMPCs. The best way seems to be to make yourself a strict set of rules and stick to them like glue.

1) Never design an adventure that showcases your abilities.
2) Never have significant loot designed for you.
3) Don't use DMPCs to fill holes. That will only showcase your character. Let the party figure out how to deal with the hole in their party.
4) Never be the party leader. NPC generals in a war campaign are OK but they are not DMPCs.
5) If your character could suspect a trap or something don't assume 24/7 paranoia. Roll a wisdom check or something before you search for it.

It can be hard to strike a balance between being in the background and being the center of attention when you are the DM so when I'm uncertain I tend toward the background.

Good guidelines and I agree with all but #3. There are two questions that I ask myself before I decide to make a DM NPC. Are there holes, and are there less than four PCs in the party? If yes to either, I'll make an NPC to help out.

[Water_Bear]

Would starting a quest with the captain negotiating with a silver dragon be a case of railroading? It's essentially a cutscene; the players are present but it is a very, very bad idea for them to interfere.

I'm pretty sure it's not railroading, but it's certainly an odd choice. If there is nothing for the PCs to do why are they there? What is gained by narrating this whole scene out to them rather than filling them in after the fact?


She's six years old and has a pet griffin cub she calls "Puppy". She is in fact, very special in-world (i.e. the result of a centuries-long breeding program by a half-dragon lich), but mechanically she doesn't even have a class level. Story-wise, she's an excuse for me to throw a fight at the players whenever they get complacent.

I'm a bit torn here. On the one hand, in my evil DM heart I love the idea of manipulating PCs with cute little girls who are secretly evil or just generally bad news, because the reluctance they have for killing them is actually kind of funny. On the other, if she's going to be a central part of the plot there is a certain amount of danger that her character is going to steal the spotlight from the PCs.

[Regitnui]

I'm pretty sure it's not railroading, but it's certainly an odd choice. If there is nothing for the PCs to do why are they there? What is gained by narrating this whole scene out to them rather than filling them in after the fact?

I realize there is a much better way to do that. Giving the PCs quests was the entire reason I designed the Captain in the first place. I can always have the dragon using the captain as an intermediary between her and the PCs. A certain level of obfuscation is expected from dragons in Eberron.


I'm a bit torn here. On the one hand, in my evil DM heart I love the idea of manipulating PCs with cute little girls who are secretly evil or just generally bad news, because the reluctance they have for killing them is actually kind of funny. On the other, if she's going to be a central part of the plot there is a certain amount of danger that her character is going to steal the spotlight from the PCs.

As I said, she's an excuse to toss a fight at the PCs every now and then. That's not to say I don't have a quest line based around her, but the PCs are going to have enough people giving them quests and asking for favours that "Protect Sollanna" is the only quest until, at the very least, level 10.