DMPC ideas?

[cerin616]

Looking for some interesting ideas on a dmpc. Primarily for clericlike casting or wizardlike casting. Part of me wanted to put in monk for cool flavor, even if it means weakening the build (the players arnt exactly optimizers anyway)

Any ideas? what have some of you included?

[Gerrtt]

I included a Cleric once because nobody made any kind of healing character. I used her as a minor plot point (that is, her interaction with another NPC gave them an option to consider as part of an adventure, but not one that they were forced to undertake) and that was it. Just something to get the ball rolling for them, unless they wanted to explore other options.

Ultimately they decided that they did want to follow the plot, but then the game fell apart because of finals/summer break.

Beyond that, I once had a game where the party rescued a group of goblins from their tyrannical leader and trained them to be their own adventuring group. Once or twice the group went on an adventure with them which meant that they could face tougher challenges due to having a party of 8 instead of a party of 4. That was fun, and they enjoyed having the gobbos around because it was a) their decision to rescue rather than kill the goblins and b) their choice to take the goblins with them rather than my call.

[Gnaeus]

I will suggest avoiding DMPCs at all costs. Some people will disagree with me, but in my opinion, DMPCs are probably the single worst choice a DM can make in campaign creation. There are problems with metagaming and bias, whether real or only perceived, and the DM should have plenty of stuff to do managing the entire world without playing PCs as well. If you don't have enough players for a full party, I would recommend Gestalt or free cohorts long before I would touch a DMPC.

[eggynack]

DMPC's are generally problematic, but if you must have one, make it as unobtrusive as possible. Make a cleric, and build it towards healing, buffing, and support. Try to avoid stuff like DMM persist, in favor of buffing the PC's. That way, it won't feel like you're stealing the spotlight of your own game.

[limejuicepowder]

I will suggest avoiding DMPCs at all costs. Some people will disagree with me, but in my opinion, DMPCs are probably the single worst choice a DM can make in campaign creation. There are problems with metagaming and bias, whether real or only perceived, and the DM should have plenty of stuff to do managing the entire world without playing PCs as well. If you don't have enough players for a full party, I would recommend Gestalt or free cohorts long before I would touch a DMPC.

What's the difference between a DMPC and an NPC?

[Gerrtt]

What's the difference between a DMPC and an NPC?

Usually NPCs aren't part of the party. Once they join the party they are DMPCs, in my opinion.

[BowStreetRunner]

Our party has a bunch of NPC hirelings, many of whom are equal level with the bulk of the party members. The DM doles out NPC sheets to each player to help when there are too many involved in any encounter, otherwise runs them himself. I would hardly call these DMPCs.

In most cases, we went in and 'interviewed' a handful of NPCs and chose which ones to hire. The DM generally likes to pick a particular theme and focus on it. So for instance, he might pick one central prestige class and build around that. When we went looking for a cleric to hire we not only had clerics of a half dozen different deities to choose from, but an equal number of different prestige classes as well.

[limejuicepowder]

Usually NPCs aren't part of the party. Once they join the party they are DMPCs, in my opinion.

That's kind of my point. Does Gnaues (sorry Gnaues I'm not picking on you in particular. You are not the only person I've seen to express such an opinion) think that the party should never have allies that help in battle, or mercenaries, etc.? NPC exist only to give information?

[Abaddona]

I agree with those above me - avoid creating DMPCs cause they create many problems.
But if you really must and your party is in need of cleric or wizard spellcasting simply make theurge - something like druid3/wizard3/mystictheurge2/ArcaneHeirophant - that way you will become universal buff machine, but at same time you should be weak enough to not overshadow them in any way (MAD, 3 caster levels lost etc.), altough better idea probably will be getting them free story related cohorts (maybe they rescued someone and he/she wants to travel with them etc.).

Limejuicepower -> problem with DMPCS lies with metagaming, for example your DMPC is Factotum skill monkey made to be know-it-all and able to disable the traps. But you as a DM know where all traps are located. Looking for traps slows you down, your quest needs to be completed quickly (for example cultist try to sacrifice young girls to summon a demon) and dungeon is full of illusions etc. on what basis did you decide if your DMPC Factotum should make his disbelieve checks or search for traps instead of running full speed down the corridor?

[Gnaeus]

What's the difference between a DMPC and an NPC?

An NPC is one of countless background characters in the world. A DMPC is the DM's player character.
It is a fuzzy line to be sure. Here are some indications.

Regarding a character that travels with the party and shares in their adventures...
If it is as strong as or stronger than PCs, it is likely to be a DMPC. If it is cohort level or below, that is an indication it may be an NPC.

If it is protected by plot armor, where roles are fudged, rules are bent, or other NPCs will intervene to protect it, probably a DMPC. If the players don't want it there and the DM forces it on them, probably a DMPC.

If it acts like a PC, with its own motivations to be a murderhobo, it is likely to be a DMPC. If it is a hireling that PCs pay or otherwise clearly subordinate to them in party structure, more likely to be an NPC. If it spends as much time in the game spotlight as PCs, or seems to be just generally more fabulous than the PCs so that you are not sure who the hero of the story is, probably a DMPC.

If it is controlled by the players a majority of the time (like an animal companion or a familiar) probably not a DMPC.


Our party has a bunch of NPC hirelings, many of whom are equal level with the bulk of the party members. The DM doles out NPC sheets to each player to help when there are too many involved in any encounter, otherwise runs them himself. I would hardly call these DMPCs.


Probably not a DMPC. However, I would not say that is a good practice. The party should be the lead in their story. I can't think of any reason why the DM would need a bunch of NPCs in the party, it seems like it can only possibly detract from the spotlight time of any particular player character. "A Bunch" sets off alarm bells. The DM is running the enemies, he shouldn't need to be running half of your team as well.

If I did see the need for a bunch of extra people in a party, I would instead recommend something like what Ars Magica does. Give each character a PC, who has a leadership role and a developed backstory, and then one or two Grogs, who are generally less awesome than PCs and do not need to be quite as fully developed, as long as they are distinguishable. Then, the DM can focus on moderation, setting, and actual NPCs, instead of wearing half a dozen "party member" hats as well.

I do something like this in my X-Crawl game. The Party members are the stars on their team. They have a team of supporters, who are all weaker than the PCs. The PCs can pick which of their teammates they take with them on any crawl, and the PCs play them during the crawl. Monsters can and do kill teammates with higher frequency than PCs. I do everything I can to make sure they are not MY PCs, I would drop them in a heartbeat if my group ever got to 4 players + the DM, and I still worry that they are too close to DMPCdom.

[Arbane]

What's the difference between a DMPC and an NPC?

It's a matter of degree. As a general, vague rule, I'd say if the GM actually treats them as 'their character' rather than 'that character', it's a GMPC.

Some are more obvious than others. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275152)

[Jon_Dahl]

IME DMPC is just fine if he's a quiet and very simple melee-character. It's a safe choice. But not that useful, of course.

Dummy fighter helps to avoid metagaming. Players will think for themselves and not just follow some simpleton and ask his/her opinion.

[Spuddles]

I recommend Bard. His main schtick is giving everyone bonuses, his spells are unobtrusive and useful, and with the amount of skill points he has, he can fill any needed gaps in the party.

[DiscipleofBob]

DMPC Concepts to not get into trouble with the players:

- For a 4e game, I drew up the stats for a guard/pet dog using beast form druid as a base. The players could then "customize" the dog by giving it certain collars or other equipment.

- A warforged/robot of whatever class you prefer to be a guard/butler.

- A servant or otherwise hireling of one of the PC's. Loyalty by some means is preferable so the servant doesn't wander off in the middle of the night or kill the party while they're sleeping.

Basically just give your DMPC as little motivation as possible outside of following the party. Don't make a DMPC who's going to give plot exposition, or babysit the party, or makes sure the party stays on the tracks. Do NOT make the DMPC a central plot point. A DMPC should just provide support and shouldn't be used to try to strongarm players into doing what the DM wants.

I wouldn't call this a DMPC, but in one campaign I used a Brain in a Jar. It could only mind control one target at a time, and only if they were weak enough to succumb to its will, so once the rest of the encounter was defeated it couldn't do anything but beg for mercy. Then the players could use the Brain as basically a magic item to mind control small targets or do telepathic scans.

[BowStreetRunner]

Back to the OP:

If you have to fill a void in the party this way, fill it as narrowly as possible. For instance, if a 15th level party needs a healer:

Healer (MH) 5 / Combat Medic (HB) 5 / Ruathar (RW) 3 / Healer 2

Focus on abilties that emphasize two things: 1) Healing (which is what your party needs) and 2) Fluff. My party had a cleric with max ranks in Profession: Farmer at one point filling our party healer role.

[limejuicepowder]

My party had a cleric with max ranks in Profession: Farmer at one point filling our party healer role.

He must have been able to farm like a boss....if that's even possible

[cerin616]

Pun-Pun is acceptable as a DMPC right?

The biggest issue the party has is no dedicated solid casters. No magic, no nothing. I wanted to add either a clericesque or wizard esque caster that sometimes comes up with ideas (PCs blatantly ignore some sort of mechanic that can be overcome with a spell, "hey guys, what if I cast darkvision?" and other than that leave it up to the party to ask "did you prepare this today? cause that would be nice."

I was thinking monkesque so that they didnt really need to worry about giving up magic items. But then again, I could make it so they can customize his combat style based on what weapons they let him have.

In addition, i feel like I can use him to boost up some of the roleplay aspects of the game. Most of the party is playing kick in the door and kill everything, which has its place, but I know there are some people who want to get into the gritty roleplay and have in character conversations about what to do.

So far, everyone acts as a cohesive hivemind of greatswords, and I want to have this character do things like ask "Whats the plan here? how do we want to go about handling this?"

[A.A.King]

Maybe try making him hostile, make the Party capture a magician and make them his/her captive, a powerful King demands him alive (for a great bounty). For as long as he's with them they can make him cast spells by threatening him and if you really get into a pinch the guy can give advice because he wants to live too.

[BowStreetRunner]

I wanted to add either a clericesque or wizard esque caster that sometimes comes up with ideas

"You seek Yoda!"

Seriously, are you looking for Gandalf to be a mentor to the party or someone like the priest who accompanied Van Helsing for occasional support?

If Gandalf, just go ahead and create a big, powerful spellcasting ally that shows up from time to time but doesn't always stick around.

If not, I would suggest a Mystic Theurge for diversity's sake. Kill two birds with one stone.

[pbdr]

This is my take and what I have done with our party.

The player of our party's cleric just left. The party needed a healer (because they aren't very good at HP resource management and are not very optimized). So, I took over the cleric. I reworked it make it a healer/buffer. Basically, he only takes buff and healing spells, takes feats to help healing.

I also took lots of knowledge skills for him. His personality is pretty introverted and is not a go getter. He knows a lot and will respond to questions, but I roll a knowledge check to see if he knows the answer just as per a PC (but I can give extra knowledge if needed in a pinch...). He will follow the other PCs lead in combat, and help where he can, but he's not a combat monster

Plus he won't cast blocking spells, etc. unless asked, he heals when the PCs need it, etc. Basically, i keep him in the background.

He takes his share of treasure (and gives a lot of it away to his temple) and stuff.

So, technically a DMPC, but I think i'm striking the right balance here. That's how i handle it and I think it's working so far.

[Abaddona]

If you want some Raiden flavor (plain clothing, sandals, staff etc.) then i recomend Vow of Poverty - it's suboptimal so you don't endanger game by overshadowing your players, you don't get loot (well, you get but you must buy food for little kittens and puppies with it) - so other players won't get angry when you roll on random loot weapon both ideal for your DMPC and stronger than other weapon the party has in their possesion. For spellcasting support theurge classes are good (if your party is really bad with optimization you may throw some monk levels to further lower your caster level) but remember that with VoP you wont be able to cast spells with material components (Eschew Materials can solve this problem).
But you should be carefull about one thing - your character really shouldn't take active role in solving problems - if they want some spell to be casted and you prepared it - cast it, but if you will keep solving problems for them you will risk degrading your game into "DM play with himself and the other players are there only to carry luggage" and it's no fun. Of course you can show them the way of magic by introducing DMPC mage - some mentor figure - but when his role is done - simply kill him.

[sombrastewart]

The only time I've done something like a DMPC, I actually used the Healer class. He didn't do much in combat except cast heal spells, and otherwise just kept quiet.

[nedz]

When I create NPCs like this I usually farm them out to the player's to run. As a DM I am far too busy anyway.

[cerin616]

Looks like I am going with monk/wizard/enlightened fist/rainbow servant

vow of poverty and some other vows. We are only level 6 right now, so i dont have all the fancys, just monk wizard enlhtened fist, but at the end it will give mediocre damage output of a monk, then near full arcane and divine casting so i can buff stuff up.

plus he can peace out if someone gets something that makes him less needed.

[BowStreetRunner]

Looks like I am going with monk/wizard/enlightened fist/rainbow servant

vow of poverty and some other vows. We are only level 6 right now, so i dont have all the fancys, just monk wizard enlhtened fist, but at the end it will give mediocre damage output of a monk, then near full arcane and divine casting so i can buff stuff up.

plus he can peace out if someone gets something that makes him less needed.

I really like the use of monk here. Normally, players complain that monks, while they tend to survive well don't do much that is useful. Here, you are actually using this to your advantage to keep the PCs from being overshadowed while still giving them some caster assistance. VoP also helps resolve potential problems with regard to loot. Very ingenious. :smallcool:

[DrDeth]

1. Don’t.
2. no
3. Nope
4. nyet
5. nein
6. nuh-uh
If you need to “fill in the gap” do a NPC, then hand it to the players to run during combats- with DM veto.

[Gnaeus]

Seriously, are you looking for Gandalf to be a mentor to the party or someone like the priest who accompanied Van Helsing for occasional support?

Gandalf, btw, is CLEARLY Tolkein's DMPC. He hits all the DMPC buttons. If you are looking for Gandalf, write a novel instead.

[Spuddles]

Be careful with an Exalted character, doubly so, as you are the DM, in a party of non-exalted characters. Unless you are purposefully looking for that sort of drama, then carry on.

[Yahzi]

You are breaking every rule of DMPCing.


The biggest issue the party has is no dedicated solid casters.
These boards are full of posts explaining how magic totally renders melee irrelevant. So, this violates the first rule of DMPCing: never overshadow your party.


I wanted to add either a clericesque or wizard esque caster that sometimes comes up with ideas
The second rule of DMPCing: never violate player agency.


In addition, i feel like I can use him to boost up some of the roleplay aspects of the game.
The third ruleof DMPCing: do not use your NPC to role-play for yourself.


So far, everyone acts as a cohesive hivemind of greatswords, and I want to have this character do things like ask "Whats the plan here? how do we want to go about handling this?"
That's a good role for an NPC: a powerful overlord that occasionally forces the party to undertake missions or suffer the consequences of their actions. That's fine. You can have your boss-man chew them out after the mission for their screwups. You can have him give them reasonably detailed instructions (go here, get this, do that).

But giving them a nanny who is stronger, smarter, and better than them in every way, and who accompanies them constantly, will result in exactly one response: a total declaration of war against your NPC. Killing him will become their one and only goal.

Rule 0 of DMPCing? DON'T.

[137beth]

If you need to “fill in the gap” do a NPC, then hand it to the players to run during combats- with DM veto.
So you suggest that instead of making a DMPC, he make a DMPC but not call it one:smallconfused:

What's the difference between a DMPC and an NPC?

If someone has had one bad experience with a DMPC, they then decide that all DMPCs are horrible, while other NPCs are not horrible. They then make up the distinction for the purpose of focusing hate.

More seriously, DMPCs really aren't an issue if done properly. Make a support character, with a relatively minor story. Allow the players to do all the planning. Let them direct the DMPC in combat. Do not have the DMPC "suggest" what actions the party should take, as this is essentially railroading. If you follow the advice in this paragraph, it will be fine.

[Feint's End]

VoP also helps resolve potential problems with regard to loot

It doesn't .... you still have to give up the loot/money.

As for OP. The biggest problem is you point of view as a Dm. As somebody mentioned is it "your" character or is it "one" character. To avoid misconception and if you really need a DMPC at all make him very supportive/silent and probably give controll to the players. Or give them a free Cohort.

If they don't want to use that cohort why not leaving a healer out at all? It seems like your party just doesn't enjoy that kind of playstyle and that could be a hint. Usually if nobody in the party wants to take a certain role/class than the party just doesn't enjoy playing that kind of game. Just adapt the challenges or give them occasional Cohorts for the times they really can't go without a caster. Or drop enough hints so they get a hireling. Because you know .... at some point stupidity is gonna kill you if you don't care and Players have to learn that.

[Sylvos330]

I do understand what everyone is saying but my gaming group usually enjoyebthe games more when I have a dmpc. That could also be because my games are full of insanity too...

I recommend a class that can help but does not steel the spotlight. Bard, healer, and dragon shamans do this job rather well.

[killem2]

DMPCs are fine. Be whatever you want to be.

They aren't a problem if you yourself are not a %!%&^$!$~!

[Vaz]

Think Leo from Lethal Weapon. A fence, black marketeer, crafter, etc. Someone available for a loan. He should essentially be the quest giver in character, leaving hints like Black Rob down and Fouled Anchor noticed to be missing after his last shipment came in.

But only after the PC's have exhausted avenues of approach for how to get there.

[Vultawk]

What killem2 said.

Typically, I'll have a DMPC (especially when DMing is a rotating role), and the best ones are the ones who are unobtrusive enough to play background roles in most cases, but can step up in some situations (like when you're not the DM anymore, or there's a guest player, or the fighter got himself killed and now his player needs something to do).

One note though, skillmonkeys seem to be the worst choice for a DMPC, because the DM knows where and how skills will be needed. Clerics and Wizards can toss around buffs as DMPCs, and melee guys (and gals) can play Robin to the PC's Batman without difficulty, but if the DMPC Rogue doesn't find a trap that disables a PC, the blame game begins.

[Drachasor]

A construct that is built to serve. Maybe give it some healing abilities if the party needs that. In combat IT IS A SOLDIER. IT WAS MADE TO RECEIVE ORDERS.*

That should stop most problems until it starts killing everyone.. You won't have any worries about it giving away information since it will be mostly passive. Don't have it take any initiative unless you give it a feat or something to explain it (like something that lets it jump in front of an attack to protect someone). It does nothing that could be affected by DM info.

*I actually recommend against it being a Dalek.**

**They aren't constructs!

[Gnaeus]

DMPCs are fine. Be whatever you want to be.

They aren't a problem if you yourself are not a %!%&^$!$~!

This is just not true. I have seen DMPCs cause major problems in games where they were being used by otherwise responsible DMs (and by otherwise responsible, I mean, DMs whose only error that I could see was playing the DMPC.) You don't have to cheat for a DMPC to be awful. The perception that you are biased is just as bad as the bias itself. There are very real metagaming problems caused by the fact that you have way too much out of character knowledge to be playing a PC, and figuring out what the DMPC may or may not be able to figure out is just a pain. I have been in games where the PCs all got dropped in a combat, and we got to sit there and watch the DM roll dice against himself for 20 minutes. Not fun at all, but his only "%!%&^$!$~!" move was including the DMPC in the first place. Then there is the problem about how you deal with in character disagreements when you are both a PC and the GM. Best case, a DMPC is a minefield that you wander through every single session.

[137beth]

This is just not true. I have seen DMPCs cause major problems in games where they were being used by otherwise responsible DMs (and by otherwise responsible, I mean, DMs whose only error that I could see was playing the DMPC.) You don't have to cheat for a DMPC to be awful. The perception that you are biased is just as bad as the bias itself. There are very real metagaming problems caused by the fact that you have way too much out of character knowledge to be playing a PC, and figuring out what the DMPC may or may not be able to figure out is just a pain. I have been in games where the PCs all got dropped in a combat, and we got to sit there and watch the DM roll dice against himself for 20 minutes. Not fun at all, but his only "%!%&^$!$~!" move was including the DMPC in the first place. Then there is the problem about how you deal with in character disagreements when you are both a PC and the GM. Best case, a DMPC is a minefield that you wander through every single session.

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with a DMPC, but there is virtually no reason that a properly played DMPC could not bypass every single one of those issues. Your experience with DMPCs was apparently not sufficiently comprehensive. Yes, I have seen bad ones like you describe. I've also seen good ones.

[Gnaeus]

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with a DMPC, but there is virtually no reason that a properly played DMPC could not bypass every single one of those issues. Your experience with DMPCs was apparently not sufficiently comprehensive. Yes, I have seen bad ones like you describe. I've also seen good ones.

There are no good ones. The bad ones break the game out of the box. The good ones are the ones that haven't broken the game yet. A DMPC in a responsible group with a responsible DM is still asking for trouble. There is never a circumstance where a DMPC is helpful that could not solved better with another tool in the DMs toolbox. Nope, not even then.

I have not had a bad experience with a DMPC. I have had multiple bad experiences with DMPCs, run by different DMs, some of whom were otherwise good DMs.

I don't quite advocate leaving a game the moment a DMPC is introduced or killing it the first time it sleeps, although I have seen other people suggest this. I find it to be a very slight overreaction. Very slight.

[Drachasor]

There are no good ones. The bad ones break the game out of the box. The good ones are the ones that haven't broken the game yet. A DMPC in a responsible group with a responsible DM is still asking for trouble. There is never a circumstance where a DMPC is helpful that could not solved better with another tool in the DMs toolbox. Nope, not even then.

I have not had a bad experience with a DMPC. I have had multiple bad experiences with DMPCs, run by different DMs, some of whom were otherwise good DMs.

I don't quite advocate leaving a game the moment a DMPC is introduced or killing it the first time it sleeps, although I have seen other people suggest this. I find it to be a very slight overreaction. Very slight.

Eh, I thought my proposal was good. A construct with no intelligence score doesn't make independent decisions. Though, I suppose you could have animal intelligence and stick to that.

The only "DMPC" I ever did was running a kobold that the party convinced to switch sides (he was abused by the other dragonkin) and kept with them. Not hard to stay reasonable if you always make sure they are basically a passive character (e.g. they don't form any plans to propose, follow the party's lead, etc). It also helps to ensure they are mechanically inferior to the players.

[BowStreetRunner]

It also helps to ensure they are mechanically inferior to the players.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I particularly favor introducing high-level NPCs early in the game in a manner that would probably classify them as DMPCs - they are part of the party, participate in decision making, I do not allow any of the players to control them, etc... Of course, my whole reason for introducing these characters is so that I can 1) impress the players with just how much more powerful these NPCs are than the PCs, and then 2) kill the NPCs off in front of the PCs in such a way as to make sure the PCs recognize that the BBEG who just killed them off is far too powerful for the PCs to handle yet. Eventually the campaign will run its course and the PCs will circle back to defeat the BBEG, but they are less likely to attempt to challenge the BBEG before they are truly ready if they still retain the image of the DMPCs getting smoked by the BBEG earlier in the campaign.

[Deophaun]

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with a DMPC, but there is virtually no reason that a properly played DMPC could not bypass every single one of those issues. Your experience with DMPCs was apparently not sufficiently comprehensive. Yes, I have seen bad ones like you describe. I've also seen good ones.
I'm going to second that there are no good ones. There are just less bad ones.

DMPCs are not bad because they necessarily ruin things or act as Mary Sues. They are bad because there is always a better, more appropriate way to achieve the same effect (except for those effects that are just inappropriate by nature: e.g. look at how awesome my alter ego is!).

Now, there is a question as to what is a DMPC. Some of the descriptions I've seen of "good" DMPCs really aren't DMPCs at all. Here are three questions to ask: Are you trying to actually play both sides of the screen? Then it's a DMPC. Do you find yourself monsterbaiting in public? DMPC. Is it a party member with veto power? DMPC.

These aren't bright lines, but they are warning signs: if you are consistently taking turns in combat to play with yourself, you need to figure out where you're going wrong.

And yeah, I know plenty of people that think they have "good" DMPCs. Why, their players told them so! I've played in their games. I've spoken with the other players as a player. To all those people that think their players enjoy their DMPCs, I have some news: Players lie.

[Gnaeus]

Eh, I thought my proposal was good. A construct with no intelligence score doesn't make independent decisions. Though, I suppose you could have animal intelligence and stick to that.

The only "DMPC" I ever did was running a kobold that the party convinced to switch sides (he was abused by the other dragonkin) and kept with them. Not hard to stay reasonable if you always make sure they are basically a passive character (e.g. they don't form any plans to propose, follow the party's lead, etc). It also helps to ensure they are mechanically inferior to the players.

At the risk of entering a "no true scottsman" fallacy, neither of those sound too much like DMPCs. A DMPC is more than an NPC who happens to be with the party, it is the DM's PC. By ensuring that they are there at the player's request (not yours), that they are below party power level, and inherently subordinate to the PCs, you are avoiding the most dangerous areas. I still think it would be better if you could get one of the PCs to run it and roll for it. It isn't like I don't think PCs should have the ability to use Dominate Person or diplomacy or planar binding or hire a minion or rescue a captive. I just don't think that Dave DM should ever treat any of those as HIS player character, and the moment you start hitting any of the warning signs you should kill it with fire.


Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I particularly favor introducing high-level NPCs early in the game in a manner that would probably classify them as DMPCs - they are part of the party, participate in decision making, I do not allow any of the players to control them, etc... Of course, my whole reason for introducing these characters is so that I can kill the NPCs off in front of the PCs in such a way as to make sure the PCs recognize that the BBEG who just killed them off is far too powerful for the PCs to handle yet.

Probably a less bad DMPC. The fact that you plan to kill them early does help to reduce bias/perception of bias. It still seems pretty railroadish, and I feel certain that you could demonstrate the BBEG's godlike powah with a less problematic approach, so I would still say it is not an exception to the rule that there is never a reason for a DMPC that could not be handled better with another tool at the DMs disposal. I mean, this seems like something that could be managed in a lot of ways, some of them as simple as a tavern rumor. "I heard that the druid council sent their best champion to fight Zathrax the Black, but he wiped the floor with the druid and sent his pet dire tiger's head back to the other druids on a wall mount!" should do the trick unless your PCs are unusually stupid.



And yeah, I know plenty of people that think they have "good" DMPCs. Why, their players told them so! I've played in their games. I've spoken with the other players as a player. To all those people that think their players enjoy their DMPCs, I have some news: Players lie.

Strongly agree.

[BowStreetRunner]

...should do the trick unless your PCs are unusually stupid.

And there it is...:smallamused:

[nedz]

I mean, this seems like something that could be managed in a lot of ways, some of them as simple as a tavern rumour. "I heard that the druid council sent their best champion to fight Zathrax the Black, but he wiped the floor with the druid and sent his pet dire tiger's head back to the other druids on a wall mount!" should do the trick unless your PCs are unusually stupid.

Hmm, I know players who would take this as a come on. Having the BBEG toss out some iconic high level spell usually does the trick though. Meteor Swarming a village is probably too corny, but that sort of thing.

[137beth]

At the risk of entering a "no true scottsman" fallacy, neither of those sound too much like DMPCs. A DMPC is more than an NPC who happens to be with the party, it is the DM's PC. By ensuring that they are there at the player's request (not yours), that they are below party power level, and inherently subordinate to the PCs, you are avoiding the most dangerous areas. I still think it would be better if you could get one of the PCs to run it and roll for it. It isn't like I don't think PCs should have the ability to use Dominate Person or diplomacy or planar binding or hire a minion or rescue a captive. I just don't think that Dave DM should ever treat any of those as HIS player character, and the moment you start hitting any of the warning signs you should kill it with fire.
Then we are working from completely different definitions of a DMPC. Yes, almost all of the DMPCs I have seen done which I consider good do nothing outside of combat except possibly heal, and in-combat they buff the PCs. They don't make the important decisions, they let the PCs do that.
Now, I suppose you could argue that that "isn't really a DMPC..." well sure, fine. We can make up whatever definitions we want. The issue seems to be that your definition of a DMPC contains extra requirements that mine does not, and that the extra requirements you think are necessary to call something a DMPC are the same things that make it a problem. I usually think of a DMPC as just another character of about the same level following and aiding the players, controlled by the DM (i.e. not a cohort). When the party is too small in combat, some people prefer to throw in an extra buffer who just so happens not to be interested in making the roleplaying decisions that the players should be making, and wham, you solved your small-party-problem. Sometimes, particularly in a large group, there are player characters like that. In a small group, you can add in an NPC like that. It's just that when you control the DMPC, you take on the roll of the "extremely shy player" who wants to let the other players make the decisions.

[Gnaeus]

Then we are working from completely different definitions of a DMPC. Yes, almost all of the DMPCs I have seen done which I consider good do nothing outside of combat except possibly heal, and in-combat they buff the PCs. They don't make the important decisions, they let the PCs do that.
Now, I suppose you could argue that that "isn't really a DMPC..." well sure, fine. We can make up whatever definitions we want. The issue seems to be that your definition of a DMPC contains extra requirements that mine does not, and that the extra requirements you think are necessary to call something a DMPC are the same things that make it a problem. I usually think of a DMPC as just another character of about the same level following and aiding the players, controlled by the DM (i.e. not a cohort). When the party is too small in combat, some people prefer to throw in an extra buffer who just so happens not to be interested in making the roleplaying decisions that the players should be making, and wham, you solved your small-party-problem. Sometimes, particularly in a large group, there are player characters like that. In a small group, you can add in an NPC like that. It's just that when you control the DMPC, you take on the roll of the "extremely shy player" who wants to let the other players make the decisions.

There we have a winner in the bad dmpc category. When you take on the roll of extremely shy player, you have compromised your role as DM. There are a dozen or more better ways to solve the small-party-problem. As a player, I would request that this kind of activity from the DM stop, and if it did not there would be a smaller party problem. What you are talking about is different on a fundamental level from what Drachazor was saying.

[Waker]

I'd say make up a Bard or Cloistered Cleric. In either case they can focus on doing nothing but buffing and healing, act as a mouthpiece for game information with Lore/Bardic Knowledge and if need be both could take Item Creation feats to serve as a crafter for the party. You can give them personalities but try not to make them too opinionated or they will draw too much attention away from the party. I'd suggest making them "Go with the flow" type or a meek follower.
Some PrCs to consider: Paragnostic Apostle, War Weaver, Loremaster, Radiant Servant of Pelor.

[Lord Raziere]

I've only had good experiences with DMPC's. they keep things on track, help the story have direction, explain things that would otherwise be unknown and so on. and I don't see why the DM can't have some fun to. your all acting as if the player/DM dynamic is strictly defined and set in stone and that one shouldn't cross over into the other. when really, things are never that formal. :smallconfused:

[Deophaun]

I've only had good experiences with DMPC's. they keep things on track, help the story have direction, explain things that would otherwise be unknown and so on.
All of which can be done without a DMPC.

and I don't see why the DM can't have some fun to.
By default, the DM plays for 50% of the time, and each player plays for 1/Nth of the remaining time, where N is the number of players. If the DM isn't having fun, then what the heck is he doing?

[Yahzi]

Then we are working from completely different definitions of a DMPC.
I agree with Gnaeus; what you've described are just NPCs.

There's no harm in having NPCs in the party. But DMPCs are completely different beasts.

The only time I have ever seen DMPCs work was when we had a rotating DM: every few weeks, a different player would be the DM. During that adventure his characters would stay on the boat and do absolutely nothing. They didn't even get a share of the treasure.

Of course a truly talented GM could pull of a DMPC; but then, a truly talented DM wouldn't even want to. As Deophaun points out, the DM alreayd gets to play %50 of the time!

[137beth]

I agree with Gnaeus; what you've described are just NPCs.

There's no harm in having NPCs in the party. But DMPCs are completely different beasts.

The only time I have ever seen DMPCs work was when we had a rotating DM: every few weeks, a different player would be the DM. During that adventure his characters would stay on the boat and do absolutely nothing. They didn't even get a share of the treasure.

Of course a truly talented GM could pull of a DMPC; but then, a truly talented DM wouldn't even want to. As Deophaun points out, the DM alreayd gets to play %50 of the time!

Okay, so from Gnaeus/your definition of a DMPC, yea, I think it is almost always a bad idea. There might be some weird rare borderline case of something where Gnaeus's definition of a DMPC can apply and still be passable, but I don't know of any.

[BowStreetRunner]

Of course a truly talented GM could pull of a DMPC; but then, a truly talented DM wouldn't even want to. As Deophaun points out, the DM alreayd gets to play %50 of the time!

The key to the 'truly talented GM' is that they always make the game fun for everyone involved. A truly talented GM doesn't need to pay attention to conventional wisdom about what works and what doesn't. Instead, they just do whatever works for that group of players in that campaign. If a DMPC is what works to make the game fun for everyone involved, then screw the conventional wisdom.

The point here isn't that a DMPC can't make the game more fun for everyone, just that it usually doesn't and any DM who uses one incautiously will probably do more damage than good. If you aren't absolutely sure what you are doing...if you aren't absolutely sure it will work for your party and your campaign at this point and time...you are probably better off just leaving the DMPC out.

[Gnaeus]

Okay, so from Gnaeus/your definition of a DMPC, yea, I think it is almost always a bad idea. There might be some weird rare borderline case of something where Gnaeus's definition of a DMPC can apply and still be passable, but I don't know of any.

Here's the thing. I have seen DMPCs run successfully for months in game until you hit one of the trouble areas and it all blows up in your face. I mean a really bad one can be trouble from the get go, but others linger like an lost land mine waiting for a child to step on it. I am not saying that there was never a successful campaign that was run that had a DMPC in it. There are land mines that never hurt anyone either, just because no one went there. I am saying that that same DMPC could have still caused a huge problem the very next game session, had there been one. You can use DMPCs to solve problems as a DM. I just don't think that any of those problems actually call for a DMPC or could not be handled better in another way. The very, very best case scenario is that the DM is taking time and spotlight away from the PCs to run another character that they could be running themselves while he focused on his job, and that isn't great either. Like BowStreetRunner's BBEG fodder guys. It PROBABLY is not going to destroy your game. It's PRETTY SAFE. But it isn't necessary and it is more trouble than it is worth compared with other options.

[Lord Raziere]

All of which can be done without a DMPC.


so what? what makes your style of DMing so much better than someone who is skilled at using DMPC's very well that it enhances the game? what gives you the right to say your way of DMing is objectively better?

[eggynack]

so what? what makes your style of DMing so much better than someone who is skilled at using DMPC's very well that it enhances the game? what gives you the right to say your way of DMing is objectively better?
Well, there are two reasons. The first, is that DMPC's are inherently problematic. They have the same role as a player, and the same amount of knowledge as the DM, and that can cause issues. Not everyone is going to have problems, but I'd rather use something that doesn't have a tendency to cause them. The second, is that you can use other solutions that are not inherently problematic. If you can come up with a situation where a DMPC is the least intrinsically problematic solution, go right ahead and name it. As is, I honestly can't think of such a situation. Just getting defensive of poor practices isn't enough. You need some kind of evidence that they're not poor practices. I guess DMPC based style of gaming might not be objectively better, but only in the sense that having a game that's full of problems is not objectively better than having a problem free game. The phrase, "objectively better," is a contentious one, in this way.

[Lord Raziere]

what problems are these? that the players will somehow be "overshadowed"?

that somehow the DM will become corrupted by power and metagame? or godmode?

that somehow the roles of player and DM are set in stone and unchanging and they cannot overlap?

that for some reason, all the people involved are immature and concerned about silly things other than having fun?

it always grates on me that people assume that the gamers and DM involved are immature and easily prone to offense or abusing their power. while I admit, I have no evidence, any evidence that you would present would be inherently slanted and biased and therefore untrustworthy. you always hear about the immature, stupid roleplaying campaigns and how people screw things up or how a guy is bad player/DM/whatever. you almost never hear the tales of mature good roleplaying, or if you do, the person is obviously having too much fun to care whether someone is using a DMPC or not, and therefore never mentions it, or never knows.

all you have is personal experience and second-hand accounts of others. that is no guarantee they are correct, it merely shows that you yourself cannot use a DMPC well and that others have had bad experiences with them, and given the amount of negative to positive stories about roleplaying in general, I cannot accept the conclusion that DMPC's are inherently bad, due to such a strong negativity bias.

good day.

[Drachasor]

I think the distinction between NPC and DMPC is very fuzzy and perhaps not at all helpful. The "DMPC" problems can crop up with any NPC. The real problem is when a DM starts to really identify with an NPC to the point of playing favorites, wanting them to look cool, etc. This can happen with an NPC in the party, villain, or other NPC.

[eggynack]

what problems are these? that the players will somehow be "overshadowed"?

that somehow the DM will become corrupted by power and metagame? or godmode?

that somehow the roles of player and DM are set in stone and unchanging and they cannot overlap?

that for some reason, all the people involved are immature and concerned about silly things other than having fun?

it always grates on me that people assume that the gamers and DM involved are immature and easily prone to offense or abusing their power. while I admit, I have no evidence, any evidence that you would present would be inherently slanted and biased and therefore untrustworthy. you always hear about the immature, stupid roleplaying campaigns and how people screw things up or how a guy is bad player/DM/whatever. you almost never hear the tales of mature good roleplaying, or if you do, the person is obviously having too much fun to care whether someone is using a DMPC or not, and therefore never mentions it, or never knows.

all you have is personal experience and second-hand accounts of others. that is no guarantee they are correct, it merely shows that you yourself cannot use a DMPC well and that others have had bad experiences with them, and given the amount of negative to positive stories about roleplaying in general, I cannot accept the conclusion that DMPC's are inherently bad, due to such a strong negativity bias.

good day.
The problem is one of goals and motivations. The goal of a player lies in his character. A player wants his character to succeed, and thrive, and live, and do whatever the player came into the game to do. That goal might be designing a mechanically interesting character, who uses things you wouldn't expect in order to triumph in combat. That goal might be playing the part of a farmer, with aspirations that will take him all over the world. It doesn't matter what it is. The point is, a player is invested in his character. That's what a PC is. Sure, one guy might just be there to eat snacks and hang out, but I don't see that as the kind of person who would build a DMPC.

A DM cannot be invested in a character like that. Their goal is to tell the story of a whole world, and giving him incentives towards a particular outcome is a bad thing. It's a serious conflict of interest to have the guy controlling the world, and the guy invested in a particular outcome, to be the same guy. Hence, a DMPC is intrinsically problematic. The difference between an NPC and a DMPC is how invested in the character the DM is, and if that character is just a construct taking orders, the DM probably isn't all that invested. The more the DM is invested in his character, the more likely it is that there's going to be a bad outcome.

Now, am I saying that a game with a DMPC is doomed to failure, or that all DMPC's are terrible? No. It's probably entirely possible for there to be a perfectly successful game that uses a DMPC. However, whenever you have a conflict of interests like that, you have a good chance that there's going to be a problem. It's a risk, and it's always a risk. That's why I didn't ask if a DMPC can be successful. Of course it can be successful, because anything can possibly be successful. Instead, my question is what the situation is that would warrant the risk brought on by a DMPC. As Gnaeus points out, there aren't really any problems for whom the best solution is a DMPC. There's always a solution out there that is less intrinsically problematic, and has a lower risk attached to it. If you can think of a problem for whom a DMPC is the least risky solution, go right ahead, but just saying that there are games which don't collapse under the weight of a DMPC is pointless.

[Drachasor]

A DM cannot be invested in a character like that. Their goal is to tell the story of a whole world, and giving him incentives towards a particular outcome is a bad thing. It's a serious conflict of interest to have the guy controlling the world, and the guy invested in a particular outcome, to be the same guy. Hence, a DMPC is intrinsically problematic. The difference between an NPC and a DMPC is how invested in the character the DM is, and if that character is just a construct taking orders, the DM probably isn't all that invested. The more the DM is invested in his character, the more likely it is that there's going to be a bad outcome.

Since DMPC is often considered to be a "NPC that's a party member", perhaps it would be less confusing to talk about a "DM-invested character". That is the real problem, and it isn't just limited to NPCs that are party members.

[Killer Angel]

More seriously, DMPCs really aren't an issue if done properly. Make a support character, with a relatively minor story. Allow the players to do all the planning. Let them direct the DMPC in combat. Do not have the DMPC "suggest" what actions the party should take, as this is essentially railroading. If you follow the advice in this paragraph, it will be fine.

:smallconfused:
This is an NPC. The DM doesn't actually make any active decision for this character's actions during the play.

[Lord Raziere]

Now, am I saying that a game with a DMPC is doomed to failure, or that all DMPC's are terrible? No. It's probably entirely possible for there to be a perfectly successful game that uses a DMPC. However, whenever you have a conflict of interests like that, you have a good chance that there's going to be a problem. It's a risk, and it's always a risk. That's why I didn't ask if a DMPC can be successful. Of course it can be successful, because anything can possibly be successful. Instead, my question is what the situation is that would warrant the risk brought on by a DMPC. As Gnaeus points out, there aren't really any problems for whom the best solution is a DMPC. There's always a solution out there that is less intrinsically problematic, and has a lower risk attached to it. If you can think of a problem for whom a DMPC is the least risky solution, go right ahead, but just saying that there are games which don't collapse under the weight of a DMPC is pointless.

I don't see how its a bad thing, or even a conflict of interest, all the characters are apart of the world, and the whole point is to challenge the characters and work towards an outcome where they win despite the challenges. I don't see how this conflicts with the DM telling the story. everyone is invested in a certain outcome- and the DM is invested in the outcome where the PC's win whether or not he has a DMPC.

I suspect what is actually feared here is a DM Mary Sue, not a DMPC. I personally don't see the two as the same thing, and neither do I see allowing for all possibilities to happen to be positive. mostly because I find it hard to form any plot from a sandbox or a static world where the only things happening are around the PCs. the world is a dynamic thing, and certain outcomes are going to happen if you don't do certain other things, events are always in motion, and always providing challenge, and I do not see how a DMPC cannot be challenged as well by this- in fact it can be opportunity to show their own challenges and weakness much smoother than a normal player, as well as intentionally have the DMPC make mistakes that can provide complications just as much as the rest of the world.

[Scow2]

I'm aware of several good examples of Good DMPCs - and yes, they do exist. By "DMPC", I mean "An NPC created by the DM to take part in his own world on the scale of the player, playing by the same rules as the players, getting an equal share of treasure and XP, etc", and by "Good" DMPC, I mean "A DMPC that the campaign would not be as fondly played or remembered without by all players."

If you are telling a gaming group that "The DM's Player Character Bob is a blight on the game because he's a DMPC!" and all the players are saying "Bob is as worthy a member of our party as any one of us. He stays." Who the hell do you think you are to argue with them?

However, there are usually two primary similarities I've seen in DMPCs:
1. They are chosen by Chance and the Party, not the DM (Insofar as the DM doing more than statting up a basic version of the character existing). Such as the sole surviving NPC of a band of dwarves that's supposed to be cut down before the player's eyes, and they manage to save. Or the lone monk who the dice never kill despite being thrown into ridiculous circumstances (Dice cannot be fudged - unless the players predict and cheer for an outcome in his favor). The cleric the party convinced and hired to come with them to cast a specific spell at a remote location and gets forced into an adventure. Bonus points if the DMPC-to-be saves the party against an encounter balanced without the idea of the NPC in it that transparently went awry. Maybe.

2. They tend to be fighter-types. A low-op, thematic cleric might be passable as well. Tier 4 and 5 classes tend to have low agency anyway. If they disagree with the party, they have the advantage over Player Characters in that they can walk away, giving them a 'voice' but not Veto Power. They can also aid planning with exposition (But that needs to be handled delicately).

I think the two most important things to be remembered about slipping a Good DMPC into the party is "They are half a player in voice at most" and "They can be eased into the party if wanted, and dismissed easily if not."


Most Good DMPCs I've heard about and seen tend to be Dwarves.

[Deophaun]

I'm aware of several good examples of Good DMPCs - and yes, they do exist. By "DMPC", I mean "An NPC created by the DM to take part in his own world on the scale of the player, playing by the same rules as the players, getting an equal share of treasure and XP, etc", and by "Good" DMPC, I mean "A DMPC that the campaign would not be as fondly played or remembered without by all players."
Well, by that definition I have one. Sir Roderick, a paladin who fell to -3 and "accidentally" gave me a +2 to Strength and +1 to caster level for 100 minutes. Best. DMPC. Ever.